Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 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: Jessye Norman

 * Comment I moved the discography to a separate article, and kept only roles and parts with a reference. I need to go, with minor sentences still without ref. Do me a favour and comment them out. She was one of the great voices of a century, and not to mention her name would not be understood by readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the shit storm that gets created when one comments them out, it was very clever of you Gerda, to steer clear of the controversy -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support a couple of claims unreferenced in the main body but mostly satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Not a bad article at all, I think it looks good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The entire Voice type section is CN, and an uncomfortable amount of the prose throughout the article is sourced from musicianguide.com, itself published by deadlink company netindustries.us. Surely there's obits to pull this info from?130.233.2.252 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, but in any case, I’m sure that citing the nytimes articles/reviews that this source refers to would suffice. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support there are a few unsourced claims but otherwise this can suffice. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  14:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A few questionable sources here or there, but on the balance, this is well referenced and well written. -- Jayron 32 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: a German radio station changed their evening program, Norman Norman Norman in recordings and interviews. Can we get this moving please? She'd deserve a blurb easily but a mention soon would be at least something. Sang at the inauguration of U.S. presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Olympic Games, - that's a name many know, not only people interested in opera and classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: I bet that this NYT obituary ("Jessye Norman obituary / Headstrong opera "diva" who faced down racism and became one of the world’s most celebrated singers") has more to offer, but don't have access. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: the "unreliable" source went to the external links, could be replaced by better refs (but seems rather reliable, all facts could be found elsewhere). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal September 2019 climate strikes

 * Support Since I was opposed to putting this as Ongoing in the first place. Thank you for properly creating a motion to remove ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The strikes across the two weekends were the key event. While there will continue to be strikes on Friday, there will be nothing of the scale in terms of the organization that these two weekends had (at least, as currently planned). It didn't make sense to make that ongoing. --M asem  (t) 20:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support has been ready to go for a few days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely not "ongoing".  Nixinova  T  C  22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm... what purpose does this section serve that the one below about replacing this article doesn't? — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You may consider to nominate the "school strike" as a blurb, not as ongoing event. STSC (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there was an interest in differentiating the act of removing the September article from the act of adding the general climate strike article. With the nomination below, both were sort of being lumped together, so once could not clearly vote to remove the September article but not to add the general climate strike article to Ongoing. By doing this, we could separate the two actions ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent event to blurb comes from the September 20–27 strikes, which has the more specific article September 2019 climate strikes, which I started this whole thing by nominating for a blurb, which was rejected with consensus to instead add something to ongoing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed. Discussion below remains open regarding the addition of the Ongoing replacement article.  Spencer T• C 01:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Beijing Daxing Airport

 * Oppose Unless we open an airport on the moon, I don't think such an event is ITN-worthy. We didn't report on Istanbul's new airport opening, how is this different? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, superlative events rarely make for good ITN, unless they already fall into ITNR like space probes/etc. --M asem (t) 19:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you made this point, because I specifically stated above that an event does not need to be superlative to be on ITN. Infrastructure is under-represented on ITN, and this specific piece of infrastructure was a headline on many global news sites (not top headline, but headline nonetheless), so I am nominating on the basis of "article quality" and the fact that it was "in the news". If someone nominated Istanbul Airport, or Berlin Brandenburg, I would have voted "yes". Sometimes it seems like ITN is just an ongoing ticker of disasters and attacks. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's no importance beyond another international airport opening (of which there are over 1,200), then this is definitely not ITN, as openings of routine buildings/etc. aren't appropriate. --M asem (t) 20:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: You should have just added your blurb as another alternative blurb to the (5.3) nomination below instead of this new nomination. STSC (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided not to do that because it's hard to determined which "support" and "Opposes" are for which request. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They would say which blurb they support / oppose in their response. STSC (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Call for procedural close per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose double bubble? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Beijing Nanyuan Airport

 * Hold up That "before 1910s" link says this airport opened in August 1910. The 192nd decade CE was still a few moons away, but most people are somewhat married to the idea that 1970 was "in the seventies" (and so on). Plus, you're missing sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Source added. I don't know how to describe it better. Airport listed three airports with runways or equivalents before December 31, 1909. Maybe "one of three earliest airports" would work? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "China's oldest airport" packs a fair amount of punch, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not suitable for ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, could you please tell in detail (which criteria does not meet)? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly newsworthy, it has little encyclopedic value and I'm certain that the vast majority of our readers will not be looking for this story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN. Support DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As interesting as I personally find it, I do not think this is particularly ITN-worthy (on notability). If only the whole world were av geeks... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Slight Support I didn't think I was into historic airports before this entered my bubble, and now I'm not so sure. Maybe this is a gateway into the wider world of harbours, train stations and wherever escalators wind up. Maybe there are others just afraid they wouldn't care, who could use a friendly shove. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting but ITN is generally not best for "superlative" events like this. --M asem (t) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * nudge  Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (alternative blurb) - It's better we just concentrate on the new Daxing Airport itself with a blurb like this:
 * "A new airport with the world’s largest terminal, Beijing Daxing International Airport, officially opens in Beijing." CNN; SCMP - STSC (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support STSC's alternative blurb That Nanyuan would close upon the opening of Daxing was forecast long ago. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose RIP, but not particularly newsworthy. Neutral on alternative blurb, this whole thing seems a bit crufty, but world's largest airport is of broader interest. Oppose all airportery. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb as proposed by STSC I've come to my senses ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "World's largest terminal" is based on a very questionable interpretation of "largest" used by CCP press releases and repeated without checking by a handful of lazy journalists. The terminal building has the largest, but that's because it's a low-rise structure; in terms of actual floor space, it's considerably smaller than Dubai International Terminal 3 or the main terminal of Istanbul Airport, and roughly the same size as the existing main terminal of Beijing Capital International Airport. ("Largest terminal" is a largely meaningless title, as very few large airports operate a single-terminal model.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources say so; Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not original research. STSC (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You think it's original research to say that 1,000,000 m2 is smaller than 1,700,000 m2? That a lazy journalist has repeated PR puffery without bothering to fact-check for themselves, doesn't mean Wikipedia repeats it; we abandoned the principle of WP:Verifiability not truth a decade ago. &#8209; Iridescent 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please show us your sources to support your argument. STSC (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose alt blurb, it's certainly suitable for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3 assuming my own nomination above is closed procedurally. Same arguments as above. I don't care if it's the largest or second largest and in any case don't support something based on some superlative claim. But I don't think one can doubt that there's only maybe a handful of infrastructure projects of this size in a decade, and this in one of the top air travel hubs in the world as measured by passenger traffic. Anyway the support or oppose votes are mostly a matter of personal preference it appears as there are no contentions based on article quality, merely subjective judgments of importance, which admittedly might simply come down to a numbers game. We need to think about systemic bias here, not just geographical, but also topical. My own argument is that The Guardian, New York Times, and Reuters all reported on this so it is undoubtedly "In the News" - if that counts for anything - and this is only counting "western" sources of information. On Chinese-language sources this was the top headline on several news portals. I oppose posting Nanyuan on its own or mentioning Nanyuan at all. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt blurb 3 so what? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, it's significant global news. STSC (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's a big airport terminal opening, so it's nothing to do with "significant global news"! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Fortune claims it's the world's largest airport. That is quite significant. STSC (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For what feels like the fifth time, you can present as many sources as you like regurgitating that press release, but it won't make it true. Even one terminal at Dubai Airport, let alone the whole of Dubai Airport, is larger than Daxing. It's not original research to point out that by their own figures, this airport is half the size of (e.g.) Istanbul. &#8209; Iridescent 22:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are professional journals, they're not tabloids. You'll have to supply the sources that support your fringe theory. STSC (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an "airport terminal building" only - it is actually a totally new airport, along with several accompanying rail lines, one of which is high-speed. Not to mention various "technology" firsts like use of facial recognition for boarding etc. FWIW, on Chinese WP, which is actually mostly staffed by people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, this was posted without contention - the five stories on there right now are SE Asia Haze, Jacques Chirac, Kashmir earthquake, and Thomas Cook bankruptcy. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, how lovely, if I ever happen to fly to or from this airport I'll be sure to look out for those rail lines and technological marvels. That doesn't mean it's a newsworthy story to slap on to the main page of our encyclopedia though. Oppose. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really not sure why a snarky remark is needed there. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not that it would even be ITN if it was the world's largest terminal, but it isn't, so it's run-of-the-mill news. Also, per STSC's arguments, this. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your point of raising that rancorous discussion in an innocuous venue such as ITN? Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see why the opening of a record-breaking airport would not be postable, but this particular opening is being overshadowed in coverage. Searching for China for example returns lots of results, but they all deal with the anniversary celebrations and not this airport. Banedon (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A new big building for planes to take off and land at -- it doesn't exactly scream newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk)
 * Oppose anything relating to the new airport, neutral on the closure of the old airport considering its age. feminist (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding that my "neutral" on the old airport is conditional upon article improvements. feminist (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - old airport Beijing Nanyuan Airport has around 15 uncited sentences  starship .paint  (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Viju Khote
I am not sure if I am doing this right, nominating for recent deaths: Veteran actor Viju Khote died on 6:55am IST (1:25am UTC), 30th September ref. —<span style="font-size: 93%; letter-spacing:1.2pt; font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran<b style="letter-spacing:1pt;">(talk)</b> 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've fixed it up for you. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article needs expanding. The only coverage on the article is the lead which talks about a few appearances he has made and a brief personal life section. Filmography section unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment a veteran actor, immortalized by Sholay. The article needs expansion to cover his life and career. Sourcing needs lot of work as well. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too short article on own life. Rest is un-referenced filmography. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 UCI Road World Championships

 * Comment What is there is good, and references are in order, but a prose summary of the results is needed.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is weak but good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose summary is very weak indeed, much more needed to cover this multi-day event. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article will surely improve by the time we have a consensus here, and if not, article is viable as of now. Aviartm (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too many unsourced claims about living people. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved from nomination date. The prose summary is very nice and gives the impression that bicycling is exciting. I have added references covering the the !vote above, and I believe everything is in order.130.233.2.252 (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins? It would be nice to get this ITNR posted at least twice in a decade.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Indeed, much improved. Good enough for me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 01:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José José

 * Comment: I'm working on the article when I have the chance. I have work today so I'll help out with the changes. Erick (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I finished overhauling the article. Is it good to go? Erick (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Nice work improving the article.  Spencer T• C 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing replacement: School strike for the climate

 * Oppose Something that happens one day a week inherently stops for most of the month, doesn't go on. Of course, September 2019 is done forever soon. So if I have to choose, I support this new way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, September 2019 is done forever soon. — I'm gonna use your comment to (for the umpteenth time) make a point that I actually can't believe people don't understand, because it's 30 seconds of reading the article: the September 2019 climate strikes did not take place from September 1 to September 30. They took place from September 20 to September 27. As I said above, the event is already over. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, those protests are already done, thought you made it pretty clear. The month itself has almost passed as well, that's all I meant to add. Again, these are both bad examples of supposedly ongoing movements, but your suggestion beats the current version on the extremely simple and obvious level; I'm only "opposing" the idea of replacing the plainly poor choice with anything so predictably infrequent as what are essentially just sociology field trips (at least so far). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - If the event continues beyond this September and is frequently updated, then I'm OK with it in "ongoing". STSC (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I opposed the September article as ongoing for this reason but I would definitely be open to putting School strike for climate on Ongoing as long as it’s updated regularly and the strikes occur at least semi-regularly (actually staying “in the news”), per STSC. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 23:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support speedy removal of the Sept 2019 climate strikes; neutral on the addition of this other article. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 06:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. I've checked CNN, NY Times, Le Monde (They even had a Planète section), BBC and Der Speigel and did not find this mentioned on any of their front pages. This is manifestly NOT in the news.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're looking for it right at the midpoint between protests; were this the most recent Friday, it would have been all over all of those websites (at least, I can personally recall seeing CNN, BBC and Le Monde stories on Friday). Even so, it's still getting plenty of coverage: try the Montreal Gazette, La Repubblica, The New Zealand Herald, Stuff.co.nz etc. (as of time of writing, of course). You picked four countries whose strikes were the Friday before last rather than the most recent Friday. Even so, it's still on the front page of The Guardians website. ITN is about events in the news worldwide, not just the newspapers in languages you speak. — Bilorv ( talk ') 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely, you are not accusing me of provincialism on EN.Wikipedia when I'm trawling through Spanish, French and German media trying to find links to your nom? Right after telling me that your Ongoing nomination is not actually on-going, but rather a sporadic event that happens every couple of Fridays, or something? My oppose can't but grow stronger.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not seeing this reported in my mainstream news reports. There was certainly a spike a while back when kids even skived off school to protest, but nothing for me in the meantime, so this is certainly not an ongoing issue for me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Attention Needed - While there seems to be no consensus yet for putting school strike for climate as Ongoing, there seems to be unanimous support for removing September 2019 climate strikes from Ongoing. Just felt that that needed to be pointed out as we essentially are debating two different actions here ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the previous discussion closed with consensus to add a climate strike-related article to "ongoing", and this discussion was designed to decide whether that article should be September 2019 climate strikes or School strike for the climate. This discussion has consensus that it shouldn't be the former (the only sensible outcome) and has not generated an opposing consensus strong enough to overturn the previous discussion, because you shouldn't relitigate a decision two days afterwards. Well, both discussions have been a bit of mess and that's undoubtedly my fault, but I am yet to work out what exactly the best course of action was. I don't envy the closing admin here but I think we're agreed that action needs to be taken now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Admin note: Current article has been removed; discussion is still open for School strike for the climate to be added to Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit

 * Support. There are no more updates to the article, and there is no recent news of worldwide importance and impact. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This seems premature. WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh I think the removal and re-addition will suck up a lot of volunteer time at ITNC. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Brexit is, by definition, "ongoing" until it either happens, or gets cancelled, in which case the 2019 Brexit riots article will be posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Regardless what happens with Johnson, the event is still going on, and widely covered. With it to come to a head soon, it doesn't make sense to pull until we have a conclusive result to post as a story. (Same boat now as the impeachment piece). --M asem (t) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Soon" is a month away. At least two weeks till the EU summit and the extension (or lack thereof) is two weeks after that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: it is indeed ongoing by definition, but so is Time and we don't have that featured. Brexit clogging up the ongoing section of ITN for indefinitely long—at least another month and possibly another year or longer, then replaced with Post-Brexit trade agreements for another decade—is complete UK-centrism. If major Brexit-related events happen that affect EU countries or trading relations with other countries then we can post them then. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If just because I'm fed up with seeing it. And nothing independently notable has happened for Brexit recently (prorogation another matter) to justify having it hang around forever. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Actually the Brexit has not yet happened. Why is it in ongoing? Unless just rename it to "Negotiation of Brexit" in the ongoing section. STSC (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal, certainly without prejudice to any further blurbs that will be needed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose / wait per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously, we have more to come in the next week or two, and the article is being updated so there's no reason to remove this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sincerely this looks to be never ending. Keeping it based on the current here and there stories, it would surely be on the template for the next several months if not years. I also agree with Bilorv, it's indeed ongoing the same way as time is. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per others -- Booth  Sift  06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really? Brexit is probably the example par excellence for why we have ongoing. It is a never ending source of drama surrounding an anticipated major event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Hardly a day goes by without it being in the news in some fashion. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's ongoing. Enough already. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Lol, you've already said so, just four persons above, If I am not mistaken. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'll say it a third time later on. Cheers!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully TRM one !vote is enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe for you mere mortals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are you joking? We're just coming to the interesting bit! Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was a serious nomination. If we're going to blurb the major developments (and we should) there is no reason for it to be in ongoing. What, is BoJo going to paint a bigger lie on a bigger bus from a bankrupt manufacturer and tour around screaming "surrender" at his opponents? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, you surely know that removing it now would inevitably result in it being restored due to the political chaos that is inevitably going to ensue during October. Not all of those issues are going to deserve a blurb (although some might, especially if Johnson tries to ignore the Benn Bill or use Emergency Powers), but a lot of them are going to be big news. We're a month from 31 October; we don't need to have the discussion all over again when something triggers it off. Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal Kind of cooled down for the time being - but I would recommend making a commented out filled in nomination somewhere in this page because it is going to flare up again like acne in a couple weeks tops. Juxlos (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's kind of cooled down because it's the weekend. It'll ramp up again tomorrow, don't worry.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal from ongoing, per what Black Kite says above. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has been in the news and is going to be in the news even more in the upcoming month. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Brexit itself is huge news, but the vote was 3 years ago. The specifics of the departure are surely important, but not so much to leave it on the front page indefinitely. Check out the timeline - outside of the prorogation ruling (for which I supported a blurb), the only news in the last three weeks is...another court action will start? To discuss not creating a delay?   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Brexit is definitely not over. Should be placed in Ongoing now more than ever.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Keep It's in the news, the article is being actively updated. I sympathize that this is dragging on forever, but having an Ongoing entry for this is a great catch-all for every little twist in this story. I fear that if this is removed then we'll have 2 noms/week trying to blurb this or that new development, where the noms on their own only have currency within the larger Brexit drama. This is, I think, what Ongoing is for.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this doesn't qualify for Ongoing, I'm not sure what does... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Pune flood

 * Noting that this is not just flooding but things like walls, weakened by rain, collapsing and killing people. --M asem (t) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable enough. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "4,74,226 people" is not 4 million, it is probably a typo and should read " 474,226", which is clearly different from 4 million albeit still a lot. Also, the source cited dates 14 August 2019, so this might be about a different event. Regards So  Why  15:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah : to be sure, there was flooding in Pune this week, no question, but I think there's a mixup in this even and the other. I can't confirm 48 yet (but at least 21). --M asem (t) 15:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I took out the questionable blurbs (no offense to Hashil169, but there's definitely some english problems in the article, that might be the source of confusion) --M asem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo (or four million). —Cryptic 00:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; undoubtedly notable, but the article doesn't really establish this. Take as support upon article improvement. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no impact section. 21 deaths from "rain-related incidents" - how many from direct flooding? Where? Also needs the usual ESL copyedit. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of these were direct from the flood (washed away, etc.). Other caess were people trying to escape from flash flooding in buildings which then collapsed on them in that flooding, and died. That's all direct deaths from the flooding. --M asem (t) 18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Directly quoting the article lead here "In addition to people lost to these floods, other rain-related incidents such as collapsed buildings have killed at least 21 people.". Make it make sense. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing any real coverage that would make it into an almanac of the year's events for an encyclopedia, and the article is poor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joseph C. Wilson

 * Weak oppose for now, still quite a bit of uncited material. Sam Walton (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment not terrible. Refs in the early life section need to be cleaned up, and the awards section needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Edwards (American politician)

 * Comment – Thin, documentation lacking. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sca thanks for the review. I have expanded the article and the sourcing. Please review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks OK now. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready, nearly 24 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Rob Garrison

 * Oppose. Wasn't the "villain" in TKK, he merely had a barely memorable line; and he was in only one episode of its web series 30 years later. His other film and TV credits are unmentionable. —  Wylie pedia  @ 09:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I stand corrected. Can you talk about the article quality. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's marked as a stub, which I believe is frowned upon at ITN; and the article wasn't created until his death and only significantly covers his TKK quote and his recurrence with the franchise (minor roles in two films and one spinoff episode). If any of those pass ITN standards, I'll move on, but my "oppose" remains for exclusion, due to his less-than-stellar career. —  Wylie pedia  @ 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the template above, the discussion for ITN RD should focus only on article quality. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of us are working to address the size concerns. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article to C class. It is well sourced. Should be ready to post. The Rambling Man and Sca please review and revisit your oppose !votes - D Big X ray ᗙ  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * marked as ready-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing/blurb: 2019 World Athletics Championships

 * Oppose for now due to lack of references in some sections and due to there being a ton of links to nonexistent Wiki pages. I might be open to changing my vote if a few more citations are added. I'll look into finding some, but I have a few doubts on notability of this event as an ongoing item ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Conclusion is already ITN/R. We expanded FIFA WC to ongoing per logical application of IAR, and WWC per logical fairness. Cricket was the "slippery slope" moment. Are we going to add the MLB playoffs as well?   GreatCaesarsGhost   17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because that baseball competition is local. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a sports event that includes almost every country in the world. Do not ever compare it to cricket or MLB which do not have the same global status.BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, cricket has HUGE global status. Maybe not on North American, but it is a sport propagated globally particularly in any state touched by the UK Commonwealth (eg UK, India, Australia). That said, I would be concerned that it doesn't have the scale of FIFA or the Olympics to require Ongoing, and same here with this event (as mostly track and field events, and not the spectrum of the Olympic events). --M asem (t) 18:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In Canada, it has dual status as a culturally important sport and one rarely played or watched. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except when we're winning the world series back to back! --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even I got sucked into Blue Jay fever as a kid. Peer pressure, mainly. But today I hazily recall our checkered romance with the old cricket bat. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the conclusion of the championships and if someone has written some prose it will go up as a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The whole "opening ceremony" or "ongoing" thing for athletics events has really only ever been used for the Olympics and the World Cup in the past, and I'm not really in favor of expanding it to other events. If, and when, we have a final results to report and if, and when, we have a properly updated article with a significant prose summary of the event, and a blurb summarizing the important results thereof, I will read the article and assess it.  Not now, however.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing as this does not have the stature of the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on technical grounds. For the love of everything sacred, this is ITNR so the "result" (whatever that means for a global athletics competition about whom no-one cares!) is what we post.  There's no real chance of ongoing (although I love this parochial attempts to bring "baseball" into everything: hint [no-one outside America gives a shit!]).  We all love cricket (yes, we do), but the thing is, and this is the point: what is going to be updated here that is anything other than a result of race or a competition? If we had (and it would be great) a synopsis of each contest, and a semifinal/final prose report on every single one of them, being updated as it happened, I'd be 100% (no, 110%) in favour of ongoing.  But, it's not gonna happen.  Is it?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Like rock music, hot dogs, pro wrestling, sex in advertising, giant movie monsters, gambling devices and democracy, baseball in Japan went 110% (nay, threefold) with the whole "keeping it interesting" deal. But no. No nation on Earth will ever award a prize for Outstanding Long Jump Reporter. "Jumper jumps a certain length, next jumper jumps a greater/lesser length, etc." It's the same boring repetitive crap, year after year. Same goes across the track and down the field. Even the injuries are predictable strains and tears, only the major muscle groups change as appropriate. No drama, no aphorism, just table data. Strategy is the exact same every time, so don't bother pulling pre-game quotes or explaining significant coaching shakeups. Never going to happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought up baseball as an absurdity; a further slip down that slippery slope. But spare us the "parochial" disparagements while you push the myth that the old Empire still cares about the games you forced on them and reject as fake news the pageviews that show the World Series (and the oh-so-parochial College Football Playoff) obliterating |2017%E2%80%9318_Ashes_series|2018_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship|The_Boat_Race_2018 the Ashes and Boat Race.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How fucking rude! I didn't force any game on anyone.  And .... wait for it.... BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!! You fell for it!!!!!!!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And please point me to the criterion at ITN where spiking pageviews counts? Your graph is brilliant (well done you!) but adequately demonstrates that there's more general interest in the Ashes than your baseball and college fun!  Try harder next time!  *****BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!*****
 * Hee hee, someone took the bait you offered, chewed on it a bit, and then became very angry. How funny. Also, that graph takes on a very different complexion if you add in 2019 Cricket World Cup (which presumably is the logical equivalent of the baseball "world series"?!) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, don't say that out loud, the heinous IMPERIAL FORCES who enslaved their empire to play nothing other than "CRICKET" still gets quite a viewership worldwide (like the canoe up your Thames) as opposed to the parochial college football and MLB debacles! VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Close By the time this event concludes this nom will have already been archived. Best to nom on the 6th and asses then.130.233.2.252 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Donkeys? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the nom puts the horse before the cart. We'll have to mule this over at a later date.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted Ongoing) Climate strikes

 * Oppose for two main reasons: 1) It's very difficult to tell in the article what updates have been made describing events that took place today vs. events that took place this time last week. Many of the subsections in the Actions by Country section do not even have an associated date, so it's hard to tell if those actions are new news that were updated for 27 September. I fear that, due to the size of this section, it will be hard to fix this. 2) I'm questioning the significance of this week's events compared to last week's. There's not much that's majorly different from what happened last week, and the blurb just links to the same article, so the news becomes rather less notable. Perhaps this should have been put in Ongoing for this week, but as the article is about September Climate Strikes, which are wrapping up, it seems a little late to do this now.  ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow the associated sources. The main countries striking today include Italy, New Zealand, Canada, India, Sweden, the Netherlands and Argentina. The strikes are not "wrapping up" but have been focused around 2 days, September 20 and September 27, making this the second of two of the largest strikes in human history, rather than an event that's been taking part throughout September and is petering out. As for the "significance of this week's events compared to last week's", I repeat that there have been over a million protesters in one country alone, and 2,400 planned protests. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly per mike gigs - if this is going to become a regular phenomenon ,then it should go in Ongoing rather than posted as a fresh item every week. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused by your reasoning. This is the final day of striking planned, and any subsequent "regular phenomen[a]"–which I'm not aware of the existence of–certainly wouldn't be housed at September 2019 climate strikes. This is the second major day in a series of global strikes that have been planned since November 2018, and I'd be surprised to see anything of this scale again until mid-2020 at the earliest. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it, and then we can think about writing some new articles and putting one in "Ongoing". — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah OK... you'll have to forgive me, I don't know the details of the story and assumed from the fact that there were strikes last week and this week, that they would be ongoing. Obviously if there were a further strike next Friday then I'd expect us to move the article to September – October 2019 climate protests or similar. But if this is the last one, then who knows... maybe it's worth "re-elevating" the story we posted last week, but I'll leave that to others to decide. Switching from oppose to Neutral for now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an alt blurb so that this doesn't seem like a brand new thing but a continuation from the Sept 20 ones. Also tentatively saying millions based on the 1M from Italy, that may be subject to change. --M asem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "millions" is accurate, and I prefer your blurb over mine. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing If this is still newsworthy immediately after rolling off the main page (it literally just fell off shortly before this request for a new blurb) then it should be posted as an "ongoing" link instead. We shouldn't keep bumping what is essentially the same post to the top of the page every time there's a new round of protests.  That's exactly the purpose of ongoing.  Lets put it there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been planned as the 20th one. It is not like there are more immediate plans for climate strikes in the next several weeks, or that this one today happened out of nowhere. So it's a little weird to put this to ongoing for the second day of events, because tomorrow it would be stale for that purpose. --M asem (t) 14:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article makes it look like these are isolated events, but these are really part of the larger School strike for the climate/Fridays for the Future movements, which have been happening every Friday for months. See List of school climate strikes.  They've been going on for over a year.  Yes, the most recent two have been much bigger, but this is not a one-off (or now two-off) event, but rather part of a regular, ongoing story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support School strike for climate as ongoing as second choice per Jayron32, but I still believe that the two strike events in September 2019 climate strikes are significant enough for ITN as individual events, given that their attendance is sizeably larger than the two largest FFF events, and a couple of orders of magnitude larger than any others. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing - The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least. STSC (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it should surely be School strike for the climate included at ongoing, not September 2019 climate strikes, which are already finished now (or ending in the next few hours, at least). — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't the nominated article... I think people were voting based on the strike that took place today, but I don't know, not sure I could declare a definite consensus for the alternative article. Maybe open a new nomination to explicitly request switching the target to that article and see if it has consensus? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing some ambiguity in the discussion above. "The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least", for instance. Well, no, the September 2019 ones ended today, as I told another user above, but the school strikes for climate are continuing so that's what I took the comment to mean.  in your support of an "ongoing" link, did you (a) refer to September 2019 climate strikes and also understand that they ended today; (b) refer to School strike for the climate or a similar page on the more general movement; or (c) misunderstand in some way? If (c), it would be useful if you could express support or opposition for (1) September 2019 climate strikes being listed as an event and (2) School strike for the climate being listed as ongoing (two independent proposals). — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let the "September strike" disappear from ongoing, then I would support it if you nominate the "school strike" as a blurb. STSC (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support speedy removal from ongoing: the strikes only lasted from Sep 20-27 so definitely not ongoing. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 06:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ambon earthquake

 * Support Short but I can't see much more coming rapidly on this due to location. Sourced and covers basics. --M asem (t) 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - major fatal earthquake. Article is short but fully referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Sufficient for ITN. Ping because this has been ready for a few hours and you were the most recently active admin I could find. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  23:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Supreme court is the oldest and should be removed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Levada

 * Weak support not my taste in article quality, but sufficiently referenced to avoid most BLP traps for a cardinal. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Support. I agree with this. It's really no longer in the news. It'd been there also for a long time it seems. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I still see HK pop up when I check the front Google News page, but it not as intense as it was when this was added. --M asem (t) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support due to lack of meaningful, large-scale updates to the article recently ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose / wait per Masem. Still in the news, but less so than before. Davey2116 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Lack of interest even in broadsheet newspapers, and not much updates in the article. STSC (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem and per Davey2116. There's no scarcity of news articles when I look for them (I easily found 10 stories from 10 outlets from today with one search). I'm still seeing it prominently in my news feed every couple of days, so it would not be appropriate to remove it at this time. The article certainly could benefit from further updates, but with the breadth of available news stories we'd likely need to put it back on ITN as soon as the article sufficiently covers the latest information. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – There has been no significant update since September 20 making this older than the oldest blurb. This is objectively old news. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove No substantial updates since at least 23 September. Being in the news and updates will come later can't be reasons to keep articles in Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On further reading, I note that many edits are biased or even outright sloganeering, despite this being a semi-protected. They are being (rightfully) reverted, but they're still up for a few hours at least. Those are hours in which readers are clicking on the link from the Front Page and seeing bad text. The article protection ends today, and perhaps it would be better to have a period of full protection to get the article sorted, and if anything comes up in the mean time, re-nom for Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove We don't need to keep it up just because the protest continue.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Banedon, the protests are still going, there are still developments happening, and the international press are still covering it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed from Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just curious: do we need consensus to keep or consensus to remove?  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked in WP:ITN but didn't find anything on this. I would assume though that we need consensus to remove ongoing from ITN, as usually we need consensus in favor of doing an action (usually adding something to ITN) but in this case that action is actually removing an Ongoing article. Does anyone else agree? Or do I sound crazy? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - For those who oppose please note: "Articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" per WP:ITN - STSC (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-removal oppose considering that List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests is still being updated. And if we must link 2019 Hong Kong protests from the main page, I'm happy to update it. I particularly expect significant events to occur on 1 October so this would probably have to be re-added to Ongoing in a few days, if it's not restored now. feminist (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Papua protests

 * Oppose removal - it is still very much ongoing and in the news. Just 2 days ago The Guardian reported "At least 20 killed and 70 injured in day of violence in West Papua", and the recent sources which have been added covering that violence include Al Jazeera and The New York Times. The article has had edits every day since the 22nd September, although there was only one edit between the 14th and the 22nd. The most recent additions need some editing, and no doubt other editors will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait maybe a few more days. There were several substantive updates on September 22 & 23; I would leave this for a little while.  If nothing new happens by the weekend or so, then I would agree that it needs to be taken down.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - still some considerable updates recently. BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I too noticed some updates being made recently, pretty significant ones too. No need to rush to take this down ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. While I would have supported this removal if it were proposed about a week ago, it has received major updates over the last few days as tensions significantly escalated. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was on a wikibreak a week ago ... but consider that one meaningful update in weeks might not be enough... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaningful updates have been occurring within the last few days because the situation itself has been re-intensifying over the last few days; had the Papua protests been removed previously, now would actually be a good time to put the story back up onto ITN. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose scores of people were killed or injured just a couple days ago. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is being rather overshadowed by the SEA haze. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per Jayron32. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – Now stale. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wamena-Jayapura riots said it all. Dhio-270599 03:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Since 24 September, there have been no material updates to the article. The large byte-numbers in the edit history are a quirk of Wiki's diff algorithm. That 7 kb change was padding references, a few hundred bit changes here and there are tweaking the infobox.  On September 23 a new section was created to document the resumption of protests, and the results of which have not merited mention in the article.  Three days of no updates and an apparent loss of interest by editors means this should go.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have perfectly explained why we should wait. Template:In the news shows that the oldest blurb is from September 22. As long as the most recent significant update to the article is as recent or more recent than the oldest blurb, this should stay, per WP:ITN: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had thought that this direction was more of a litmus test. That, updates should be frequent and the quoted circumstance indicates infrequent updates; not that the circumstance should be a requirement for being infrequent. I am leaving my vote as is, because a 3 day break in updates is obviously not continuously updated per the stated criteria for Ongoing. Even moreso when "scores of people were killed" (to quote someone above) and this still doesn't result in updates.130.233.2.252 (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, 7 days since last substantial update, and 4 days of NO UPDATES at all.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed. Per above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Jacques Chirac

 * Oppose solely on article quality. When these issues are dealt with, then a blurb is supportable. Major world politician that is blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Several citation issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per Mjroots - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - until article is done.BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, RD is fine once the referencing issues are resolved. An influential politician, but not a world-changing one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His opposition to the war in Iraq forced the US and UK to go it alone; that was pretty world-changing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think history would have been very different if French troops marched into Basra alongside the British ones. Chirac didn't stop the war. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

per what I've been told -- how is that an argument? -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per others. The article needs some updating. However, once resolved, I would support a blurb over RD ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for section title issues. I understand that there is a desire to have descriptive headings, but I think there are either too many of them, or several sections put too much information in the headings.  Rockphed (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Definite blurb if article issues are resolved. Former leader deaths of major nations are almost always blurbed, and Chirac was leader for a full twelve years. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only The standard is "major transformative world leaders in their field" not leader of a G7 country.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD - per what I've been told, we're no longer covering deaths of former leaders or leaders in blurbs. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Chirac was a pretty important world leader, he lead a major nation for 12 years. I remember hearing about him quite often in world news when he was president of France. 1779Days (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Just because he was the head of a G7 nation doesn't mean we should automatically give his death a blurb. He's been out of office for over a decade. He wasn't a transformative figure, as best I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (obviously) when ready. Leader of a major nation, who had important global effects. Davey2116 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , obviously not an "obvious" blurb since three people above you have written "oppose blurb". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasons given by these opposers are not really substantial imo. We're not trying to blurb this just because he was a G7 leader; he was a dominant figure in France for decades and had far-reaching global effects as has been said (Iraq war, nuclear testing, his support for the EU and NATO, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His point (I think) is that calling one side of a dispute "obviously" the right one is disrespectful of those expressing the opposing opinion. The blurb threshold is extremely subjective, so neither opinion is the "correct" one.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support blurb in principle. Chirac was the most important living French President, and also served two terms as Prime Minister; I'd suggest that Chirac is the only post-Mitterand French President who would deserve a blurb.  He was one of the most important global voices that opposed the War in Iraq; and also played a role in ending France's atomic bomb tests.  He also played a significant role in the French-speaking world.  However, the article is in bad shape right now--I counted 18 citation needed tags, and several more unreferenced paragraphs--and this article cannot be posted until that is remedied. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb when ready. He was an important world leader, and his policies on issues like nuclear testing (especially in the Pacific), French overseas military bases (especially in Africa), and the Iraq war had international impacts. (Surely Americans remember when French fries were renamed Freedom fries?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose large swathes of text are unreferenced. It can be posted when the text quality is fixed.  I'm agnostic on whether or not this is a blurb or RD.  Makes no difference.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Cannot be just RD, he was a notable global statesman. STSC (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - I would support blurb but the article needs fixing up on its sourcing as it has a lot of citation needed tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but Support blurb on significance, once sourcing is improved. -Zanhe (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support blurb – Article quality is still a problem. But Jacques Chirac was a major influential world leader. His death warrants a blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've fixed/removed most of the references error messages . Those mentioning "article quality" etc. here would be more helpful if when objections were more to the point, that is: make actable points. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A valid point. We tend to be less specific when the quality is worse. The overwhelming majority of this article has no references at all. The RD/blurb argument is moot; this is probably not going up.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article would be OK if every opponent here had fixed just one reference. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't the ones asking for it to be posted to the main page. It is incumbent upon those requesting that an action be taken to make the necessary changes so it can be taken.  People who haven't expressed the desire to have it posted are under no obligation to fix the article.  People who want it posted should fix it themselves.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention any obligation, not even an expectation. Just a help suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even a suggestion that opponents fix the problems they detect is frowned upon, as it is a hair away from saying "...or else hold your tongue."  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad framing. Again: I did not "suggest[ion] that opponents fix the problems". Please stop it.
 * Actually, what is the actual ground to declare 'bad quality'? Can't we use a FA-GA-A-..-C assesment? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The real issue is: a very notable President died and this wiki cannot get the article link on its mainpage. Dozens of opinions here re article quality, but only few editors actually moving the article fw. That Chirac is not on our mainpage is a disgrace. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , putting an article of that quality on the main page would be a disgrace. WP:SOFIXIT and it'll get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar wth this page, but the gratuitous declarations of '[bad] quality' are below standard. And useless, uncheckable. How did those !voters here decide? No argument, no points for improvement, nothing. We'd better have just one (speedy) FA-...-C assessment, inviting improvement. A lousy thread this is. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , citations, specifically the lack thereof. Do you see the orange tag on the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see two even! (in some 40 paragraphs). But I do not get a single argument here on what would be acceptable? How is ths article ba, compared to other RD listed articles? My question remains: how do we measure & judge this "quality"? Why do I not see a single point for improvement to make the article MP-worthy? All I see is !votes/votes. Useless. (Sure after my pressure drops of useful notes appear. OTOH, I read that "article quality assessment don't count". sure.). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now due to quality, support blurb per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RD asap I propose. Important Predsident (he opposed Iraq war, agains US dominace). Those dozen+ claiming '[bad] article quality' may not have scrutinised the article really, I doubt their judgement wrt detail and actual faults. Anyway, the article should be assessed (speedily) instead of judgerd by free, unchecked remarks. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is class-B . That is enough to qualify for WP:ITNRD listing. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I counted more than 30 paragraphs without a single reference, and multiple unreferenced sections. Your unilateral assessment is meaningless. Stephen 21:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DePiep, please clear those two orange tags, they're the obstacles to getting posted in ITN. STSC (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Please don't talk down on me. Everyone can fix them, you too. 2. Until now, nobody argued that those tags were the issue (they just !voted, remember). How should we know that removing them was the obstacle to do? Even now, how can you guarantee promotion of the article after this? 3. And please don't talk down on me. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DePiep, The article has to have everything supported by citations and no tags (or any reasons to have tags). No unsupported information or anything unreferenced. Yes, Chirac should be on the MP, but he needs to have an article of sufficient standard. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't talk down on you, it's just a friendly advice. "'orange' level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page" per WP:ITN. If I have time, I'd make the effort to find the references but it looks like an enormous task, to be honest. STSC (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you're new to ITN, as you seem baffled by the Oppose !votes above which cite the article's quality,yet that is always a thing people look for when they decide if a page is eligible. The rule is set out at WP:ITN and, as SchroCat says, it generally requires every paragraph to have at least one source, and every fact that may be challenged to be cited. I'd love to help out with fixing the article, but unfortunately it's late and I don't have the time now, and frankly it's a huge task as JC's page is not in good shape right now. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, . Yes I am new here, as I noted. For the first time someone points to the more objective criteria applicable here. Took some posts to get here. So, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you're welcome and yes, I can understand that it's difficult if you are new to a place and don't understand the established rules. It's often worth looking at the top of project pages if you're not sure - this one has a lot of useful links near the top, explaining all details of the ITN process. Have a nice weekend and good luck to you.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality per above. This article is going to need a lot of work before it can be posted. Referencing in particular is unacceptable for any article much less one covered by BLP. I have also reverted DePiep's grading the article as a B class. It is not even close to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on RD. Major world leader. Hybernator (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Chirac's death is a pretty glaring omission from the home page. It's also kind of wild that the death of a former U.S. president will get a blurb within an hour or two of his death, while a former French president can't even be included in the "Recent deaths" section because it would generate more traffic and potential contributors to his article(???). What a bizarre and bad system. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are about two dozen CN tags throughout the article, which might be covered by other references within the article, or which might be resolved by removing that particular sentence (the article is very granular), but they are deserved. This is a common problem with articles using non-English sources for references; it greatly reduces the number of editors that can resolve such things. I do this from time to time, but it is a tedious task, especially when the CN is for a direct, already-translated quote, or when (esp. in this case) the CN is for a purported motivation that looks suspiciously like an editorialization that you find in political literature. Articles for US presidents have an active group of editors curating their pages, so when one dies that articles are already in a postable state.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Southeast Asian haze: blurb/ongoing
Considering that the Amazon fires made it to the blurb, the ongoing SE Asian fire might be blurb-worthy as well. Open to blurb alternatives; especially from non-Indonesia datas (the main blurb and the first alternative represent impacts in Indonesia). Dhio-270599 02:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Update: first alternative removed)


 * I think we need better blurbs, not that this isn't ITN-able. The second blurb is not appropriate (anything that is along the lines "won't someone think of the children" and ignore the adult also affected is not neutral). The first blurb is true from the SCMP article, but it should explain this is total #s over the last few months. The issue is coming to head now just as the Amazon fires did  - air quality was so bad as to make the sky red in parts of SE Asia, but this is not just a sudden event. --M asem  (t) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Deleted the first alternative; is "Over the last few months, almost 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases from the 2019 Southeast Asian haze" a sufficient alternative for the main nominated blurb? Dhio-270599  03:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't feel obligated to suggest a perfect blurb yourself. We can crowd source something appropriate. Instead can you make sure "900,000" has an in-line citation? I don't see it mentioned in the article clearly. Editors here are unlikely to accept synthesis of figures. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - In principal, there are a couple of citation issues to be cleared. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support While the article isn't in the best shape, I think it just squeaks by for good enough. If a couple more citations were added where they're needed, it would be a shoe-in. I'll look into finding some ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good now. I'd prefer ongoing but I'll support either blurb or ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There are enough decent references —and well placed. Good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Blurb fact still not mentioned in target article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - it is mentioned now .  starship .paint  (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - major environmental disaster affecting multiple countries. Article is now well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment clearly strong support, this is good to go, but make sure the blurb is properly constructed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE I'd be fine with posting the article, but we do NOT as yet have a decent blurb. Both blurbs are currently demonstratedly factually wrong, as the text of the article says that 900,000 people in one particular country have experienced respiratory distress, yet our blurb states the wrong fact that there are 900,000 total people.  We need to find another hook for this one before it's posted, and the 900,000 figure needs to go entirely.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems hard to find a # affected, but agree it should be of all countries, not just one. --M asem (t) 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be too vague to just say "...over a million people endure..."? I'm concerned with ever nailing down an actual number ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we need a citation about even that in the article. Currently, the only citation we have is for 900,000 in Indonesia.  Maybe, it would be better to make this an ongoing link instead.  That works for solid articles that are of newsworthy stories, but where there isn't a good blurb to write.  This one seems more of a slow burn (excuse the pun) anyways, which is more suited for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed ALT2 - which is factually accurate even though we only know the number for Indonesia.  starship .paint  (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish we had an estimate of the size of the cloud in square kilometers or something instead of trying to tie this to a human cost with a dubious (but verifiable) claim of nearly a million people suffering respiratory diseases because of it. #twocents anyway. Blurb before ongoing is my standard position, FWIW. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb using ALT2. In all honesty, I think the blurb wording could be improved; recommend any suggestions with better precision go to WP:ERRORS.  Spencer T• C 16:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shuping Wang

 * Comment NOW it is at a state that should be minimally good for RD. --M asem (t) 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support thank you for starting this article ! Thsmi002 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - nice work and ! I read about it on BBC last night. This should probably be posted under Sep 25 as that's when her death was reported. -Zanhe (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you, people! If this proposal does not pass, I will nominate the article for DYK, as was my initial intention. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a note that while I had nominatd this at the Sept 22, she actually died Sept 21, but first reports of her death were on 25th. --M asem (t) 23:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready, 12 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Though I have 2 minor problems: I am unsure if she should be listed as Wang Shuping or Shuping Wang (at least one source lists her as Wang Shuping), and the article does not explain what her medical credentials were. I see her listed as a doctor in one of the sources.  Was it missed in the article, or do we not have any sources that actually explain what her medical credentials were? To be clear, I don't think either of these problems is enough to stop posting this otherwise excellently written and well sourced article. Rockphed (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your first question, per the article: "The native form of this personal name is Wang Shuping. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals." (Wang is the family name).  Spencer T• C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * She died 21 September. And is placed before Arne Weise on the Main Page. And is placed on the 25th here. Move.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks like her death was not announced until the 25th. If that was the case, then she is eligible to be listed under the later date. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Kashmir earthquake

 * Support This is the deadliest earthquake in 2019, killing nearly twice as many as the second-deadliest earthquake, and the death toll is still rising. The article could use some expansion, but what is there appears to be cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support though would like to see more expansion if possible. We're talking a relatively remote area so that may not coming quickly. --M asem (t) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is bare-bones, but it does have sufficient citations to make it usable. It will most likely be expanded as time goes on.  I Need Support  :V 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article could be expanded, and I expect it will be, but the sourcing for what is there is good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significance and impact are obvious. Article needs some expansion though. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have doubled the size of the article since the time I nominated it. More expansion will follow, but it can now be posted. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Still a short article, but it looks well written. Rockphed (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Muboshgu, can someone post the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by Spencer-- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arne Weise

 * Support Sourced well, no objections here ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Seems perfectly well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hazza Al Mansouri

 * Oppose - quality is not good enough, too many citations needed. Also not sure if this is really newsworthy, we don't typically cover the first astronaut from X country do we? Presumably the mission itself, Soyuz MS-15, might qualify under WP:ITN/R, although its article is also little more than a stub. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I mean, this is important for UAE and don't want to downplay that, but superlative things like this (first X to Y) don't necessary make the greatest ITNs unless we're talking national leaders. --M asem (t) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose would make a great hook for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd refer the nominator to the DYK process, which is perfect for stuff like this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We should not refer articles to WP:DYK when they have no chance of meeting the 5X expansion requirement. It seems cynical and not helpful. We can just oppose. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, GAN is a perfectly normal route these days for that part of the main page, arguably much easier than a 5× expansion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone considers GAN as easy as you seem to think they are and it would be helpful then to point out that the nominator should improve to GA and then nominate. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe, but it still shouldn't stop us recommending other aspects of Wikipedia which are perfectly apt for this kind of story. I'm not going to regurgitate the rules of DYK, that's for others to discover.  Your "cynical" claim is offensive, likewise pretending it to be "not helpful" is, itself, not helpful.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Linda Porter

 * Oppose stub with an IMDb dump. Stephen 23:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2I/Borisov

 * Support alt blurb per nom and as previously. Brandmeistertalk  15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – it's the first interstellar comet; a big moment in the history of astronomy. Definitely worthy of an ITN blurb. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 15:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; I prefer alt burb. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb; I've written an alt-blurb which tidies a repetition of wording, and clarifies 2I/Borisov is the first to be verified as interstellar; aren't there several comets that could be interstellar but aren't yet proven to be? Sceptre (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb2 - I supported this the first time it was nominated so I definitely do now! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted a slightly modified version of ALT2. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 81 minutes nom to post is awfully fast, given the prior nom had a lot of opposition- not all of which has not been addressed by the IAU statement. 159.53.110.192 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The prior nom had two main points of opposition: One was a lack of peer-review, which I have pointed out, the IAU renaming based on independent validation satisfies that, and that the article was too technical. On the later, I have been doing some edits to help bring it down a bit (eg the part about eccentricity was definitely a notch too high). Coupled that there was a whole week of previous discussion, and that I tried to get attention yesterday before it scrolled off, makes the short time to post not an issue. --M asem (t) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
comment What does "impeachment inquiries" mean? Seems like a bit more clarity would be useful because I can't assess how momentous this is based on the blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the US, the House of Reps must set up a case for impeachment by bring in witnesses, collecting evidence and testimony, etc (this is the inquiry) Once a case is made it is formalized into articles of impeachment that then must pass a vote of the House. If that happens, the President is impeached, at which point it goes to the Senate, overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, to vote whether to convict the President on the House's articles. The Senate can then choose not to convict (as with Clinton) and nothing then happens, or they can convict, and that kicks the President out of office. Impeachment in the United States has more detail. Yes, its a long road, and right now, no one is pegging the Senate to convict, but still, we've only had impeachment happen 4 times before. --M asem  (t) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We are better of starting with the new article Impeachment of Donald Trump. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just seen that, using that as the target. --M asem (t) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – The storm isn't breaking yet. This more of a dark cloud on the horizon. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC) → . Weather-rain-thunderstorm.svg
 * Strong support or add to ongoing (as compromise) – As Masem noted, this is just the start of a long process, but it's notable regardless and is very rarely used against a US President. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC); Edited 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth linking to the 2019 Trump–Ukraine controversy in the blurb once that article's quality is improved? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most analysts believe that was the triggering event but Pelosi didn't mention it directly in the announcement. --M asem (t) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Makes sense to leave it out if there's no direct link made by Pelosi then. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, she did. Might make it too long, but I'll altblurb that. --M asem (t) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposing Alt blurb II. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would suggest that we could maybe put this under "Ongoing" as well? The impeachment process will take a while and this will likely be in the news for months to come. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. It would probably be the best choice. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until at a minimal it goes to Senate for trial, if not actual conviction. -- KTC (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support and/or add to ongoing events – An exceptionally notable and rare event that will be talked about for generations. It will have a widespread impact on global affairs, the rest of Trump's presidency, and America's politics. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support and/or add to ongoing events per MarvellingLiked. Enormous story, but it's not an impeachment proceeding yet. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 22:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * support - and add to Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and/or ongoing per above. This is clearly notable and is the right time to post this. Davey2116 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a comment related to putting this in ongoing: Clinton's impeaching - from inquiry to acquittal, took about 4 months - a month for House to issue Articles (Nov to Dec 1998) and then a month for the Senate trial (Jan to Feb 1999). Nixon's were nearly a year, but prolonged by the Watergate discovery. My suggest is that we should only use ongoing this if/when the House issues and passes the Articles which will require the Senate to hold its trial, as in Nixon's case that was also only about a month. --M asem (t) 23:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Seems like an important process. Would of course be removed if anything comes from it. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - because it's unlikely anything comes out of this, and unless something does, it's just internal politics. Weak oppose only because of the breadth of coverage I'm seeing. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support later Wait until the trial-- Booth  Sift  23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – This is a major development in the news. We can put it in ongoing when it rolls off. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now p  b  p  00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb big news, but the target article is pretty thin. No ongoing, this is a step in a process that may never go anywhere. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing / Oppose Blurb I have consistently opposed the never ending succession of Trump related nominations here. However I have to admit that this is on an altogether different level. It's not impeachment but it is the first formal step in that direction and it moves the United States closer to a serious constitutional crisis. I don't think we can ignore this. That said, it is the first step only in what is likely to be a hyper-partisan and highly sensationalized investigation. Most of this will likely be in the form of public hearings held over a lengthy period. All of which makes a blurb rather unsuitable. So ongoing should work for now. If/when articles of impeachment are adopted by the House then a blurb would be justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The event we want to blurb is Trump undergoing impeachment in the Senate. This is too soon to blurb, and we don't want an endless string of Trump-related blurbs.  The House approving impeachment might be soon, but it is not yet here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Trump is only the 4th president to have any serious chance of being impeached. The only other presidents comparable to where Trump is right now are Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Andrew Johnson. It's received significant attention because his presidency is unique in American history. It's received disproportionate attention because Trump is disproportionately notable.MarvellingLiked (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until it goes into the Senate. At most it can go into ongoing right now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for Ongoing until first House committee(s) pass articles of impeachment to be voted upon in the full House per the timeline noted Re: Nixon and Bill Clinton. In line with others expressing opposition to turning ITN into an excessive Trump ticker, blurb should wait until the full Senate votes on articles of conviction. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support: well, I kind of shot myself in the foot when I argued downstream that "Ilhan Omar introducing articles of impeachment shouldn't be ITN, but if Steny Hoyer did it, that's a different story", didn't I? :P Sceptre (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - Let's see what comes of it. STSC (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of an impeachment inquiry has only happened 4 times in American history. In other words, an average of ~60 years. Its mere existence is extensively notable on its own. MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - I'm echoing the above. If it doesn't go anywhere, I suppose we can mention it per the support reasoning, but as it stands it's almost definitely going to evolve into something bigger so we might as well wait for that. Pie3141527182 (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for the actual impeachment proceedings to start. This is not a major international news. Nor is it extensively covered in the international media as headlines. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems like the Mueller inquiry which is best listed when it concludes and we know the result. Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew D. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until she sits down, gavel in hand, and actually calls order on this, it is still just talk. Rockphed (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^^ that. I can get behind that. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The impeachment inquiry has already begun through Pelosi's announcement. The Constitution doesn't require a formal commencement/vote. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rockphead above. I question how newsworthy this is if it doesn't go anywhere. The announcement of an inquiry isn't news, it's the result that is. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. As far as I can tell, this is just an announcement. The inquiry hasn't begun, and it's a long way from an impeachment vote. Impeachment of a sitting US president would certainly be ITN-worthy; a political announcement of intention is not. Perhaps if the House votes to charge Trump, that would be an appropriate point to post this story. Also, there is no clear consensus to post, so I'm removing the 'ready' tag. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support though I'd concede it's not an absolute necessity to post now. But on a point of clarity: this is not a political gesture or "mere" announcement, but the actual start of proceedings. The inquiry is now happening. Also, fears of a constant stream of Trump posts were valid in Jan '17, but we've managed it well. We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait although User:GreatCaesarsGhost has answered my most cogent question already, the procedure, which would only have a concrete result if 2/3 of the Republican-dominated Senate voted to convict Trump, seems more of a political stunt than anything else. I would urge to see where this leads before we make an elephant out of a molehill.  c o m p l a i n e r  13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiting for a conviction, which has never happened in the history of congress, is a bit too far. I can understand waiting for the judiciary committee to bring articles of impeachment, which has only occurred three times in the past, or waiting for a majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach, an event that has only occurred twice in the past. This is not like a vote of no confidence which is a common occurrence in parliamentary governments. This shit just almost never happens in United States. IMO, editors here are putting too high a threshold. We are not being reasonable. I hope there is not this much resistance to nomination if the house brings articles. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the actual trial begins. That’s the big event that should be covered. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing This is a rare and serious process, and it is one that will take some time. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - clearly a (rare and serious) process rather than a discrete event. Neutralitytalk 19:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - Duh.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Compromise proposal: Support ongoing - Although I stated I was for both above, I'm fine with this as a compromise solution. MarvellingLiked (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose /Wait per many comments above. As and when this gets going fully, for the actual impeachment votes etc, we can post. But for now it's premature. I wouldn't post it to ongoing either,as its early days and I would not expect daily updates. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing but oppose blurb. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing — Consensus leans in favor of posting in some form. Of the votes, 10 are in support of a blurb, 8 for ongoing only, 10 suggest waiting, and 4 are outright opposed. Comments are in largely in agreement over a compromise to post in ongoing rather than a blurb and that is the chosen action. This serves to avoid excessive updates/reposting of blurbs with the incremental happenings. Those in support focus on this being the most serious action taken against President Trump to-date and the exceptional rarity of such an event. As brought up by the nominator, this is only the fourth instance of an impeachment inquiry against a US President. Those in opposition or suggesting to wait are focusing on this not the biggest part of the story, but a Senate trial would be. Another notable opposition point is the potential lack of results from this inquiry. While this potential does exist, the story is very much a major event for the United States regardless of what happens next. Anticipation of results either way creeps into WP:Crystal territory, and I have elected to give less weight to those arguments. Furthermore, international significance is irrelevant per ITN/C guidelines. This will undoubtedly be a long, drawn out story with at least one other major event (more if it brought to the Senate). President Trump is almost constantly in the news for various reasons and thus mention of him is largely avoided on ITN. However as mentioned above, this particular case rises above the rest as the most serious action taken against him to-date. Summation: consensus exists to post with a compromise to post to ongoing. Further discussion on a blurb can continue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Concern: By my count, I see 14 votes in support of some form of posting (Support, Weak Support, or Support Ongoing [9 votes]), 18 against posting (Wait, Oppose, or Weak Oppose), and 2 retracted (crossed-out) votes. How this makes a consensus to post at all, much less post as ongoing, I question. Regardless of my opinion on posting or not, I don't see how a majority of votes against posting constitutes a consensus for doing it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with mike_gigs above. Consensus needs to exist to post to ongoing or the item needs to be continuously updated as it ages off the template; Ongoing is not a "compromise" space to post items without a clear consensus. Sets a bad precedent in my opinion.  Spencer T• C 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Busy news week it's been!--WaltCip (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And we still have the Emmys to post! --LaserLegs (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Storm clouds gathering, , ,  but they're still just clouds. Support Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone realizes that this is a drama that got "leaked" by Trump himself, right? Say what you will of the man, but Trump is a masterful baiter of the media, and I guess ITN is caught in his net now, too. Oppose blurb, Oppose Ongoing, the article is scratchpad for someone's obsession, and unfit for the mainpage. Why does this article even exist when we already have articles for: Trump-Ukraine controversy, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections?130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We report on the news. We don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 British prorogation controversy

 * Support once articles fully updated. May be worth waiting short while to see what the immediate response is and how that is reported. Apparently, it is now up to the Speakers of the Houses to decide the next steps. Uncharted territory indeed. Might also be best to use the term 'unlawful' (I am not sure if that is different to illegal). Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Article now updated, with thanks to User:Charlie Awesome. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added updater to template. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Brexit was put back into the Ongoing section specifically to address this issue. This ruling is a big deal today but the government hasn't fallen and there will be many more political developments as Parliament and the party conferences proceed.  The main technical issue is that entries in ongoing don't get a blurb and so it's difficult to convey any detail.  Perhaps the format of that section should be expanded? Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is not well-suited to events that are ongoing but periodically break out into major headlines. Ongoing is better for news-worthy ongoing events that don't generate headlines. It would be better for people to get over the aversion they have to having something in Ongoing and having the occasional blurb. There is nothing wrong with Brexit resulting in an ITN blurb every few months. It won't break the wiki or indeed the universe. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by Brexit. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is more than just Brexit. It is (to quote from the BBC article): "unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling." Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well all I see is that government may reconvene and not much else practical is going to happen. And I'm not convinced that the purported "extraordinary" nature of this decision is adequately covered by the blurb.  It probably can't be because its impact is so ... theoretical.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is not just "run-of-the-mill" Brexit news. The Prime Minister has provided unlawful advice to the Queen, this is a big deal, Brexit or otherwise. <span style="display:inline-block;padding:2px;transform:skewy(-16deg);color:#FFF;background:#FA0">49 <span style="display:inline-block;transform:skewy(16deg);color:#FA0">TL   10:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major, precedential ruling of UK constitutional law. It is arguably significant enough for a full blurb on its own right alone, with or without Brexit. --hydrox (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, I agree. There was an earlier discussion here on the ruling that was appealed to the Supreme Court, so I am going to ping those who took part. User:Modest Genius, User:331dot, User:DBigXray, User:Banedon, User:Pawnkingthree, User:Masem, User:Juxlos, User:GreatCaesarsGhost, User:Sca, User:Vanilla Wizard, User:Ad Orientem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is an unprecedented legal case. Omitting it from the news because it is part of a million other facts related to Brexit would be like saying that we shouldn't have the Amazon rainforest fires or the climate protests because they are part of climate change.  c o m p l a i n e r  10:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 10:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already have a Brexit ongoing item, and this is yet another step in that sorry tale. I doubt it will be the last. When/if Brexit finally actually happens, or is cancelled altogether, that's when we can pop it back up into the blurbs section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The ruling seems to be only incidentally related to Brexit. The wording of the Supreme Court is about strengthening British democracy and the oversight powers of the Parliament over the government. Legal correspondent on BBC called it "unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking" and noted "the consequences politically, constitutionally, are seismic." The Independent notes: "Curiously, the ruling has little effect on how Britain will or will not leave the EU" --hydrox (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - histotic political news. Could see further consequences.BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support on the sheer strength of the coverage that I'm seeing. It is covered by the ongoing Brexit item already, but having an ongoing item shouldn't mean we can't simultaneously have blurbs if they're significant enough. Alternatively we can remove Brexit from ongoing while this is a blurb. Banedon (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is more than just another bump in the bumpy road to Brexit. It's been described (without, I think, too much hyperbole) as the most significant development in constitutional law in the UK in 50 years. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as we have Brexit in ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Brexit or not, this is a major landmark in itself for the UK. This is certainly more notable than all the things that's happened as of yet in terms of long term impact. Juxlos (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As currently framed, this is covered by Brexit. If you reframe it to explain why this is unprecidented news, I might switch my vote. Inadequate blurb.  As a non-UK citizen the blurb does not make clear why this is significant.  It just sounds like more nitpicking about Brexit.  If you say it's significant, please write a better blurb.  Jehochman Talk 11:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a big deal in the US where it is common for SCOTUS to overrule POTUS (some scores). But the UK supreme court is quite a new institution (2009) and this is the first time that it has struck down a decision of the PM and Crown.  So it's novel for the UK. Andrew D. (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Pretty big constitutional ruling from the UK Supreme Court. Can't just be bundled into Brexit. Jayden (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is only tangentially related to Brexit. This is a notable ruling. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a momentous constitutional ruling that is not directly related to Brexit ("It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union". BabelStone (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too close to Brexit for my liking. Perhaps if any major repercussions happen we could revisit a revised blurb, but a ruling on something caused by Brexit is not enough for ITN while Brexit is listed as Ongoing ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to Support based off of the arguments by others here on the effects of this ruling. While I don't think you can argue it doesn't have to do with Brexit, the results of it reaches far outside the topic (though I doubt we'll reach a consensus) ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Here I am torn. In the overall scheme of Brexit, this is just an incremental next step in the proceedings, since we're no closer one way or another to a resolution. However, in terms of overall U.K. politics, this is a monumental ruling - it's the Courts involving itself in the dealings of Parliament, something which has never, ever happened before. I think if we were to post a blurb regarding this story, we would want to focus less on the fact that it's Brexit-related, and more about the meaningfulness of the ruling itself.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb does not mention Brexit. The importance of this ruling is that it limits a PM's powers to arbitrarily prorogue parliament, and so has implications for all future prime ministers. BabelStone (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it stands, then.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: the recent Supreme Court ruling is the biggest political and legal event in the UK for generations. If this is not newsworthy, nothing is. -- The Anome (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as others have said, although this may have arose because of Brexit (although one of the issues is Johnson claimed or didn't), it's only tangentially related and the effects and consequences are far wider. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the effects and consequences other than parliament reconvening? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It applies constitutional limits to the PM's powers to prorogue parliament, so in future governments will not be able to arbitrarily prorogue parliament for long periods of time just because they want to. It is a major constitutional clarification which goes well beyond Brexit. BabelStone (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's a clarification of something that currently exists? And how many times has parliament been prorogued in the past?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is usual for Parliment to be prorogued every year, Everytime there is a queens speech parliment is prorogued beforehand to allow the qureen to prepare. So what was once a mundane and routine event in parliment is now open to scruteny by the crown, and the PM needs "addiquette justification" to do something that before they could do for any reason which is effectivly removal of powers of the PM to hand over to the Judicial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.132.48 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Brexit may be the context of this prorogation and the Supreme Court case, but the ruling is not about that, it's about whether a government can use prorogation to avoid scrutiny by parliament. The article as it stands is adequate and up to date, though I expect that the Supreme Court section will be expanded soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If you are opposing because of Brexit you are fundamentally wrong. I refer to the 1st paragraph of the SC Judgement, with emphasis added: "It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. The issue is whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August 2019 that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October was lawful. It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a “one off”. But our law is used to rising to such challenges and supplies us with the legal tools to enable us to reason to a solution." Leaky caldron (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is entirely to do with Brexit. The prorogration itself (which we declined to report here) was so the government could pursue a deal or no-deal without interruption, and the ruling today is similarly a ruling that the Brexit-inspired prorogation was not lawful. If this had come out of the blue, or not in connection with the events that had led up to it, I would agree it would be a standalone story, but ultimately we wouldn't be where we are now but for the ongoing Brexit shenanigans. It would be wrong to post this when we haven't posted other developments in the story hitherto. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely spot on. This would never have happened if it weren't for Brexit.  To pretend or claim otherwise is wholesale misleading, just like what those naughty Tories did!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not the Prime Minister, he's a very naughty boy! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This is a substantial constitutional ruling which will have long-term impacts on the balance between government and parliament in the UK. It takes place within the context of political manoeuvring over Brexit, but is not itself about Brexit. I can understand why some would see this as an obscure technical point, but overall I'm in favour of posting. The article looks excellent; the blurb could do with some work. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added, though I'm not entirely satisfied with it and am open to further improvements. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is what the ongoing Brexit section is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Having been pinged on this, haven't not yet had coffee, and just looking at the blurb and not going to the articles, what is the net impact? The blurbs need a bit more "downgrading" to address this point. (I'm sure its in the article, but this was the first thing that came to mind). --M asem  (t) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've asked that question a couple of times. There's a lot of "theoretical" guff going on here, actual impact is that government will reconvene tomorrow and Brexit will be on the table for debate once again, i.e. business as usual.  Nothing has changed legally, this is simply a clarification of existing process which it was deemed the PM abused.  Otherwise, it's just about making BoJo even more unpopular.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Having now looked, otherwise Support with a better blurb. This is the UK's version of Bush v. Gore, a major emergency case that the fate of a nation's government rested on, and as long as the blurb is updated to reflect its tie to Brexit, then it definitely should be posted. --M asem (t) 13:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "fate of a nation's government"? Nope.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, potentially. The prime minister has been found to have acted unlawfully, and all the other parties are calling on him to resign. The 'Background' section of the article has info about other questionable prorogations, not just in the UK - and one in the UK which Americans probably have some knowledge of: "In 1774, George III prorogued Parliament after the passage of the Quebec Act upon the advice of Lord North, one of the triggers of the American Revolution". RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Potentially?! Yup, but it's not going to happen is it?  The decision today is  simply a clarification of an existing procedure, nothing more.  It's politically hot, but then what isn't these days? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Highly significant precedent, global significance. Neutralitytalk 14:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's one report, which gives the general view: "While securing the absolute supremacy of parliament over the government or executive, it marks a significant moment in asserting for the judiciary an enhanced position within the UK’s unwritten constitution. Some will see it as a further advance in the supreme court’s development into a constitutional court. ... Eirik Bjorge, professor of law at Bristol University, said: 'The court has shown that in extreme circumstances it is not afraid of policing the executive even in the middle of what used to be referred to as forbidden territory for judges:high policy and the royal prerogative.'" Neutralitytalk 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't show it's a precedent and doesn't demonstrate how in any sense it could be called globally significant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obviously a precedent. David Allen Green, for example, said: "This may be one of the most significant constitutional law judgments for a generation." (Financial Times). As for global significance, in addition to the potential effect on the Brexit process, the case has been followed closely elsewhere, especially in the many countries with a British legal tradition (e.g., this column in the Times of India: "India, no doubt, sets its own norms of governance but this verdict will cast its shadow."). Neutralitytalk 14:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pure crystal balling. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another misstep in the ongoing political farce. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - for those arguing this is a massive deal and will have huge ramifications, aside from the WP:CRYSTAL aspect of that argument, I think all the evidence is that that prediction is false. The media and parliament will make a big deal of it for a few days, but ultimately it simply reaffirms what should have been obvious all along - the executive, as just one branch of government, does not get to make all the rules. The judiciary and legislature are involved too. As such this doesn't really set precedent for much in the future, and also doesn't really make mcuh difference to what will transpire next in the Brexit farce. Next week this will be forgotten as we move on to the next drama. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The irony of invoking WP:CRYSTAL and then speculating about how people will react over the coming days... :-) I don't have much more time today to comment, but I am genuinely puzzled as to why people cannot see that this is an historic landmark ruling. If I had time, I would find numerous sources to back that up (maybe others can do that). Yes, there is a connection to Brexit, but that does not mean that this should be ignored, and it certainly does not mean that false arguments should be made here. What The Rambling Man said about it being "business as usual" is complete bunkum (and I hope no-one is being taken in by that). To take one example, the prorogation has been declared null and void, so bills that had been going through parliament (such as the domestic abuse bill and others) that were going to need to be re-introduced, are now 'live' again. That in itself doesn't make the case for it being on ITN, but it does show TRM's comments to be misleading. And can we please stop using the "Brexit is in ongoing" argument to dismiss valid nominations. The links in ongoing are tucked away down the bottom of the template and are not the same as having something mention up top and front and centre in a blurb with a picture. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not bunkum at all. What you just described is going back to business as usual.  Bills are back live again, etc.  Other than people calling for BoJo's head, and government getting back to work, nothing to see here.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a strange definition of business as usual. If the ruling had gone the other way, would you be describing it as business as usual. There is nothing 'usual' about any of this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - "We are not amused." Must see it on ITN. - STSC (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is newsworthy as its own headline independent of Brexit. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support On notability: The case is legally R v Johnson - R means The Queen. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which for the purposes here means that the Queen and the government by constitution have to get on. This ruling, as much as many agree with it, is tantamount to a constitutional crisis, which is being felt by those across the UK and by those who understand in all the countries it deals with politically... and it's not a Brexit deal; from the BBC report: "Lady Hale emphasised in the ruling that the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU - it was about the decision to suspend Parliament." Which is a separate legal matter, and one involving the Queen and the PM on opposite sides. (And for more context, most R v gov't cases, especially recently, are completely thrown out as laughable for pitting them against each other - the only one that's gone to a ruling was this same case first presented in Scottish parliament, which ruled the same way) Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: if this was purely another cog in the Brexit wheel, even I, as the person who wrote the article, would've opposed it being in ITN. However, and I have the utmost respect for TRM, a full bench case before the Supreme Court is very rare, let alone a 11–0 ruling from said case, let alone one on the subject of prerogative powers. As far as newsworthiness goes, I'd put it this way: we'd not post Ilhan Omar introducing articles of impeachment against Trump to ITN, but if it was Steny Hoyer? We'd post that, and this is more like the latter than the former. Sceptre (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s all very well but to me is borderline law trivia. The facts of the matter are that we effectively go back to the status quo, and more people hate Boris. Everything else will be part of a UK law students syllabus for years to come but nothing much more. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, weight of consensus is to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For those who don't want to count, 26:7 in favor of posting. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support There is no doubt in my mind that posting this improves the project, which is the paramount concern.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:CRYSTAL is about the content of WP articles, and is not relevant to whether a news item is ITN-worthy. Citing it as a reason to Oppose is the same as saying you do not actually have a reason to Oppose.


 * This ruling is an historic power shift within the UK government, putting a cap on all PMs to come, not just BJ in the coming weeks. Saying it merely is a footnote to Brexit—and that may very well turn out to be true as far as Brexit itself is concerned—is ludicrous.  To give a US example, it would be like saying Marbury v. Madison was an incredibly insignificant little SCOTUS ruling, since Marbury did not get that appointment after all.  Correct, he did not, but to focus on the immediate, official details would be missing the point.


 * Supreme Court rulings are often like that. Talking about them as if this never happens is not contributory to intelligent discussion.  Since pretty much every last RS is looking past the immediate, official details in this ruling, so should we.  (I got edit-conflicted, including anyway.) 2607:F470:6:2001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I'm seeing some American news sources actually making the comparison to Marbury. In that circumstance, it's not CRYSTAL to say that the case is on a par with Factortame or Miller I in the halcyon of British constitutional cases. Sceptre (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, this only sets a precedent if the ruling is actually followed. Marbury V Madison was allowed to stand both because it ruled in favor of the people in power and because it was against the interest of the justices who made the decision (if my memory serves).  If the Queen says "Parliament is still out of session" and that sticks, a different precedent is set.  I think it is crystal to declare that this is setting a precedent without the benefit of actually seeing what happens. Rockphed (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But if R v PM isn't followed, surely that would count as an even bigger precedent! 2607:F470:6:2001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, BJ said of course he will respect the Court's ruling, and Speaker JB has announced Commons is meeting Wed. 2607:F470:6:1001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted as there is a clear consensus for it. I haven't yet included the image, as it was not protected, though I've sent it to WP:CMP.  Anyone can add it in once Krinklebot has done its job. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: I'm not knowledgeable in matters relating to law, but "null and void, and of no effect" sounds rather redundant. Can this be reworded? -- Ununseti (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that was the exact phrase used when the judgement was delivered. I think it should stay. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – More melodrama. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support - There's bound to be some element of melodrama and hype with this kind of story (after all the bodycount so far is zero), but it's still an extremely rare or unique but very significant occurrence in recent British legal and political history. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Per above-- Booth  Sift  23:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment pull "Brexit" from ongoing for now (since this is most certainly tied to that larger story) and re-post it to ongoing when it's about to expire off --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment R (Miller) v The Prime Minister has been created and improved drastically--should this be included in the blurb accordingly? &#124; abequinnfourteen 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this, though again, I wrote most of that article too so I'm kind of biased. :P Sceptre (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article certainly meets the quality standards. We could go with:
 * The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously rules that the September 2019 prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and void. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Should we use a picture of Lady Hale instead of the Supreme Court building? feminist (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "...(XXX Lady Hale pictured)... with some short informative description? Kingsif (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tread carefully - the blurb is too long already.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (President Lady Hale pictured) doesn't seem too long to me. feminist (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * QUESTION Why is an article bolded that was not nominated, and has no consensus for posting? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sod it, I've removed the bolding and re-bolded the nominated article, for which there was consensus to post. Any case for bolding a different article can be discussed via a separate nomination for that article, and consensus gained before it gets bolded. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * with all due respect, your comment here and reversion of the change in bold article looks like WP:Wikilawyering to me. The article R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, which did not exist at the time of the ITN nom, is clearly the one that actually pertains to this news item, i.e. the supreme court judgement. The prorogation article covers the wider event that begun two weeks ago. The case article is also obviously up-to-scratch in terms of our ITN article quality requirements. and  both expressed the opinion that it should be bolded above, so I used WP:COMMONSENSE this morning and made the change. I don't want to get into a wheel war with you, but I request you to please revert back to having the version with the other article bolded. There is no need to open up a whole new nomination just to effect a change in the hook. For the record, if a new consensus is needed, I Sceptre's suggestion to support change of bolded article. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - the objection I have is this:- Almost the whole of the discussion above related to the prorogation article, which was nominated, and for which consensus was gained to be posted. The case article was not nominated or discussed, so no consensus could be gained for it being the main blurb article. One suggestion to change the bolded article cannot overrule a large number of supporters for the nominated article.
 * As I've calmed down a bit now, is there any harm in bolding both? I have no objection to that. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * from scanning the conversation above, other than the fact that the quality of the article was asserted early on, the vast majority of !votes are regarding the noteworthiness of this story for ITN, I think it's reading too much into it to say that every supporter is explicitly saying they want the prorogation article to be the bolded one, and no other. Assuming the case article's quality is up-to-scratch (something which I don't think you are denying) the !votes on significance can apply to that article as much as they can apply to the one that was suggested in the nomination. But anyway, your proposal of having two bolded links is fine with me - and Coffeeandcrumbs actually did propose that this morning - so I've gone ahead and done that. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both articles are in fine shape, and a credit to all editors who have worked on them. Glad we could settle this between us. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Hunter (lyricist)

 * Support. RIP. El_C 20:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Surprised this wasn't already on the main page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously, I'd like this to go up, but let's not rush this out before the referencing is fixed, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Okay, I have fixed the bulk of the sourcing; I think it's about ready to be posted, though some independent review of the content would be nice. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Andre Emmett

 * Oppose – Needs work. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding User:Bagumba to this as he is already helping with the improvements. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sid Haig

 * Support It is informative and has information on the death in body.  Maccore Henni  Mii! Pictochat Mii! 15:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, lot of work has been done to fix the sourcing. Kindly review again. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Rambling Man, all of the Filmography section is unreferenced, as well as parts of Career section ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support after addition of citations... Thanks MatthewHoobin! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Icon tools.svg Working to fix these issues. Some help will be appreciated. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been fixing and adding citations to the article this morning. Working as quickly as I can. – Matthew  - (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: I've performed some pretty extensive cleanup on the article since its nomination here, and while it's hardly perfect, I think it's written and sourced well enough to the point where Haig can now be listed as a recent death in the In the news section. Thank you to DBigXray for the encouragement. I'm gonna go take a break. – Matthew  - (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Much improved in sourcing department. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, in much better shape. Good work Spengouli (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Madhav Apte

 * Not ready It's way too short and doesn't even have his death in its body. Further, I think that it should have had either a stub or verification template.  Maccore Henni  Mii! Pictochat Mii! 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mac_Henni thanks for the review and comment. Please read WP:STUB this article is way beyond the stub. I will see if a death section is needed since it was a natural death. Normally for non notable deaths a separate section isn't really needed.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, @DBigXray  Maccore Henni  Mii! Pictochat Mii! —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive referencing for the size of the article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Ruiz

 * Support Looks ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Lefcentreright  Talk   08:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me, per above ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I had to remove the image and tag it for deletion. A reminder that, particularly for public personalities like Ruiz here, you cannot jump and use a non-free of a recently deceased person immediately after their death. We expect some effort and time to seek out a free replacement before a non-free can be used (generally: the same amount of time that BLP applies to the recently deceased, which is about 6 months). --M asem (t) 14:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support not going to win any awards, but article is just about satis. Let's post this mutha... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree just saying-- Booth  Sift  00:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready, 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: The citations are there, and the article is decently written, but the formatting of dates and publications in the article's sources is inconsistent. – Matthew  - (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's easily fixed with a script (which I have done). --M asem (t) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready, 24 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 71st Emmys

 * Oppose Really only three paragraphs of text and the rest is just a collection of tables and lists, if the prose gets better than maybe, but in the current state I don't think it's ready ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready. A mass of data tables, with just one sentence (in the lead) of prose on the winners (the rest is about nominations and the ceremony). Needs substantial expansion. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree What @Modest_Genius and @mike_gigs are saying about the data tables is important.If it were to be an ITN item I'd at least like to see some more meaty info, and a lot more text.  Maccore Henni  Mii! Pictochat Mii! 15:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose tabletastic! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The table is strong with this one. The prose, not so much.  Let the two be brought into balance. Yea, let the prose overcome the table.  If not so, this article should not be posted. Rockphed (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Essentially a list of lists. – Sca (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't realistically see the article being improved to use more prose before this nomination goes stale. Might as well assess it as "List" class. It would be a shame if an ITN/R fails to get posted, so I'd love to be able to flip this !vote if it gets improved, but I'm pessimistic about this one.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 22:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wow, tables! -- Booth  Sift  00:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No way. STSC (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jeez, it's like an Ikea down there. &#124; abequinnfourteen 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Can someone tell me the difference in quality between this article and the 72nd British Academy Film Awards which was posted in under 24 hours with one "Weak support"? I'm not seeing the difference both have one prose paragraph summary and a wall of tables no? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not have supported posting that article, which is just as bad. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I took a stab at creating the missing section. I just needed an example to show me what was needed. Thanks . --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now we have a prose summary of the ceremony.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. The 'prose summary' is just four sentences in the lead, simply listing some of the main winners. That is not sufficient. I'm looking for multiple paragraphs of referenced prose that provides information that isn't already in the tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see several referenced paragraphs of prose outside the lead now. Perhaps you're looking at an old version. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now after changes were made. Good work! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Thomas Cook goes bankrupt

 * Oppose Expected bankruptcy, and part of the bankruptcy costs will be getting those still on travel back to their home nations. Nothing significant in the long term. --M asem (t) 02:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It birthed the largest peacetime rescue operation in British history, but rescuing people from airports while their captors fully cooperate is pretty mundane stuff. Thomas Cook flew the exact same number out under mostly similar conditions, nobody batted an eye. Plenty more travel groups will be happy to fill the mediumish void this closure opens; it had a good run, just not so great. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as alluded to above, no long term impact on the level that necessitates an ITN blurb for anyone beyond those left stranded by the collapse. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Between this and the passed-over Purdue bankruptcy, I'm wondering what criteria (if any) would be suitable to posting bankruptcies on ITN. That bankruptcies happen occasionally and are codified seems to be enough, in many editors' minds, to oppose these nominations. Well, murders, bombings, elections, etc. also happen occasionally and are codified. Is the impact of this or other bankruptcies less than what is right now on the ticker (yet-another climate protest, basketball and Gaelic football contests, and a victimless drone attack)?.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even assuming all the clients are delayed, and all the jobs are lost, that's 622,000, which is a tenth of the average viewership of that basketball game, just via Cuatro. But that's a very generous assumption. The climate dealy is spread through 150 countries, is this service area close? Don't know Gaelic football, don't want to know. Business news has a lot of competition, relatively, so we should only worry about the Top 25 or so. Industry leaders, at least, like how we discriminate in sports, politics and massacre. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, very strong. Next time we have a mass shooting in the US, I'll quote that's 622,000, which is a tenth of the average viewership of that basketball game, just via Cuatro.  Completely out of context, utterly meaningless.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had another bit about the oil depot bombing killing people through a ripple effect, but couldn't nail down those figures like I could for the rating, so deleted it instead. Dying is more impactful than losing a job by about a thousand times and we'd all fire a stranger to buy a round of good nationalistic cheer for a hundred buddies, mates and comrades down at the old bar, ancient tavern or abandoned barracks when "our team" brings home gold and glory, not just stay an extra day and save a few bucks, quid or cigarettes on the way back to the same safe harbour they were already promised when they set out over well-charted waters with every expectation of returning home safely. So if 600,000 or more people lose their jobs, that's a World Cup-level dissolution; if 22 people are killed in public, that's Cook-class urban violence. That's only accounting for the simplest part, of course, age kind of matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Does not rise to the level of significance and impact needed for ITN blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It's a big travel agency, not a multinational bank. (But will the phrase "a Cook's tour" stay with us?) – Sca (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support that this is the decline and fall of a company which has its origins back to 1841 is truly an indictment of the damage being cause by the B word in the UK, but it doesn't stand a chance in this world of multi-billion-US$ corporations. "It's not BIG ENOUGH! It's not MULTINATIONAL ENOUGH!" &c.  Plus, the largest peacetime repatriation of UK citizens to boot.  But not gonna make it here amongst the majority of commentators, not in a million years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Largest peacetime repatriation" sounds extraordinary until you realize that the last time we had the "largest peacetime repatriation" was merely two years ago, with the dissolution of Monarch Airlines. Somewhat arbitrary record-busting, similar to each time the S&P 500 reaches a new all-time high.--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well sort of. It was an "add-on" to the closure of an historic company.  But I take the point, and do so with a smile, in the spirit with which it was intended!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep - no comment on the merits of the company itself, just trying to temper what I view as somewhat hyperbolic language. The company's existence since 1841 is probably enough to certify its overall notability (makes you wonder if we need an RD ticker for large companies!)--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The other problem with bankruptcy nowadays is that is generally is a solution to financial problem but no longer typically means "the company's done for". Bankruptcy freezes debt and other ongoing commitments, among other steps that allow companies to then seek potential creditors to help out and resolve some of those issues. For example, PG&E did this just recently to prepare for dealing with costs from the Camp Fire and other wildfires last year So the storys on this one, I'm reading this as a standard bankruptcy protection step. Doesn't mean they will end up completely closing shop, but more than likely will recover with reduced service in the future. --M asem  (t) 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per TRM; and: it's the oldest holiday company (that was) still running, first package holiday company - a disaster for the industry and evidence of the impact of Brexit. And 150,000 British people (even more including non-Brits) needing repatriation from locations all around the world, largely with the cooperation of Spanish airlines. It's actually quite a big deal, and ITN is also very slow at the moment. The world industry leader in family tourism has imploded, a government operation has been triggered as a matter of peacetime emergency, that's definitely ITN-worthy. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in light of recent news that 600,000 travellers have been stranded around the world as a result of this bankruptcy, which I believe establishes notability. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not stranded, they just need a ride home. Most will find one at a fair price, some will pay extra. Maybe get a refund someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as, unfortunately, LCC's are going bankrupt at a fast rate these days (Monarch, Primera Air, WOW, and probably Norwegian soon) so it's not particularly noteworthy ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't just an airline, it's the oldest travel agency that ever there was. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but needs a better blurb. I really don't understand why some are saying this is just another bankruptcy. More than 21,000 people in 16 countries are at risk of losing their jobs and more than 600,000 customers are affected, among other factors mentioned above. It's the top story across Europe at least, and it's also making headlines elsewhere in the world. But somehow that's not important enough. Meanwhile, the All-Ireland Championship, for which I have not seen any significant coverage (at least not outside the sports world), is deemed notable for ITN. Puzzling. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an American company. That's about it.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Kingsif. This is a household name in the UK and a big deal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on article quality. The company was founded in 1841, and was among the first, and most successful companies to pioneer organized travel for leisure. They made leisure travel accessible to the middle class and eventually, albeit on a somewhat limited scale, even to the working class. Their influence on culture and society was profound in ways that few other companies can claim. If/when Sears ever goes under I may support a blurb for them on similar grounds as the Amazon.com of the last century. Unfortunately almost none of this is discussed in the linked article. Also there are referencing issues with some of the tables. If these issues can be addressed, I would likely support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of that is discussed in the Thomas Cook & Son article which maybe should be part of the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to just copy and merge some of the relevant material into the article about the current iteration of the company in an expanded corporate history section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Thomas Cook has a long history dating back to 1841. Oppose as per others though-- Booth  Sift  05:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Oddly enough, financial news seem to exist, and matter, even outside of the US. Go figure.  c o m p l a i n e r  14:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - TC has been the grandad of travel industry. Shocking news. STSC (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many airline bankruptcies have occurred, especially recently. Each incident has affected large numbers of passengers. Yes, Thomas Cook is old, but other airlines with long histories have gone bankrupt recently as well. Aigle Azur comes to mind. feminist (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: J. Michael Mendel

 * Support as creator/updater. Been chipping away at this one on and off and it looks good enough to post now. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Per . I don't know how this man only got his article just recently. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced. Looks decent enough.BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Günter Kunert

 * Oppose for now Bibliography and film scripts need sourcing. Also bibliography looks very long. Are all of those works notable? Might be better to just list the notable ones and/or create a separate page if they are all notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The bibliography is sourced to the German National Library. It's taken from de. How would I know what's more important than something else? How is this: Reduce to those with an extra mentioning in sources? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, I sourced the film scripts. The bibliography is there in book form, example pictured, but I found that only after I had reduced it to those with two sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sigmund Jähn

 * Comment: some work done, thank you for the nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's okay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Akzeptabel. – Sca (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Barron Hilton

 * Support Article looks good with plenty of solid references. It was missing a sentence saying that he passed away, but I just added it with the source ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article sourced good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that end without a reference, and the Foundation section seems like a copyvio. Stephen 10:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not there yet, citations needed and Stephen's final point needs looking  at. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The offending section has been trimmed by page contributors and the unsourced lines moved to talk.  User:Stephen and The Rambling Man please review again if this can now be promoted. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - article ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irina Bogacheva (mezzo-soprano)

 * Support, The article has been expanded now and is well sourced. Good work Gerda Arendt. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – In the news now. Article is short but sufficiently covers notability. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Tropical Storm Imelda

 * Wait per nom at this time, support once more information on the death toll is available due to the extreme flooding caused by Imelda. Quality is sufficient, too.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 22:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine. Death toll can be updated on main page. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Kingsif, we can update the death toll as time progresses as opposed to trying to make this an Ongoing nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I know there's been comparisons to Harvey, but so far we don't have that level of damage, deaths or disruption. Let's wait until we have a better idea. --M asem (t) 01:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Already falling from mention as the impact is very localized in SE Texas. This region is a hotspot for extreme rainfall/flood events. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor storm compared to others that have bombarded the region in the past (e.g. Harvey) 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:6924:E691:9248:17C6 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Antonio Brown released

 * Oppose This is a good faith nomination, but sports transactions are not what we post here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, I just nominated it owing to the unique circumstances regarding this certain player who has received significant news coverage for his misconduct. It isn't just any sports release, its a release based on many high profile incidents with different franchises and possible legal consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand that, as I've seen the Brown saga in the news. But, we are a global encyclopedia, American football is barely played outside of the U.S. at all, and this is really only significant to Brown, not the league as a whole. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a little piece of advice. If you're going to talk about a sport, at least please tell us all what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. Good points from you two. At the very least, I have explicitly added american football to the blurb per suggestion. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, and I welcome you to make more, but if we post this sports transaction it becomes harder to say no to the next one.  In addition, there is a difference between something being news in a niche field(like sports) and something being news generally. I don't think this is appearing as general news on say the front page of a website/newspaper, just under a sports section. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) September 2019 climate strike

 * Support alt blurb I don't think we need to call Greta out specifically in the blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Many "strikes" occurred across Australia today (it's already Friday night here), and it's definitely high in the news coverage across the country. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation currently has this as its lead item -  The "anti-" reaction is also getting a lot of coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm completely happy with the alt blurb. There's huge news coverage in the UK already; the strikes dominate the homepage of The Guardian today and are also big headlines in The Times, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror etc. I chose four sources out of dozens in the nomination above, aiming to provide a variety to show how widespread coverage is. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt, but further expansion by country is desirable, this looks huge. Brandmeistertalk  11:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Just have something green for a change. STSC (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Such global strikes are not very common. It also appears to be the main news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I think we should wait until the day is over so that we can get some more details about the event itself and not just the planning of it. If some prose about what happens/happened today is added and is of the same quality as the rest of the article is right now, I'd definitely support alt blurb as I don't think we should just make it about Greta ~mike_gigs talkcontribs —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The day is over in plenty of countries. "The event itself" is >4,500 events, of which thousands have begun and have details already reported for. If you think we need more details then help to expand September 2019 climate strike! Pick one of the 146(-ish) countries not listed yet and write about it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - No need to wait. This is a major story, and we should be giving it more coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. --Tone 13:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting concern I saw this before I could comment, at a state where only 4 countries were listed with a BIG OLD HUGE United States section. We're at 6 with still that huge section. This is not really at a quality I would support posting, but I would not ask for it to be taken down, but instead balance this better, get more countries (particularly those where the event should be completely or half-way through) and trim down the US one. The topic is otherwise fine for ITN, just the quality is showing a US bias. --M asem (t) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps appropriate for the article's talk page? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're at 26 now, which is much better. In general, if you don't want it to be taken down but do want it to get better than the solution is obvious: Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its fine now. At the point I was commenting, I didn't have enough time available to try to fix. But I did want to note it here, that in future considering of worldwide-organized events like this, the article should have a better broad coverage to be considered at quality for posting. nothing else to worry about in this specific case now. --M asem (t) 17:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – No. 1 global story today (four sources added above). – Sca (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above-- Booth  Sift  06:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

 * Support References look good and plentiful, full article, nice prose ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, definitely worth RD. I'd say it's almost worth a blurb due to Ben Ali's length of term and influence. His deposition was one of the events that set off the Arab Spring. 1779Days (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks decent, but RD only in relation to general notability. – Sca (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a few paragraphs that end without a reference. Stephen 22:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's many paragraphs that have no obvious reference at all. The number of references is not a good metric; the metric we should use is the portion of the text which is unreferenced.  There is extensive amounts of the text which is unreferenced.  This is not main-page-ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - He seems notable, and the article is pretty good. Poydoo (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the ready tag. There are reams of unreferenced information that still need a source. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Rugby World Cup

 * Oppose posting single sport events in progress, which is not what Ongoing is intended for. The one exception is the FIFA World Cup(which I oppose as well) as the most popular sport in the world. The final result of this event can be posted. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 Cricket World Cup were posted as well. A sport event in progress is an ongoing event per definitionem. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, we're well past the "is not what Ongoing is intended for" argument now, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess Ongoing is turning into a sports ticker before our eyes. Technically the 2019 Major League Baseball season is ongoing, and as such would merit posting under this criteria. I'm not sure that's a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would further add that rugby is not nearly as popular as football/soccer and cricket(the #1 and #2 sports in the world, I believe). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not one person on earth would conclude that the MLB season is equivalent to the Rugby World Cup. And it may not be as popular as football or rugby, but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support assuming that prose updates will be made to the article every match. If the quality of updates is inadequate, it should go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I'm not too sure that a sporting event of this length really qualifies as Ongoing (agree with 331dot) and, while I may be acting cynical, I have doubts about this article's prose being updated often. Really I only think that the charts will be filled in with results on a regular basis ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until completion, blurb the results, and then ONLY if the article has sufficient prose and isn't just a bunch of tables and charts. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing this is a competition that is scheduled to last for over a month. We can always take it down if the updates are not up to par, but as long as it is consistently updated I think there's no reason not to put it up. -- Plasma Twa  2  18:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What updates are there aside from match results? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Match results and even prose reports about matches if someone was prepared to write them, just like the prose summaries of other sporting events. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I regret voting yes for FIFA Women's and voting no on Cricket World cup. 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup did not sustain consistent prose updates but 2019 Cricket World Cup did keep up. If 2015 Rugby World Cup is an indication of what we can expect, it is clear we will not get the proper amount of serious prose updates. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Illustrative material seems undue – stock photos and that superfluous map of Japan. – Sca (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose What matters is who is the champion, not what happens on each and every day, the way it is in the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - We post FIFA World Cup to ongoing because it is insanely popular and gets massive coverage internationally. I'm sure this Rugby event gets coverage, but nowhere close to the degree of coverage as FIFA has. That said, it is a month+ long competition of more than a few region teams involved, and updating seems to be in place, so it would be fully reasonable to be ongoing, hence the weak oppose, but I am concerned about having too many of these smaller world cups "flood" Ongoing. --M asem (t) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sport competitions in Ongoing until there is clear criteria for inclusion. A cutoff for popularity or % of world participating nations or anything more objective. Like with any Ongoing nomination, proposals for removal due to poor updates must be taken seriously. "It is notable and I haven't had time" just keeps crap articles on the front page. And [Rugby] it may not be as popular as football or [cricket? sic], but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball What, then entire Western Hemisphere plus Japan is not global enough?130.233.2.183 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How truly popular is baseball south of the US-Mexico border? (Genuine question. I personally love the game.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Very, very popular, especially in Mexico, Cuba, and other Central America countries. Some articles of interest include Pan American Baseball Confederation and baseball in Cuba.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not what ongoing was intended for.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Israeli legislative election

 *  Wait  – For outcome. – Sca (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per Sca.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - let the results come in, get updates done Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would we specify that this was a snap/do-over election, since after the April one a new government was never formed. I don't recall what we do. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no in the interest of brevity/clarity. Best attempt I can muster: "After April elections fail to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White party win a plurality in the second Israeli legislative election this year."  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it "plurality" is largely an American term; "the most seats" is what we usually do. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until results come in but then support once proper updates are done ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominated event is ITNR; quality is the only thing being discussed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment With the results mostly in by this point, should we offer a blurb and post as soon as possible that the Blue and White party has won a plurality, or should we wait (however long it takes) for a new Prime Minister to be announced? It's not clear yet whether or not this is the end of Netanyahu's premiership, or if he will remain a caretaker PM.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 18:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * General practice in such cases seems to be to wait for formation of a new govt., which in this case could take as long as it did in Italy, and for its formal installation. IMO we tend to be somewhat overcautious about the installation part. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that Israel needed a second election at all is noteworthy, as it's the first time one was necessary. After the last election, no government was ever formed and it's a possibility this time too. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be posted.  ITNR states "The results of general elections", not the formation of governments(though we have occasionally posted those in unusual cases, which this might very well be). 331dot (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are unsettled elections in Israel more important than unsettled elections in Italy? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm dealing with the election in front of me. The 'election' is settled- it's the government that is not. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's not settled. By 'unsettled' I mean elections that have failed to produce a governmental result. Please don't quibble about semantics. And how about answering the question? – Sca (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not semantics. The election is over and settled.  We know the results.  Now the process to form a government is underway. Two different steps. I did answer your question. And as noted below, Italy's change in government was not due to an election. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally concur with 331dot; Italy's governing coalition collapsed and its PM resigned, but there were no election results to post, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not general practice at all. Say what you want about this ITN/R (and I'm on the record as hating it), but there is no ambiguity: the election result is ITNR, not the formation of government. The results are NOW known, to the level of specificity that would be shown in the blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, why didn't you support the Conte nomination? – Sca (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What in the holy hell are you talking about? My comment here is to clarify an ITNR consensus regarding elections. That nom was not for an election. ALSO, I supported that nom. I was the FIRST supporter of that nom. Jesus.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment, the first after the nominator's, says "I'm leaning support," but I don't see an actual support vote. Au revoir. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is an unreferenced section and the "Allegations of misconduct" section is an indiscriminate collection of Tweets. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stale. Suggest close. (Re-post if govt. formed.) – Sca (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be gained by closing the nom. If the quality issues are addressed, it can still be posted. If not, it rolls off.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Graeme Gibson

 * Oppose inadequately sourced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ready yet.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Fernando Ricksen
Not yet: The whole 24 years of his life before joining Rangers are not covered. It will be a challenge to find resources for something outside the English-speaking world in the 1990s, but this is a major absence. The honours are unsourced, some of them coming from this time in Holland in the 1990s as well. 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:195F:BAD6:53EC:BC46 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs a few more citations. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose incomplete. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ye Xuanping

 * Oppose I think it's a fairly weak article as far as references goes. Needs many more to be in good shape ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I could easily add dozens of media sources that repeat the same information, but I'm not a fan of WP:REFBOMB and believe it's the quality, not quantity, that matters. In fact, I've removed a source that does not add information that's not already present in other sources, but added scholarly books that provide in-depth research of his career. -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support To me the referencing seems sufficient and covers all major aspects of the article.  Spencer T• C 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As usual, AGF on the Chinese sources.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

17 September 2019 Afghanistan bombings

 * Oppose for right now I would consider improving the article, add more details-- Booth  Sift  23:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality . I saw this early, couldn't find any article on it, but clearly an attack that had significant civilian causalities is not something we'd ignore even out of Afghanistan --M asem (t) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on both notability and quality now. The quality (particularly the length of the article) is much better than it was when I first !voted. While it would still benefit greatly from further expansion, it's at least worthy of a start class assessment. Striking my previous comments. on notability due to the high death toll, but the article could use some development for now.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Thin. (There were multiple RS stories about this on Tuesday.) Alas, not particularly notable for Vietnamistan. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support It looks like this is barely over the stub threshold, but only by the smallest of margins. It would be nice to see the article expanded some more though.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has gone nowhere in the last 24 hours, and significance in the news has been superseded by yet another bombing attack in Afghanistan.130.233.2.183 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cokie Roberts

 * Support p  b  p  14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need a support for your own nom.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That "criticism" section needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The 'Criticism' section seems gratuitously overlong and detailed. It seems to have been assembled by persons who didn't like Roberts's style or opinions. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed. It's laundry list of criticisms. There may be something in the paragraph about Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting stuff, but like the last para, about missing some abortion ads in early newspapers, that's human error and was corrected by NPR, so..yeah. I'm not seeing much there that can be kept in the current state. --M asem (t) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I cut the abortion thing and the one Slate.com keyboard warrior's random opinion. we have to figure out what to do with the Guatemala thing and the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting info. If it's legit, it should be relocated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose BLP concerns over that section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Three sources, none of which get into dissing Roberts, added above. NYT says full obit to appear soon. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Criticism section has been trimmed in the last couple hours p  b  p  16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  while there is an orange tag in the criticism section. No other issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks acceptable to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose definitely not something we'd feature in its current state on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the "Criticism" section is dealt with. WP:CSECTION recommends that the problems with these sections can often be dealt with by placing the information into more appropriate places within the narrative of the article rather than collecting the criticisms into their own section, such that the organization of the article creates an undue weight to such matters.  If someone did want this posted on the main page, they could see it done quickly if the information was placed chronologically into the main narrative rather than collected like a scarlet letter in its own section.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (Well, that group of three didn't take long, did it?) The orange tag is gone, and once that one fact I put at the one uncited sentence is dealt with I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,  I think your concerns have been allayed in the past few hours  p  b  p  22:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I still see two citation needed tags, and one questioning the reliability of a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I resolved one of the CN tags. I switched out the questioned reference for a different one.  And it turned out that that source also resolved the other CN tag, so I added it in a second place.  p  b  p  23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support referencing problems have been fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Looks like all my concerns have been fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Good work all. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Attn Needed) Comet Borisov

 * Support, significant science story, article in good shape. The previous interstellar object was not a comet. Brandmeistertalk  07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provided NYT source says the last interstellar comet was interstellar and probably a comet. It didn't change many lives at all. What's different now, especially to general audiences? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That object has not been proven to be a comet, rather an asteroid. And it's not about changing many lives, but about encyclopedic importance, in this case for astronomy. Brandmeistertalk  08:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad argument. You do realise the "didn't change many lives at all" argument can literally be applied to the vast majority of ITN entries ever, yes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "many" is subjective. But next to most anything that happens on Earth, a chunk of ice 170 million miles away that may or may not be faintly visible through a consumer-grade telescope is going to seem relatively dull, just for remoteness from life. Unless you've invested time in caring about astronomy, of course. I'm happy it excites people like you, just concerned most of our readers won't feel they've learned anything useful. Could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good, references look good, sources look good, and a neat discovery ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:33, 17 September 2019
 * Oppose/wait on two grounds: i) no peer-reviewed paper has been published and ii) we haven't learnt anything yet. 'Oumuamua was the first interstellar object; the second discovery of something is usually not an ITN story. Whether it shows a coma or not (comet vs asteroid) is not really that important. 'Confirmation' by the IAC does not make up for the lack of peer-review, which we usually require for science stories; in the case of 'Oumuamua we posted when the discovery paper came out in Nature. We could wait for one to come out on this object, or (my preference) not post at all unless & until something surprising is discovered. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, IAU's Minor Planet Center endorsed the cometary nature. Brandmeistertalk  12:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose principally on the lack of a peer-reviewed paper (its been submitting but not yet affirmed). I will assume that the journal it was submitted to will try to rush the review so that it is published before December and that might be the better time to post, when the comet is in closest proximity to Earth. --M asem (t) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See comment below. Support due to IAU's confirmation as sufficient peer-review. --M asem (t) 18:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Much of the article is quite technical and won't be understood by most readers. General significance seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh on the technical side. I see a few places that unit conversions and linked are needed like on K2-18b to help establish large distances into more common language, but the article is describing the trajectory of a comet which is using all the proper terms that scientists would use, with blue links and some helpful "(asides in parans)" to assist the terms in context. What would be needed is establishing the revelance of why this would be ITN - eg, what is so important about an interstellar comet compared to one like Haley's ? (eg K2-18b explained the relative importance of finding water vapor on an exoplanet). --M asem  (t) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on being overly-specialist rather than general news; equally, the article may need a layman translation. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine and a peer-reviewed paper is not necessary. The discovery has been verified by multiple observers; peer review unlikely to show up and say "hey, you didn't actually discover a comet". It's only going to change minor details. Banedon (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the discovery of the comet at issue, but the claim it is an interstellar one, that requires the support of a peer-reviewed paper. --M asem (t) 20:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with nods to the above !vote. Article is well referenced, and although technical, it includes directions for amateurs to observe the comet. These might be of interest to Wiki readers, and would not normally be included in a general audience news source. Obviously encyclopedic subject. I think "fist interstellar comet (as opposed to 'object/asteroid')" makes it suitably notable without pigeonholing.130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support since it's a comet, it will likely have a tail that can be studied for its elemental composition. Unless I am missing something, this should be a great deal, as Oumoamua earlier this year did not really allow much actual analysis.  4.35.246.19 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bumping: It is now officially named "2I/Borisov" as the International Astronomical Union have officially deemed it an interstellar comet, the 2nd interstellar object (and first such comet) after 1I/’Oumuamua (hence the "2I"). This recognize would override any waiting on a peer-reviewed paper (since IAU is a peer reviewing the findings). --M asem  (t) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Robertson
Posted. He won't be up for very long though, as his death was announced at least on 11 September. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 17:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, especially given delays here at ITN. Appreciate your posting.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sakahoko Nobushige

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Lotus Tower

 * Oppose. No news sources have been provided to show that this is in the news.  I also don't think the tallest structure in a particular region is notable enough, especially when it is the 19th tallest tower. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 19th tallest in the world is far too low on the notability scale to be ITN Worthy, this would be more fitting on The Current Events portal. 173.128.225.139 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. But this is clearly a potential DYK! MSN12102001 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am really sorry and I take the blame for my blunder. I knew this should have only be nominated to DYN instead of ITN. I also didn't get the support from foreign sources. Abishe (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Purdue Pharma

 * Weak support - The cases against Purdue Pharma and their involvement in the opiod crisis is significant to be ITN-worthy, but the situation makes it hard to find where the right point is for that ITN moment given there's multiple suits going on, that this bankruptcy falls after some of the states have reached a agreement with Purdue, and now there's the word about the company trying to shift $1B to international accounts. There could be a more "serious" point in the future, where there could be criminal charges or the like. But in lieu of knowing how those chips will lie, this seems like a significant moment for this story. Obviously, updates before posting need to be in place. --M asem (t) 04:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support original blurb pending updates and serious review. The above makes a very good case for posting. I suggest that Purdue be the only bold link in the blurb, considering that the impetus for posting is their bankruptcy. Purdue's page is very highly weighted towards their role in the opioid epidemic, and someone with more pharmaceutical knowledge than me should determine if that weight is due. The opioid epidemic page is not yet updated. Unlike J&J or Insys (other co's sued and fined for the epidemic), Purdue is at least pro forma bankrupt and was the original developer of the most damaging of the drugs of the epidemic.130.233.3.134 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chapter 11 provides protection from creditors and is the usual way that US companies survive such difficulties, rather than going out of business. What's happening here is corporate restructuring along with lots of lawsuits and the matter will be ongoing for years.  If you look at a source like CDC, you can see that prescription opiods were a 1990s issue while, two waves later, the issue is now powerful synthetics like fentanyl.  People have been using and abusing opiods for centuries and an ITN blurb is not a good place to summarise this complex topic. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your description of Ch.11 is not correct. Ch.11 as a means to escape legal liabilities is a "contentious" thing, to put it lightly, and any bankruptcy judge who thought that the filing was motivated by such (as opposed to regular business losses) would not grant it, or would force a Ch.7 with assets going to a trust to pays out to petitioners. The precise substance that is en vouge at this exact moment doesn't change the fact that dozens of people are killed by this drugmaker's product every day, more than all gun deaths combined. The product and company in question were the market-makers of the opioid epidemic and, just because there are other players now doesn't decrease their significance; it increases it rather. Whether the updates are suitably thorough is a separate question, but to describe this bankruptcy as "usual" and the effects of the drug as not an "issue" is factually wrong.130.233.3.134 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do consider the concern that Chap 11 to avoid/reduce settlement costs is a key tactic here, but again, the whole mess on Purdue and opoids is ITN-worthy, but there's hard to say where there's a proper point to post it knowing the legal cases out there now. This is the one point that summarizes the results of several trials into one. --M asem (t) 14:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The part of this article on the bankruptcy of the company, which in my mind is the event being cited in this ITN nomination, is only a single sentence and needs major expansion ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This filing and settlement is going to be challenged by 26 states. There's a whole legal brouhaha that will take ages to get sorted out. Nothing is set in stone yet.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ch. 11, etc. Filing a civil suit is not proof of culpability. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ric Ocasek

 * Support - Article is pretty well-sourced and fleshed out. RIP to a legend of new wave. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is good quality. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added cn tags where citations are needed, because the article's quality isn't good enough for the main page yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once all needed cites have been added. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , citations still needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvement It'll be ready as soon as the last six CN tags are dealt with.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I have cleaned up all remaining citation gaps. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ashes series

 * Support. Article looks good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Target article is thoroughly sourced & doesn't have any noticeable problems.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose summary of the last two Tests, probably the most important two since the fourth resulted in Aus retaining the urn and the fifth resulted in the series being drawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man but this event should not be ITNR anyway. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present due to lack of prose summaries of last two tests. It is worthy of ITNR as one of the earliest international sports competitions on earth. The title dates back to 1882 so it is older than the modern Olympics and a very important sports event in both countries. At the moment, I am tired due to late nights watching the Ashes but that is another story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready per above. Should definitely go up once those two match summaries are in place. The nominated blurb is clunky, doesn't specify the sport, unnecessarily includes the year, and runs into the singular/plural ENGVAR issue we always try to avoid. Adding an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready, but worthy of a blurb once it is, per Modest Genius. I've proposed a third possible blurb, and I think we should avoid the grammar used in the ALT0 version, because there is an ENGVAR mismatch - in the UK we'd say "Australia retain the Ashes", while in Australia (and in the US too) they would say "Australia retains the Ashes". Better to word it in such a way that this is not an issue. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I preferred my way around, because the result is a draw, which leads to a retention of the trophy. The retention is secondary to the draw. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Australian here, we also say "Australia retain the Ashes" - don't know why you'd think we use American grammar. But agree it should be reworded to avoid confusing US English speakers. -dmmaus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs prose summaries of the last 2 matches, tests, whatever they are. And I agree with Amakuru that altblurb is bad. Use the Australian form (since they won) or use Altblurb2. Rockphed (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Article is incomplete, needs prose summaries of the last two tests.  Consider this full support once that is fixed without pinging me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Honestly not a notable sporting event in terms of outcome. I think we all could have predicted this turnout. (SARCASM) Indeed, it would be far more notable and newsworthy if the Krikkiters appeared out of nowhere to steal the Ashes to rebuild the Wikkit-- What? That only happened in fiction? Now you're telling me! In all seriousness, as per the above, will support once updated to include prose summaries.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think we all could have predicted this turnout." Really? I'm an avid fan, and I certainly couldn't have. And you clearly don't appreciate the significance of The Ashes, even outside the countries directly participating but within the cricketing world. I don't find comments like yours helpful. (Even though you are right about the missing content. But others had already said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, HiLo. I was making a joke, as I thought my reference to a Douglas Adams book would have indicated. Calm down.--WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per others -- Booth  Sift  23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rudi Gutendorf

 * Needs work for now. I'm sure they've had an impressive career, but the "Career" section is one uncited sentence, the "Coaching career" is two paragraphs (one of which is an uncited sentence), and I'm not sure why those are two separate sections. It's also unusual for the list of categories to be much longer than the article itself. I'll support if it's cleaned up, but for now I regretfully oppose.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a stub at present. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup

 * Updating the Final article. This is the biggest World Cup of the year. You won't see a Spanish-speaking final in the other two... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, there might not be any Spanish-speaking countries involved but you might want to look at the global viewing figures for the Cricket World Cup :) Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * *Yes, "biggest" was a foolish claim there. And looking at List of International Cricket Council members I see Spain itself, plus several other Spanish speaking nations. Not likely contenders for the World Cup at this stage perhaps, but eligible. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice try with both Cricket and Rugby in 2019. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Nice work. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

– Sca (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) All-Ireland Senior Football Championship

 * Oppose no prose, plenty of tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Just like last year. Let's wait. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Per the nom-- Booth  Sift  04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready. One sentence per game does not constitute a prose summary. I've also added a second altblurb in our standard phrasing (we never include scores). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2. Hugely improved, that's good enough for me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready as all the oppose !votes have been addressed. Marking as such. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article prose is insufficient, per all of the above. Consider this a full support once that is fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb II. Prose added. Pictures added. Tags gone. --Gaois (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tremendous improvements you've made to the article, Gaois. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've amended the above box so that it now says Updated by Gaois.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as nom, now that quality has been improved (mostly by Gaois's hard work) to the point where, with much prose added and tags gone, it seems adequate to me (tho admittedly I'm not the best judge of quality and I'm probably rather biased here). I'm happy to leave the blurb or altblurbs question to others. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack

 * Wait – Developing. Effects unclear. (Govt. sez fires controlled, Saudi TV sez no casualties.) – Sca (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait but added alt blurb that I think captures what is a bit larger picture here, given that there were no casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
 * Rather than "the Saudis," etc., how about "lead Saudi Arabia to cut half its oil production" – ?? (Keep in mind we don't know how long this will last.) – Sca (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The loss of 6 million barrels of oil production per day is of enormous significance. EternalNomad (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (That's 5% of the daily production, which is not trivial, from what sources have said). --M asem (t) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's reduced its production by 50%. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per EternalNomad. &#124; abequinnfourteen 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm afraid this will worsen the Iran-Saudis proxy war. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. El_C 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Either before or while it was being posted, I had worked to expand bg + stuff. --M asem (t) 23:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means, feel free to still do so. El_C 23:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, I'm just noting - the article in the original state was not great in length, but by the time you posted, I believe I got the bulk of the changes I made in. --M asem (t) 00:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – Sunday's Guardian quotes several predicting "jolt" in prices. Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to take away from this article's ITN importance, but it's surprising to read that as the Saudis said they expect to have the fields back up by tomorrow, and will use reserve oil to minimize pipeline disruption. There is very valid cocner that if the Abquiq facility was shut down for a long time (and the Houthis seem intent on that), it would cause significant jolts, but not now. --M asem (t) 13:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Saudi Arabia seems to be an opaque society politically. Sca (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the blurb should probably be changed to not mention Houthi responsibility, as there is some controversy as to the level of which the Houthi were responsible. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, blurb changed. For future reference, WP:ERRORS will probably get a faster response than here for blurb change requests. Best,  Spencer T• C 00:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg's "Oil Prices Jump Most on Record" added to sources above. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bavelile Hlongwa

 * Comment: If possible, could use some information regarding what she did/accomplished as a politician. She took office in May, and I'm not familiar enough with South African politics to know if she would have started involvement in projects/etc. Otherwise, referencing looks reasonable.  Spencer T• C 01:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the paragraph regarding her appointment to Parliament and the National Cabinet. Unfortunately, Hlongwa was a "new" politician, so there is not much info on her time as a Member of Parliament and Deputy Minister. Despite the lack of political experience, she was a well-known name in the chemical engineering industry here in South Africa. Lefcentreright  Talk   13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Meets minimum RD standards.  Spencer T• C 20:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Cronin

 * Support The article has undergone major improvements. Must be close to good enough to post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

'''ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! I know this isn't someone important in Wikipedia's biased world, like an American college basketball hero, but a whole bunch of people have worked hard on this article. Can someone who can do something about this PLEASE pay some attention, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''' (And can we please do something long term about the fact that work like what has been done here gets ignored so easily by the mass of people running this area?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Woah, no need to WP:SHOUT. Your !vote is enough; RDs tend not to need more than a few supporting comments before they get posted.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to shout? Really? It's now almost a day since the item, IMHO, was ready to post. So how do we get it posted? (See earlier comment about an American college basketball hero.) This place does not work well at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, wow. Have you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Or that you should put "(Ready)" in the subject header line in front of "RD: Paul Cronin" to easily denote to admins scanning the table of contents that the article is ready? Your comments are wholly inappropriate and almost made me pass by without doing anything. I'll post it now because it is ready and I'm not trying to make a WP:POINT about your behavior. But don't ever pull something like this again. I won't be so nice the next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't follow perfectly correct procedure. I spend very little time here these days because of the arrogant attitude of too many of the owners (and I use that word deliberately) so I don't know all the rules. I only pop up when I know there's something genuinely worth following up, and always find it difficult to get those owners out of their little insular bubbles, and to actually look at items from cultures they know nothing about. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , wow, great apology. That and your below comment make me regret posting this. If you can't be WP:CIVIL on this part of Wikipedia, maybe don't be on this part of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My approach got this posted, didn't it? Nothing else was working. Are you proud of the nomination process being as biased as it is? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support and Calm down, the admins have other things to do--  Booth  Sift  01:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For twenty-two and a half hours? I really don't believe it would take that long for an American college basketball hero, completely unknown outside that country, to be posted. And nobody forces anyone to become an Admnin. I shall add this to my large list of examples of Wikipedia's inherent biases. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support And if Australian cinema wants the real world to start giving its most popular some good old-fashioned hero adulation, maybe start awarding something historically and universally better than silver? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * HiLo has a history of believing that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to him. This resulted in an RFC/U in the past and also led to his being topic-banned from ITN. I strongly advise that he tones down his rhetoric before this happens a second time. If this is how volunteer admins get treated around here, no wonder this project has such shoddy editor and admin retention. WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: György Konrád

 * Oppose almost entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs inline citations Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  21:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie Money

 * Support plenty of references and well developed article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy of display on the main page. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Texas Lawmaker Briscoe Cain issues death threat to Beto O’Rourke

 * Are you serious? You can't be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. --M asem (t) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for obvious reasons ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frederic Pryor

 * Support Referencing looks good, goes into sufficient detail on what he was notable for and his professional career.  Spencer T• C 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , can we get this added? This has been lingering a few days with no opposition. Neutralitytalk 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled blurb) RD: ʻAkilisi Pōhiva

 * Support blurb since he was the head of government. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb There is no need to treat Tonga differently than Zimbabwe or Tunisia. While it may be small and not as well known, Tonga is still a nation in its own right. Therefore, as an incumbent PM, he deserves the blurb. -- Booth  Sift  02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Not only the incumbent PM but also a huge figure who brought democracy to the country. Ample global coverage, which is rare for the Pacific Islands region. EternalNomad (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support RD, oppose blurb Tonga has a population of only about 100,000, smaller than thousands of individual cities around the world and one of the smallest sovereign nations. That being said, an excellent RD candidate, as a well-covered prime minister death, even of a small country. 1779Days (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb - quality is up to par. Marked as ready, given no objections to RD for now --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - in this case a blurb is definitely called for.BabbaQ (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on the basis that this represents a change in the head of government for Tonga. Would suggest adding the new Prime Minister to the blurb once the new Prime Minister has been chosen. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb sitting PM dies, sure thing for a blurb, regardless of the population, that's pure bias. Article is good to go too.  Let's GO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Image to follow. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * May I suggest using his photo at the front page. Mugabe has been there for a while.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting in a moment. Needed to wait for its protection. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support blurb per above; death of a sitting prime minister is notable enough for a blurb. Also this is a change in head of government, which is (in all but name) ITN/R. Davey2116 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It most assuredly is not ITN/R. This has been the subject of discussion and rejected.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "in all but name". There are very few (if any) cases where a change in head of government is not notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose blurb: the amount of prominence we devote to political leadership positions within a nation-state, itself based on an European invention of the 1800s, without any due regard for size, newsworthiness, and encyclopedic value, is completely perplexing to me. Of course I respect that other editors feel differently and I have no hope of pulling this back but I would like to just register my strong dissent on this issue. We use the modern state as an arbitrary measure of value, yet we do not hold other fields, such as science, business, music, technology, to the same standards, is neither doing our readers a service nor good for overall topical balance. Somehow we feel the need to obsess over presidents and prime ministers, many of whom are far less influential than even a second-rate Silicon valley executive, or any published scientist on Nature. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Relatively brief article makes no compelling case for broader regional importance that is needed for posting as a blurb.  Spencer T• C 04:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb What Colipon said. Also, bias is about promoting "our" version of the world (US/UK/India are more important). Some nations/states are more important than others. It's disingenuous to suggest the goings-on in China and Haiti are equally important because they are both countries.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Tonga has a population of 100,000. It's all very well to be even-handed in such matters, but this really wasn't in the news much, for obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don't think we have consensus that every leader who dies in office gets a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Yes, he was an incumbent, but Tonga is tiny, and his death wasn't untimely or anything. Mayors of most large cities have had more global influence than he has. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled Consensus to post no longer exists. I will add this to RD for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only, oppose blurb. If we include minnows of the political world such as AP (rather than the big fish only), we would have to include every head of state or government who dies in office - & perhaps former heads as well. There are hundreds of politicians who are more important than him, including many countries' leaders of the opposition, cabinet ministers, mayors etc. Including Mugabe was likewise unjustified - he was ancient, no longer in power, died naturally & was only important in that he ruined the economy of a previously prosperous country. Jim Michael (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I bow to the changing consensus, but this man was important to his country and received outsized coverage for a typical leader of such a small nation. Mugabe was also extremely important to his country's history and world affairs, and not just for wrecking its economy. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Heads of state & government usually are very important to their own countries, but that doesn't make them important to the world. AP was of no major relevance even to the rest of Oceania, let alone the world; the vast majority of people haven't even heard of him. RM was a hate figure rather than an important world leader. Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of people haven't even heard of him" is not a reason to not post this. This isn't a popularity contest- and maybe people would learn something that they didn't know before. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The population of Zimbabwe is larger than that of Tonga by a factor of about 160; also, Mugabe was a figure in a broader regional conflict which had involvement from all the major powers; as such his influence extended beyond Zimbabwe, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's systemic bias is showing. We do a horrific disservice to our readers when we post a story that was notable within its own rights, then pull it down again two days later because of a sudden development of a micro-consensus. It is an extraordinarily bad precedence to set to decide on an ad hoc basis which deaths of sitting heads of state are "notable enough" based on the population and size of their country. That's not our job. Our established procedure is to post the death of a head of state as a blurb - period, end of story. Re-post blurb ASAP.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that we have a policy of routinely posting blurbs for deaths of heads of state? We've not done so for the large majority of deaths of heads of state (& heads of government). Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are getting the idea that there is "established procedure" on this issue, perhaps you could link me to this specific policy or procedure? Nothing in the "Recent deaths" policy states that we must post the death of every incumbent head of state or head of government - in fact it encourages discussion, and makes note that only "transformational world leaders" should get blurbs in their own right. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His blurb had a picture for Christ's sakes. Why is ITN so bloody fickle to post a blurb with a picture and then pull it down days later because some people got mad?--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb was posted too quickly; people objected, therefore there was no consensus and it was rightly pulled. That's how ITN works.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect: I originally posted it for RD only, other people suggested the blurb. But what I find a disaster is that Wikipedia approves of something at a moment and two days later backs up, it shouldn't happen whatever the news are about. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would definitely support reinstating the blurb. To save the reputation of Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb was posted without a real consensus, for the natural death of an elderly, insufficiently notable person. The mistake was posting the blurb. Removing it was the correct action to remedy that. Reinstating it would be repeating the error. Many far more notable politicians' deaths weren't given blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I posted it, there was only one oppose blurb comment, the rest were in favor, so I respectfully disagree that there was no "real consensus". Yes, the consensus changed, and that's okay with me, but to say there wasn't one initially is incorrect. This wasn't just the death of a "politician", but of a sitting head of state.  If there have been other deaths of heads of state or politicians that you feel merit blurbs, please propose them; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant that the discussion was insufficient in length and time before it was posted, rather than that there were many objections (which I acknowledge there weren't). I know what position he was in, but it was of a very small country. The only way it would be justified in giving a blurb to him is if we were to give a blurb about the death of every (sitting) head of state or government, which we don't do. I'm not saying that other heads of state/government should have been given blurbs who weren't - I'm saying that there were others who were closer to being deserving of one than him. Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The I await your nomination of them. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion time for a nomination (which has been suggested and failed many times). 331dot (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, there have often been complaints (usually from TRM) that we're not posting ready items fast enough. Stephen Hawking's death went up FIFTEEN MINUTES after being nominated.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some people who are very clearly notable enough for a blurb; Hawking is a very good example of that. Jim Michael (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_with_100,000_or_more_inhabitants. All of these thousands cities have a population comparable to, and in most cases, greater than that of Tonga. If one of their mayors died in office, would it be blurb worthy? If it was one of those cities with a population of 100,000-200,000, 99%+ likelihood it would not. Could it be RD worthy? Potentially, indeed I've seen quite a few mayors over cities with populations in the 100,000+ range that have died that have made it into RD (and, IIRC, some with smaller cities). This is the kind of death that RD was made for. Tonga may be "a sovereign country", but it's just too small and insignificant to be treated as equally important as, say, Zimbabwe or Tunisia (whose leaders' deaths saw blurbs earlier this year), both of which had populations over 100 times that of Tonga; in addition, Mugabe was leader of Zimbabwe for 37 years and was a household name in the West, and Essebsi was the first democratically elected president of Tunisia following only a few short years after the end of decades of authoritarian rule. IMO, Essebsi would have been eligible for a blurb without the "first democratically elected president" factor, but only just. In my opinion, as a general rule, if a head of government of a country with over 10 million population dies in office, it would be blurb-eligible; 5-10 million, depends on country and circumstances; under 5 million, generally not blurb-eligible unless that leader had an unusually large influence on the world for their country's size and/or the circumstances were extremely dramatic and/or unusual. 1779Days (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries? It isn't Tonga's fault they have a small population(and not too many more could fit there anyway) and are not powerful. Once reason general elections are ITNR is it gives all nations big and small a shot at making it to the ITN box.  What is the harm here in other people actually learning something that they might not have been aware of before, such as about this man?  The argument seems to be that it is bad for people to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This, to me at least, is not about trivializing Tonga, or smaller states. Rather, I am really puzzled by why we, as an encyclopedia ascribe such topical obsession with contemporary political power, whether it is posting the results of the latest parliamentary elections, or blurb'ing deaths of heads of state or government. The notion that any sovereign state passes the test for notability in these types of ITN discussions do not pass the muster of fundamental adherence to consensus; therefore, I'm inclined to believe consensus does not actually exist in both areas. Editors who believe there is consensus on the "sovereign state standard" ought to provide proof that such a discussion took place and consensus has been established. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries?" Being unbiased doesn't mean giving equal coverage. Some administrative units are larger than others; their leaders naturally have a larger impact, on the world as a whole, than others. We make an exception for elections in ITN/R, but it is an exception that proves the rule; virtually every sub-national event, or event based in a specific country, is from a handful of large countries. We can question which events we post, and we should, because we do have a problem with systemic bias, but the answer to that bias isn't numerical parity between countries. A perfect encyclopedia still isn't going to give Tongan topics as much space as, for instance, Indonesian topics; there's less to write about, and that's not a moral judgement, but a statistical one. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-pulling support blurb - All of the arguments whose basis is that "Tonga is tiny" (effectively saying that it's "too irrelevant" of a country for it to matter who leads it) should be ignored entirely per notvote & per idontlikeit. We post all national general elections (or other transfers of power) big and small, no matter what nation they take place in. I think we all know exactly what would happen on ITN if BoJo, Xi, Putin, Macron, or The Orange One™ suddenly dropped dead today. It wouldn't even be controversial. Why is it irrelevant when the incumbent leader dies in Tonga? Because Tonga itself doesn't matter to us? That's exactly the kind of geocentric bias that we all work so tirelessly to avoid on ITN.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that much about Tonga but about the relative lack of information and depth of coverage in the subject's article, which is quite brief. It has just 13.2kb of material, compared to 171.49kb of Robert Mugabe's article or 85.1kb of Toni Morrison's article, both recently posted as blurbs. Trump: 403.8kb, BoJo 223.9kb, Xi 168.7kb, Macron 212.3kb, Putin 268.4kb. Per WP:ITNRD, "death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis", and the length of the article in itself - 13.2kb - clearly indicates that Pōhiva's article does not demonstrate how he was a "major transformative world leaders in [his] field." I would be happy to reconsider my position if there is commensurate expansion of the subject's article to demonstrate this standard.  Spencer T• C 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a single oppose !vote, except for yours, which focuses its rationale on the length or quality of the article itself (and the length & quality of the article are fine for posting). Some !votes focus on whether or not there exists a precedent for posting deaths of incumbents, but don't go into detail on whether or not there should be one. As for his merits as an individual, EternalNomad points out that Pōhiva was a key figure in Tonga's movement towards democracy, and I'd also note that he holds the country's record for the longest tenure as an MP. On the fact alone that he was the incumbent PM, I support a blurb (and quite a lot of the oppose !votes thoroughly exaggerate the frequency of leaders dying while still in office; such events are obviously rarer than general elections). Discounting the !votes whose only arguments boil down to "Tonga doesn't matter" (especially the !votes from Vanamonde, Jim Michael, and 1779Days) shows that there's far from a consensus for pulling the blurb, as Wikipedia is not a vote.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We post blurbs of deaths only when the person who died had a transformative impact on the world. We don't post all, or even most, national leaders as blurbs; that's what the RD section is for. For instance, Fernando de la Rua, the President of Argentina, was only posted to RD; Reynaldo Bignone didn't receive a blurb, to the best of my knowledge; some years ago, I. K. Gujral didn't either; we didn't post the Indonesian President, lower down this page; I could go on. We need a degree of consistency with blurbs; if we give person X a blurb, we need to give people of similar importance a blurb. The leader of Tonga doesn't have a large impact on the world. That isn't a moral judgement on Tonga; the same is true of Malta, or Andorra, or Mauritius, or Luxembourg. There are close to 200 countries in the world; most of them have a new head of state every few years, meaning that if we posted every head of state's death, we would be posting one such approximately every week. If you want to change our standard, go ahead and make a proposal on the talk page; but until you do so, the death, of natural causes, of a leader of a small country, is very unlikely to be posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment only addresses individuals who died long after their tenure ended, which - at least by my judgment - is much less notable than individuals dying while in office, which is quite rare. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that a consensus would exist to post the deaths of every former leader of every country, but that's not what we're discussing at all. If it doesn't make a difference by your own judgment whether or not they're the sitting head of state, then that's an acceptable position, but it does strike me as being a little disingenuous to say that we'd be posting stories like this "every week" when that's nowhere near true. Best wishes,     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because "died in office" isn't something that automatically becomes terribly important. An untimely death in office, maybe. A suspicious death, even more so. But this man died of pneumonia-related "complications", typically a euphemism for age-related physical decline. He wasn't in Tonga; he was in a hospital in New Zealand for treatment. As such I see it as only marginally more significant than his dying after relinquishing office. My fundamental point remains, though; for any "type" of death, other things being equal the size of the country does matter, because it directly influences the impact the leader had on the world. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The death of an individual who's been out of office for twenty or thirty years is not a news story which necessitates a change in the head of state, but the death of an incumbent is. That is the distinction that I make, and I continue to believe that the size of the country is not now nor should it become a factor. I don't intend to extend this lengthy thread any more than I already have, so this will be my last comment here.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dying in office doesn't make a person more notable. It's common in many countries for the head of state/government to retain their position until death. In most cases, the death doesn't cause any major problems. If a war, revolution etc. happened as a result of such a death, that would make it more notable. Jim Michael (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * RD only Per "some things are more important than others". --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daniel Johnston

 * Oppose for now, sourcing still an issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - think it's all sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – NYT and Rolling Stone clearly meet the bar for sourcing. —BLZ · talk 19:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, referencing has improved. Spengouli (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, major media publications (like NYT) devoting multiple articles to coverage of his death. It was a top trending topic for most of the day. He is an extremely influential musician and has been publicly mourned by many notable figures in music and entertainment (Judd Apatow, Pearl Jam, Mark Ruffalo, Beck, Wilco, etc.). 76.250.193.209 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) K2-18b

 * Oppose Article needs to have more content. The addition of a couple of sentences and some sources isn't enough for ITN in my opinion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article has since been improved greatly. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support If the article is expanded a bit. The discovery of the most habitable exoplanet yet found is clearly an event of note. Thue (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Major news. But the article needs to be expanded. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stub of doubtful significance beyond niche audience. – Sca (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Niche audience" is the worst argument you could use here. It could apply to many sporting events, or the politics of many countries, or many music genres. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh? Would you prefer a small, specialized audience? Or would that be second-worst? – Sca (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Equally poor because you have not identified what you believe to be the only interested audience. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Been working to expand it to add about its discovery, etc. --M asem  (t) 23:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. This is clearly notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Definitely notable enough. Did some minor re-org; looks good to me now. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support seems obvious enough. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Certainly a major scientific development worthy of an ITN. I was going to support, but one of the key references used in the article is an unpublished arXiv preprint posted there just a day ago. The source does not satisfy WP:RS, and should not be used as a reference for such an important scientific discovery, and cetainly not if the article is to go to the main page. Instead of this preprint, a news article would need to be cited talking about the same study. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The NatGeo source in the article talks of both studies. There's a tad bit of confusion of the mainstream sources as both papers were published today, and some sources, like the above BBC, is missing one of the studies.  But there's definitely no issue that event the pre-print is considered appropriate and scientifically sound - both ESA and NASA have presented news of both papers. --M asem  (t) 02:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can also rely on the published Nature Astronomy paper as the primary ref. With that existing reference, the claim in the ITN does not depend whatsoever on the arXiv preprint and the only claim in the article that depends on it is that two teams of researchers announced the result instead of one. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with using published references that discuss an unpublished study, but the unpublished study itself should not be used as a reference. I replaced the preprint citation by a reference to a published ScienceNews story that discusses both studies, and have moved the preprint itself to external links. Nsk92 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, the page looks in good shape now (I also added a ref to the NatGeo article mentioned by MarkH21 above). Nsk92 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Much improved. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Potentially of interest to any reader interested in such questions as how rare (or even unique) is life on Earth, questions whose interest stretches way beyond science, as they have significant implications in areas ranging from philosophy and religion to literature, art, and entertainment (science fiction, paranormal mysteries, and so on), which seems worth mentioning given that the only oppose so far implicitly doubts that it has much significance beyond some unspecified allegedly niche audience. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - major advance in science. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim of first is in the lead but not the body, and does not explain the caveat; that there are other exoplanets with atmospheric water but not in the habitable zone? Stephen 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a statement about this in the body of the article giving examples of non-HZ planets with water. Fdfexoex (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also added the statement in the body w/ sourcing as well as some clarification of "bad science reporting" (that this is a life-supporting planet, for example) but why this is still important. --M asem (t) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me know when the next faster-than-the-speed-of-light spaceship leaves for K2-18b. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they're rushing Area 51? --M asem (t) 14:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cuz that's where the ultra-secret faster-than-the-speed-of-light spaceships blast off from? – Sca (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that's clearly just Fake News, and it's clearly also really disgraceful that we keep posting new discoveries about evolution when there's no proof that Area 51 has a time machine to enable us to travel back then to have a closer look at them. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Hurricane Dorian: removal

 * Support. It's done.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I would have !voted to keep it as ongoing had the storm still been an active threat to land, but that is no longer the case. While it is absolutely true that the humanitarian crisis & the efforts to recover are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate to keep it in the box until a return to normalcy; Barbuda has still barely started to recover from Irma to this day.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 17:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I withdrew the ongoing suggestion because the situation is slowly evolving and not worthy of the ongoing status. <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 17:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Hard to argue this is "ongoing" in any true sense of the word.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 21:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) UK parliament prorogation ruled unlawful

 * Wait. The important decision will be by the Supreme Court on the combined cases next week (English judges came to the opposite conclusion in a parallel case, whilst the equivalent case in Northern Ireland is ongoing). We didn't post the prorogation itself, and Brexit is already in the 'ongoing' section. Iff the Supreme Court rules that parliament must be recalled, this could be a significant constitutional event with long-term impact. But if they overrule the Scots court, it will just be a flash-in-the-pan news story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it's unlikely that parliament would be recalled without waiting for the appeals process to conclude. If that does happen, then we could reassess. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait. This is not the final word on the matter; if Parliament is actually ordered to be recalled, that would likely merit posting as Modest Genius notes. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Brexit is already in the 'ongoing' section and every update/incident on brexit doesn't need a blurb, especially if the incident is not notable to have its own article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DBigXray. Banedon (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Strictly speaking, Brexit is only indirectly involved with this; this case is about the proroguing of Parliament. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We all know why Boris did it though....-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The nearness and larger significance of the UK Supreme Court seems to suggest waiting for that decision next week will be the point to post. --M asem (t) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while technically not Brexit, I think all editors would agree that this event is very much related to Brexit - and considering the implications of this decision other events of similar or higher impact may follow. Juxlos (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have to stop investing every step in this very long process with the significance of Brexit itself. Brexit-adjacent events are not noteworthy because Brexit is noteworthy. Also, when was it decided that a blurb is more important than ongoing?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I held off on nominating other events for that very reason. But where do you get the idea from that people are investing every step in this very long process with significance? Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a court ordering the recall of UK Parliament would be, if not a first, very unusual, regardless of Brexit or any issue- for both the UK and in the world. In the US the US Supreme Court could not order the US Congress into session as that would violate the separation of powers. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting point - I find it difficult to comprehend from RS what the practical implication of this is. It's basically being ignored by Boris&Co. If the higher court agrees with the Scots, will it really order Parliament to reconvene over a royal order? Will Boris have to accept that? Will the Queen?  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until Supreme Court decision.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No immediate change. Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC) → Boris Johnson - Caricature (48381979452).jpg


 * Wait per the others above. Keeping Brexit as ongoing for the time being is fine.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) Blurb: B. J. Habibie

 * Note: Blurb added, pending updates. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Habibie was president of Indonesia for just over one year. While his time in power was very important for the country given that he instituted many reforms to move Indonesia towards democracy, one year is too short in my opinion to be considered regionally impactful. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD per NF. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - as nominator, agree wih NF - Habibie's certainly of significant importance, but in the end his presidency lasted a year and he would barely not warrant a blurb. In retrospect, the impact of the change in regulations under Habibie is very much visible in modern Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Habibie used his brief presidency to completely and unexpectedly transform the world's fourth most populous country from an autocratic, single-party state into a (mostly) functioning, multi-party democracy. In terms of difference between how things came out and how they likely would have come out without his influence, he ranks among the twentieth century's most pivotally influential figures. The impact in particular on the development of Islamic political culture is global, not just regional. Rotcaeroib (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was unexpected. The people (or at least the demonstrators) wanted a transformation. So, he was really expected to do something about it. Anyone on his position would have done the same thing. What was really unexpected for me was his giving East Timor independence referendum. sentausa (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The text of the article seems to skip over his actually becoming president. It skips from "Habibie was elected as Vice President in March 1998." to "Habibie was opposed East Timorese Independence but did consider giving East Timor special autonomy." (albeit with a section break there). Otherwise the article seems to be in good shape. Rockphed (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph on it. Juxlos (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think I spent 10 minutes checking if that information had ended up somewhere else in the article.  I can now support RD Rockphed (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb As Rotcaeroib points out, his presidency was very transformative in the history of Indonesia, the region, and Islam. Davey2116 (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD ONLY article isn't great but what's there is at least sourced. Not significant news item for blurb.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Per WP:ITNRD, I don't think he was a "major transformative world leader in his field". sentausa (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the facts that he held dozens of patents in the aeronautics field and that he allowed the East Timorese to have their referendum? - Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Although his presidency was short, but have significant impact in modern Indonesia. Ezurasan (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb His presidency was transformative for Indonesia, the former Indonesian colony East Timor (see also 'Video of Xanana Gusmao embracing BJ Habibie in hospital bed shared after former Indonesian leader's death', ABC News ) and the region. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - leader of one of the most populous countries in the world and transformed it into a democracy; facilitated the independence of East Timor. If that's not enough for a blurb, I don't know what is. A far more transformative figure than the prime minister of Tonga, even if the latter was incumbent. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely there's enough support for an RD at this point; can we post as RD while the blurb discussion continues? NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD - Blurb discussion should continue. --M asem (t) 21:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So... continue? — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 06:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: T. Boone Pickens

 * Oppose Referencing needs work.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while over a maintenance dozen tags are present in the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  13:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thorium tetraoxide sodium-potassium euctectic alloy-cooled oxygen deuteride-moderated low thermal-signature triple loop plutonium-241 breeder nuclear fission reactors encased in a high megapascal reinforced ferroconcrete sarcophagus is the bridge, liquid helium cooled high tesla neodymium-copper boride superconducting magnetohydrodynamically confined low-irradiation low-muon high-omicron high-Rankine good-beta twice unity lithium-6 deuteride Z-pinch machine thermonuclear fusion reactors with massive disintegration-limited hyperflywheel arrays and gravitational pumping cache is the goal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Conte Cabinet

 * I've gone back and forth on this...I'm leaning support because this is a significant change in the political direction of the country, right? That they kept the same PM is almost beside the point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they swapped a center/center right coalition for a center/center left/left wing coalition. I feel like some of that should be in the blurb, but I couldn't think of any way to elegantly state it. Rockphed (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Support  – This is the moment we've been waiting for since last week. Note that BBC says "Italy's new populist-centre left government has been appointed." – Sca (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Based on previous nom when this was getting into motion. Article is fine. Blurb could explain a bit more about why this came about as an out-of-process leadership change. --M asem (t) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all the latter sections of the article are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so at this point, but I'd rather see Eng.-lang. references than Italian, this being the English-language Wiki. There are plenty of sources in English. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Stale. Suggest close . – Sca (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, too late now. But note that today is the day the government should be confirmed in the Parliament, so it could still count as recent. However thanks for your suggestions, I added more English-language sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine parliamentary confirmation will be a procedural footnote. Too bad, as politically this coalition was quite significant. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more recent than Hurricane Dorian and the boat fire.Rockphed (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it fresh. – Sca (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – But hey, maybe this does: "Italy's Conte pledges new start, wins confidence vote in parliament." Story quotes him promising "a new era of reforms" and to work constructively with the European Union. If we had a good update, I'd support. – Sca (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow there is the final vote in the Senate (today it won the support of the lower house already), so that might be a good occasion because it will be officially in full power. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – In principle, when relevant section is updated with footnotes in English. (Moved up to 9/10, date of final confirmation.) – Sca (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's done. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been trying to follow the Italian politics - but, I have to say, Boris Johnson being taken to court for high treason has taken more of my focus - is it a fully new government? Because that's more or less ITN at this point. It doesn't appear there's been an election, though? (Or if there has, I was too busy watching worse governments to notice, apologies to Italy) Kingsif (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there an election before Boris Johnson formed a new British government? No. So I don't understand the objection. It's a new government because Italy is a parliamentary democracy, you don't need new elections to form a new government supported by a majority in the Parliament. Sorry to be blunt. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as Conte is still the Prime Minister, this is just local politics. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a huge deal in politics, also at a European level. But now it's anyway too late, I would close this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No consensus, closing. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karbala stampede

 * Support on notability due to the devastating loss of life, and the article has no major quality concerns other than being short at the moment (the material that is available is well-sourced)     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded it as best as I could from available sourcing right now. Also, could use some expert eyes on the Islamic culture as I've seen at least 3 different variations for how Husayn ibn Ali is referred to. --M asem (t) 21:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Subject likely meets our customary standards for a blurb and the article looks adequate, if not great. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Great work . Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - refs looks good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem to be generating much news coverage. From what I'm seeing the most headlines are about Trump firing John Bolton, US extraction of a Russian spy, etc. This item is there if I search for it, but it's being drowned out otherwise. Banedon (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN does not consider the relative weight of coverage of a story to others, as long as it is getting coverage. --M asem (t) 02:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that what the significance criterion says now? Banedon (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Being covered in the news is one of the criterion factor. But that does not assure inclusion because we are not a news ticker. It's why we rarely cover the antics happening in US politics despite that that news coverage may dominate the news, while we will generally focus on major disasters which have lasting impact. --M asem (t) 03:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that this item is being drowned out by other items is an indication that it's not very significant (or has lasting impact, or is very interesting, etc), so I remain opposed. If anything if we believe the support votes right now who have touched on significance, it's past time to resurrect WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to realize that this happened in Iraq, not in Europe or the USA. Therefore, coverage would not be as great considering that you may come from a western country. -- Booth  Sift  05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also see a lot of headlines from the Hong Kong protests, plus headlines from Shinzo Abe's new cabinet. Neither of these places are in the Europe or the USA, invalidating that argument. Banedon (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Most of the news that you would see in the west are either deal with the west like Europe, Canada, and USA or areas that are well known, usually ones that are aligned or against western influence(Hong Kong and Japan are allies of the USA). Iraq, however, is in a region that most people in the west frankly don't care about. Not only is it not about politics nor economics (arguably the headlines of news these days, including your two counterexamples), but to be honest, nobody cares about what happens in Iraq. Iraq has little regard in the western world because it also has little impact, at least in the USA. I'm not saying that I'm against Iraq or the west, but this is the truth. -- Booth  Sift  02:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I'm in the West? But if I'm 1) not in the West and 2) still not seeing these headlines, how would that change your opinion? Banedon (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what country are you from? You sound like you're from the West. Also like I said, most of the world does not care about what happens in Iraq unless its politics. -- Booth  Sift  03:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to say which country I'm from in a public forum. Also, if most of the world does not care what happens in Iraq unless it's politics, why are we posting this story most of the world does not care about on ITN? Banedon (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While most of the world certainly does not care, it still meets the requirements to be included. I do not wish to continue this conversation, thank you -- Booth  Sift  04:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Large death toll, article quality is fine. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Spencer T• C 04:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, covered by Al-Jazeera, the BBC, The New York Times, DAWN, Sky, CNN, NPR, CBC, Evening Standard, Irish Times, The Independent, Xinhua, Fox News etc etc, that covers practically all the English-speaking globe and much more. Article is fine and well-expanded from when it was nominated. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Frank

 * Oppose the article is in good condition but there are at least half a dozen unreferenced statements/paras in there which need fixing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * more than half a dozen sources have been added to fix the problem pointed above.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work, good to go now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article is of good quality and Frank is a hugely important figure in photography. Qono (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lawrie Creamer

 * Doesn’t seem to be in the news. Stephen 10:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Death is reported in the newspaper of the country's capital, references seem in order by spot check, incredible example of Nominative determinism. Let's get this on the front page.130.233.2.183 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I know where Stephen is coming from, it's not massively reporting in mainstream news at all, but I guess we ought not to bias against poor old NZ. Article is good to go, and thanks to the IP for nominative determinism, I now realise that's why I'm called The Rambling Man. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Doesn't really matter whether it's in the news or not, does it, because the rules for RD are simply that the person is notable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Marginal. Sca (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny Frawley

 * Oppose poorly sourced, and (for example) "Football career" section is entirely referenced by a single dead source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the archive url for the dead source. Will work on improving the sourcing. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues have all been fixed. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work on Spud's article guys.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

 * Oppose Minor roadbump in this thing. There's questions if there was actually ever going to be a meeting (as this came out of nowhere), and it wasn't like a meeting to make peace from what is implied. The attack is standard for the area. --M asem  (t) 05:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hypothetical meeting does not occur just can't be news130.233.2.183 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no meeting happened here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the status quo remains unchanged. Nothing to see here.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest speedy close. 'Meeting doesn't happen' does not reach ITN levels of significance, and there's nothing in the article about this minor development. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although the Orange One would love for us to believe otherwise, merely appearing to be on the path -- if only very briefly -- to doing something notable does not actually equal doing something notable.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

US Open

 * Oppose Needs more citations and more prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is just a massive dump of data tables with very little prose, and what's there is poorly referenced. The same is true of the related articles on the mens' and womens' singles. This seems to be a recurrent problem with tennis nominations. There needs to be a fully-referenced prose summary of the tournament before we can consider posting this. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ram Jethmalani

 * Comment: He's still incumbent even though he died? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 04:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Hurricane Noah your concern seems to be fixed already, please post on the article page if not.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I have fixed the referencing issues and added myself to the nomination. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I Agree to nominate it. Abishe 06:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs copyediting. "Jethmalani was married at an age of little above 18...", "...with a first class first at the young age of 17", "He was also a member of International Bar Association 1996", etc. Not thrilled with the bulleted list in the middle, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to have that in the article.  Spencer T• C 03:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues with regards to copy-editing stand fixed per my edits. With regards to the prose v. list, I am in favour of the former. The bulleted list does look quite off. Looking forward to hear from you, User:DBigXray. I say we go for the prose. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * issues pointed by above. User:Tamravidhir please proceed and make the list prose.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Issues pointed out byUser:Spencer stand resolved. The list has also been converted to prose. The article appears ready to be on the main page. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support horrendous reference placement and use of semi-colons, but nothing major standing in the way, marked as good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready eight hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready, eleven hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Camilo Sesto
Comment Just got home from work. I will help on improving the article as well. Erick (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sources required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources required? Check better the article and you will see it's very well referenced.Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A cursory look shows a lot of Youtube videos and a homemade presentation on Prezi among the sources cited in the article; not sure if that's what TRM is referring to, but is something that could use some attention in the article.  Spencer T• C 18:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on the article, but I don't have the time today to continue. I'll either do it tomorrow or Thursday as I'm off work that day. Erick (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * and }, how does the sourcing in the article look now? Erick (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Concerns have been addressed above.  Spencer T• C 04:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Dobson

 * Support article is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article is satisfactory. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Robert Axelrod

 * Oppose tables and lists unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A stub and a table. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Oldest mother

 * Oppose, but this is clearly a potential DYK if the article can get to length. --M asem (t) 01:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb needs to be modified in that there are still mothers at 74 alive. She is the oldest at 74 to give birth though. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Would work as a "Did you know", though. Otherwise it's not newsworthy. --  Rockstone   talk to me!   02:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly interesting, but it's best suited for the DYK section per the above comments.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 03:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I thank for nominating this article. But I also feel that the article can be nominated to DYK instead of ITN section as what above users ponder. Abishe 05:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is unfortunately trivia in all respects. No significance; zero impact. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - enough for inclusion but not at ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Amazon rainforest wildfires

 * Weak oppose I know as I've been a major editor on that article that there's no much updating going on. They are still going on, yes, but it was a couple weeks of intensive coverage right before G7 and at this point, attention has died down. (A fact to keep in mind is that these fires happen every year, it was the major uptick this year that drew eyes). --M asem (t) 16:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Ongoing is for events that are heavily in the news, and facing fresh updates on a regular basis. This was big headlines a couple of weeks ago, mainly because of the unexpectedly high count, but it's now back to the normal coverage you'd expect in this season. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we place it in the "Ongoing events" we'll have to place it every single year since every single year there are wildfires in Amazon.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. 95.93.184.195 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It is still main news in Brazil and appears every day in newspapers around the world. 87.196.72.116 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Hurricane Dorian

 * Support on the humanitarian crisis in the Bahamas. (Note, I did suggest Noah to renom now with Dorian about to fall off). --M asem (t) 16:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The extent of the devastation in Bahamas is only now becoming clear, and there will be an extended relief and recovery period. Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas is a better target article, but I have no particular preference. It is still possible that the effects of Dorian on North Carolina will be significant. Plus the 'Alabama' controversy is refusing to die down. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus Dorian is making landfall in Nova Scotia as either a hurricane or hurricane-force extra tropical storm. That’s partly why I added both articles. <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 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but maybe we should change the text. Something like: Hurricane Dorian continues to make landfall in North Carolina and Nova Scotia, as well as the unimaginable destruction and deaths in the Bahamas. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The storm is going for ongoing due to the humanitarian crisis and is about to get bumped off ITN altogether. <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 13:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chester Williams

 * Support looks good enough. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good shape. – Lefcentreright  Talk  08:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Chandrayaan-2

 * This is ITNR because it reached its destination(if unsuccessfully, it seems). 331dot (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We had that question at Beresheet - it was ultimately marked NOT ITNR when archived, hence why I left it off here. Regardless still think it is valid to post as a non-ITNR on its own. --M asem (t) 22:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending update to the body of the article (not just introduction). While not the result that the Indian space program was looking for, the mission is an important step in Indian space capabilities. Article overall is in solid condition and is well-referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – We have an update to the body completed. There are some minor cn but this is not a BLP. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just coming to add that I fleshed out the body and also added some reaction/importance of the mission too. --M asem (t) 06:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment why is this marked as ITNR? I thought it was a lunar lander, not a lunar probe?  It didn't reach its destination.  Which clause of ITNR covers this?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations. Success or failure, it has arrived. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's not a probe, it's a lunar lander. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not designed to be a probe at least..Anyways, if I had to guess on interpreting that section of ITNR, I would say that a soft-landing would be rarer/harder than a hard landing, so the intent was to include both impacters and landers with that bullet point. I'm assuming 'arrival' didn't intend to mean 'probably crash land', but that's my take on the ITNR portion of this.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The orbiter reached its destination, and is apparently still functional. TompaDompa (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support after an official statement comes out on the likely outcome of the mission (it probably crashed, but we can hold out hope). An alt blurb would be needed in that case. If they take a couple days to publicly state the outcome of the mission my mind can be changed to the current blurb.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR as that covers only "lunar probes." I've removed the tag, though that does not mean this cannot be posted, just it's not ITNR – Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have proposed specifically adding landers and artificial impactors to ITN/R. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The orbiter would presumably still count as a lunar probe. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The lander was not just supposed to land and be done with it. It was going to deploy a rover and take scientific measurements.  That, combined with the vehicle itself, would seem to meet the definition of a probe and as such I still contend this is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above MSN12102001 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Contact to the lander was lost 400m above surface, not 2.1km above . Could someone please update the text? Thanks! Tkarcher (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Duncan

 * It needs more sourcing. I'll try to work on it through tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose half of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's all sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Qadir (cricketer)

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Let's go! HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carol Lynley

 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support great work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails MOS:INTRO with sparse, one-sentence lead.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing oppose based on updates (no time for further review).—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Extensive work has been done on the article to fix all the issues. Please review again if it is now ready to post. ping. The Rambling Man, Bagumba -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - good job, article is fixed now.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted by User:Stephen as discussed here. Can someone post the credits. thanks.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Credit given.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Robert Mugabe

 * Support blurb You beat me to it. For better or for worse he turned Rhodesia into Zimbabwe and transformed the nation for over 30 years. GA article. EternalNomad (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per EternalNomad. Banedon (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No question that article is thoroughly sourced, and even as just a former major world leader is good for a blurb, but even moreso for what he did. Image has been added to protection queue. --M asem (t) 05:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Mugabe was one of the most controversial (I'm being restrained there) figures in post-colonial African history. The article is GA and solidly referenced. The section on his death needs expansion, and there may be a few areas that will need changes in tense but I'm not seeing anything that is likely to require a lot of work before posting this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Of course per others-- Booth  Sift  05:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was one of the most controversial political figures in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, his article has been listed as a good article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 06:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - top of the field for Zimbabweans.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb internationally renowned personality. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support to the tune of that White Stripes song - "Oh, Robert Mugabe..."  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting, strong consensus for a blurb. Please start the process for updating the photo. --Tone 06:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I am late to this party. :) – Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb but PLEASE FIX THE PHOTO NOW!!!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - I'm late, but I'm very happy to see how uncontroversial this recent death blurb was.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Toledo

 * Oppose as it is heavily unsourced and mainly incomplete for an ITN. <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 22:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the existing sourcing issues and expanded the page throughout to include more about his career, hopefully this helps it meet the standard for ITN Valley17 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now as it looks much better. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Two citations needed in the lede but otherwise OK to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Citations for the lede have been added Valley17 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good work, thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Abid Ali (actor)

 * Oppose Unfortunately, it's not just unreferenced sections, but the lack of depth of coverage into Ali's career that will also prevent this from being posted. Needs more prose expansion.  Spencer T• C 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Chris March

 * Still has some unsourced sentences now  starship .paint  (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kiran Nagarkar

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good referenced, good to go; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Great Oxidation Event

 * Oppose Not really a current event at all, and the article hasn't had a major update in awhile -mike_gigs (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stale by about 2 billion years.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose At best this is an unconfirmed theory that has made its way into the news through pop science. The media is famous for reporting the initial results of scientific studies, but not for the rebuttals that disprove those studies later.  At worst, it's not a current event and therefore not relevant to "in the news" even if it ends up being true.  DYK might be a better place for this.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Dorian
±


 * Comment It's already on the Main page, having been posted on September 1. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment And it is unlikely to scroll off over the next two days (when the expected threat will be to the US coast) - we can update if/when it causes damage there. --M asem (t) 02:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It will likely be rolled off or expire and be removed (one week = rolled off) while still significant. I don't think an actual blurb can adequately summarize all that has happened and will happen since this is a significant storm in many ways. The impacted area of this storm is simply huge and too much to really discuss in a blurb. This has a decent chance to make landfall in Canada as a hurricane (if not that then as a hurricane-force extratropical system). Even if it doesn't, it will still bring hurricane and TS winds to most or all of the eastern coast for multiple days. The main issue I see here is this is an ongoing event rather than something that is done and over with. This is unusual in the regard that most hurricanes only get blurbs once they are dissipated. The fact this is and will have a significant impact for several days is why I am requesting the move to ongoing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Iff it makes landfall into Canada, we can IAR and manually push the blurb date up. What is important is that we rarely keep natural disasters in the ongoing as the coverage of the disaster recovery can take weeks to years. --M asem (t) 02:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article simply needs to be kept up to date in order for it to remain on the ongoing. It will likely not remain updated for weeks. Once the updating and news coverage dies down, it could be removed. The issue I have is the storm requiring multiple blurbs and constant updating as it causes damage in new areas. There is already a significant list of impacted areas. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A detailed listing of impacted areas in the blurb would be inappropriate. Perhaps wording such as "the Caribbean and the eastern coast of the United States" would be better and more stable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First, the next 24hr will tell us if we need to update the blurb for the US to see how it scraps the coast and damage it did. (It scraped Florida and did nearly nothing to be reported -- hopefully that will be the same in the Carolinas. But if it did, we'd update the current blurb and likely move it up to 9/5. Then, if the storm continued and landfell in Canada (a rarity) and did significant damage, we can update yet again. But after the storm disappaites to a tropical storm or less, we no longer consider that in the news, even though we know in newspapers they will be covering the damage for weeks. In other words, we don't put things like hurricans to ongoing, but simply update and re-stamp the blurb. --M asem (t) 03:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, we have had multiple deaths in both of those states. We did post Cyclone Idai to ongoing earlier this year, so such a thing has been done in the past. If not, a more stable wording would be required. <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 03:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two dudes accidentally fell off ladders before the storm. That's not natural disaster impact. Just bad luck, gravity and maybe dizziness. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us see how much damage Hurricane Dorian will do in the USA and maybe but unlikely Canada. As per above, two people falling off ladders is not a result of the hurricane. -- Booth  Sift  06:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When Idai fell off the topic list, it was made ongoing because there was still a huge humanitarian crisis, at that point, 15,000 still missing and rising flood waters. Now, I'm not saying that we're not going to have potential issues in the States, but I've never seen a hurricane cost that many lives in a first world country. I'm not saying it can't get worse, but that's why it is better to wait to see if the storm is still threatening in the next day or so, as right now, it is not in any danger of being stale from ITN. --M asem (t) 04:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - As soon as the current blurb ”falls away”.BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We'd need at least 2 and possibly 3 blurbs to bump this, and there is currently only one active blurb nom (which has a forecast for SNOW).   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Conte Cabinet

 * I've gone back and forth on this...I'm leaning support because this is a significant change in the political direction of the country, right? That they kept the same PM is almost beside the point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they swapped a center/center right coalition for a center/center left/left wing coalition. I feel like some of that should be in the blurb, but I couldn't think of any way to elegantly state it. Rockphed (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Support  – This is the moment we've been waiting for since last week. Note that BBC says "Italy's new populist-centre left government has been appointed." – Sca (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Based on previous nom when this was getting into motion. Article is fine. Blurb could explain a bit more about why this came about as an out-of-process leadership change. --M asem (t) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all the latter sections of the article are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so at this point, but I'd rather see Eng.-lang. references than Italian, this being the English-language Wiki. There are plenty of sources in English. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Stale. Suggest close . – Sca (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, too late now. But note that today is the day the government should be confirmed in the Parliament, so it could still count as recent. However thanks for your suggestions, I added more English-language sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine parliamentary confirmation will be a procedural footnote. Too bad, as politically this coalition was quite significant. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more recent than Hurricane Dorian and the boat fire.Rockphed (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it fresh. – Sca (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – But hey, maybe this does: "Italy's Conte pledges new start, wins confidence vote in parliament." Story quotes him promising "a new era of reforms" and to work constructively with the European Union. If we had a good update, I'd support. – Sca (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow there is the final vote in the Senate (today it won the support of the lower house already), so that might be a good occasion because it will be officially in full power. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – In principle, when relevant section is updated with footnotes in English. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's done. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Etchegaray

 * Oppose tagged for more refs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bmclaughlin9 has done some great work in sourcing this article. The Rambling Man requesting a fresh review.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. There’s no tag anymore. I’ve added 6 citations from 4 sources. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Stephen can someone post the credits? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by Stephen.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Blanca Fernández Ochoa

 * Article has many unsourced claims...  starship .paint  (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Ellis

 * Comment The article needs updating - "This is likely to be his final appeal as he has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and only has a few months left to live."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed to "had five weeks". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Lindbergh

 * Oppose inadequate lead and too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * please look again, I wrote some lead, and added references, adding myself to updaters. No idea why I have to write a lead, when there are people who know the article and English better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is still some unreferenced info... at a glance: Pedro Almodóvar's movie poster for Talk To Her (2002) ... ; Tina Turner's singles "The Best" (1989), "I Don't Wanna Lose You" (1989), and "Foreign Affair" (1990), albums Foreign Affair (1989) and Wildest Dreams (1996), and directed the videoclip for Turner's single "Missing You"; Sheryl Crow's The Globe Sessions (1998) and "My Favorite Mistake" (1998); Lionel Ritchie's Time (1998) album; Beyoncé's I am... Sasha Fierce (2008) and I Am... World Tour promotional pictures; Mika's No Place In Heaven (2015)  starship .paint  (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a ref and commented some details out. Will try to return them with refs, but this great person really should be honoured soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 100k views over the last 2 days, - seems a shame not to name him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And now?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now seems ready to go. --M asem (t) 18:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José de Jesús Pimiento Rodríguez

 * Weak oppose for a 100-year-old cardinal, the career section is sorely lacking. Three sentences?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section and added some more references. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 03:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with the expansion and sourcing.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Brexit negotiations

 * Oppose - The Brexit ongoing item covers this. No need for two Brexit-related ongoing items.--WaltCip (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The negotiations ended on 25 November 2018. . Wakari07 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Apparently this nom aims to remove Brexit from ongoing. Especially strange because Brexit was all over the news today, even here in the U.S. Davey2116 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal I'm seeing lots of new updates. Boris has to call for an election? We're not removing this yet, I can predict that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please ignore or delete this nomination, as I confused with the ongoing events sidebar. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018–19 Korean peace process

 * Wait, what? Korean peace process isn't even listed in Ongoing, please take a look at the actual Ongoing section before making a nomination to remove something -- Booth  Sift  22:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm confused, mixing up with ongoing events in the sidebar. Sorry. Can someone delete this? Wakari07 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergei Kirpichenko

 * Oppose Too many dead-end links standing out like sore thumbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (if "dead-end links" equals "red links", that's not a problem). Everything there is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, the red. In my eyes, telling the readers three of a man's four jobs and most who held them aren't notable suggests he's similar, despite his article existing. And pretty much the only source, ostensibly independent from the Kremlin, is Sputnik, which could normally seem unsatisfactory. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red links don't indicate non-notability, especially non-English-based articles. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing still seems too primary, in any language. Creation date suggests nobody here had heard of him during his career. Few mainpagers should likely care to know someone like that died. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous argument. A lot of people (such as me) are interested in Russian history and politics (as well as those of other non-English speaking countries) but are unable to write articles about them due to the lack of language skills. I'm grateful for editors like who've done a lot to address this deficiency. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the language of origin isn't part of the problem or my argument. I'm also grateful for native speakers and machine translation, we live in an interesting world. It'd bug me to see a posthumously-created Englishman bio without significant secondary coverage featured on a site where nobody had read he was ever alive, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While scanning for potential DYK hooks, I found only two active accomplishments: studying in Moscow and learning three languages. Call me crazy, but shouldn't a quality article about a notable diplomat give a little information on what he did to stay appointed and occupied for so long, or why he received awards? Needs more action, on top of the rest (except the redlinks, I've grown fond of those in principle now). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - article is fully sourced. Red links are not an issue as long as they conform to WP:REDYES. Numerous notable Russian topics lack en articles, which is a problem for en-wiki as a whole, not an issue for this article. -Zanhe (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - redlinks are fine.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Ma

 * Support - well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 11 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 18 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 24 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - short and sweet. Would the admin posting this also look at August 29's Kazuo Wada before it is archived...  starship .paint  (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ..And while the admin is at it, he should also look at Aug 29s Jim Langer for posting.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Sinking of MV Conception

 * Note the death count is now at 25 confirmed dead, and the remaining 9 missing are also expected to be dead. Regarding my vote, the article is too short as of right now, but I imagine the sources needed to expand the article are being written up by the newspapers as I type this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This needs to be thoroughly fleshed out before posting. Otherwise, it reads like "sailing holiday revelers die in accident" which is both mundane not at all what happened.130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose although mildly surprising that it remains a micro-stub. An unusual accident in a developed country.  Needs serious expansion before could be considered suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support that this would happen in a country like the US is unheard of. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once we get the article up to shape. I honestly don't think there's been this many deaths from a ship fire in US littoral waters since the Morro Castle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article is stub length.  If it becomes long enough in the next few days, I can re-evaluate it, but as of right now, we cannot put such an article on the main page; it would contain no more useful information than the blurb would.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article has been sufficiently expanded since I last made comments. Looks good!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notability is pretty firm with that many causalities. I think the article is now long enough. Teemu08 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but I think the article could use a little more work, which unfortunately I don't have time for at the moment. Even though the search efforts were just suspended, this will likely be a big news story for a bit while an investigation is launched into the cause and the wreckage is searched. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Article looks much better now. Fully support with thanks to Masem and Leaky.Solar for their work. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been reasonably expanded since I nominated (and I've added a bit more). However, I cannot see much further expansion until a full investigation has been done as to determine the cause and downstream effects. It should be ready for ITN posting now. --M asem (t) 19:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 20:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a photo released by the local Calif. sherrif's office of the ship on fire (mostly dark so not like horrific). Placed into the image protection queue. --M asem (t) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Papua protests

 * Oppose - Can OP provide a source contradicting today's current events? Indonesia announced that additional curbs on the freedom of assembly and expression are in place + they just sent 6,000 extra troops to the region. Also maybe only "appears" to have cooled down because of ongoing Internet censorship. Wakari07 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sending in the troops and suspending civil liberties worked as a wet blanket long before the Internet. If anything, the Internet makes quashed rebellions and oppressed people appear hotter than they are. If the actual mob is piping down and dispersing, the real party's over. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that's an "if". Why would there be Calls to end violence in West Papua reported today, if the violence has ended? If anything, journalists reporting Papua unrest struggle to deliver news amid internet blackout. Wakari07 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would a reporter mention increasing violence when Taylor's statement doesn't? I'd be wary of spreading fake news, too, if I was calming unrest. Let it burn out, I still say. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb and removal from ongoing Per my comment below on the original nom.  Spencer T• C 15:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and removal from ongoing - Important enough for includion at ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Article is still being actively updated with current events. No need for a blurb, there's already a link directing people to the article.  I'm fine with it as it is.  If it ever stops being updated with current events, we can discuss removing it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we post a blurb, which one? --Tone 08:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, seems to have gone stale. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As of today, Papuan independence protests continue after alleged shooting of three students What is your source? Wakari07 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Stale" is a term used here on ITN/N to indicate that the event's blurb would have dropped off the bottom of ITN already had it been posted in a timely manner. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Leave it where it's: Ongoing section. Nothing more is needed here. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Dorian

 * Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Historic. 184.151.230.135 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Good-looking article and being covered almost everywhere. Spengouli (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as proposed. I would wait until we get some view of the impact of the hurricane rather than just highlight it tying with some other hurricane (and honestly, it's extremely unlikely that the wind speeds of this hurricane and those in the 1935 event are identical).  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dorian is in fact tied with the 1935 Labor Day hurricane for the most intense wind speeds at landfall: 185 miles per hour. Whether or not they're exactly identical isn't relevant when assessing tropical cyclone records, as we're using the rounded 1-minute sustained wind speed (as that is what the national hurricane center does).     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Dorian has already made several landfalls across the Caribbean islands, but for it to actually make landfall at wind speeds stronger than that of even Hurricane Irma is exceptional beyond words.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Hurricane Dorian is truly historic -- Booth  Sift  20:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. No good reason not to include this hurricane as a major event and as matching the record for highest winds with a landfalling Atlantic hurricane on record. As for The Rambling Man's comment, official tropical cyclone winds are rounded off in fives. Master of Time   ( talk ) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting, feel free to adjust the blurb. --Tone 20:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tone—Image? Abequinn14 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was not in the image prot queue. It's added now, but waiting for the bot to do its work. --M asem  (t) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Image now up. --M asem (t) 02:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the blurb read "landfall in the Bahamas" rather than "landfall on the Bahamas"? The Bahamas is not an island but a country; Dorian has made landfall on Great Abaco. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  21:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If wind and rain falls, hitting land without going through, that's falling "on". Earthquakes hit "in" these island country places. "At" could work, mapwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with TortoiseWrath and disagree with this suggestion. I can't say I've ever seen "makes landfall on" used, and every article I can find says "makes landfall in."     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 07:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of AccuWeather, UPI and Free Republic, I assume. "They" tell it like it is today. But I don't mind "in"; still true, just in a political geography way, not geological. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Storm surge: 20-25 feet above sea level "Robert Rohde (a.k.a. User:Dragons flight)
 * Replying to @TravisCC In the audio, he estimates the water as 20-25 feet above sea level. That is consistent with the forecast storm surge.  :Unfortunately, large portions of the island would be under water at that point...". Count Iblis (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)