Open main menu

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.


Volodymyr Zelensky
Volodymyr Zelensky

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...Edit

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


April 24Edit

Disasters and accidents

April 23Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • Murder of Karina Vetrano
    • In the United States, Chanel Lewis is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 2016 murder of Karina Vetrano. The judge had earlier declined the defense's motion of a re-trial due to what they alleged to be police and juror misconduct. (ABC)
Science and technology

RD: Jean, Grand Duke of LuxembourgEdit

Article: Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ref issues and yellow tags. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Once all issues sorted out, perhaps propose a blurb. This guy was like, local version of king for 36 years. Kingsif (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment His titles and honors need references. The rest of the article is probably satisfactory for RD. As he abdicated a long time ago this is not ITNR and I don't think his importance justifies a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22Edit

Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

RD: Lê Đức AnhEdit

Article: Lê Đức Anh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Jakarta Post, The Straits Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former head of state, helped defeat the Khmer Rouge. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) 2019 Luzon earthquakeEdit

Article: 2019 Luzon earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in an earthquake in Luzon, Philippines.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in a series of earthquakes in Luzon, Philippines.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated

 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Was going to nominate it myself. Article looks decent enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems good to go. And for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not significant. Low death toll and magnitude Rockin 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support News sources are reporting this, and the article is of high enough quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Altblurb to note two major quakes so far have been reported in the same. --Masem (t) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I need to redact that. Apparently the second quake is not connected to the first one despite being in the same region and <24 hr later. I'm not seeing any deaths/injuries tied to the Visayas one, yet, so I wouldn't combined them. --Masem (t) 17:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I think it might still be better. There have been 421 aftershocks. I have a sinking feeling there will be more.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
        • As long as those are the Luzon quake aftershocks, then that's fine. I had heard about the Visayas quake, but now that I know its not connected, that should be kept separate (and right now, 0 deaths == not an ITN thing). --Masem (t) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @Masem: Do you support posting now? I think the article is ready. The original blurb is fine by me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Quality is good. --Masem (t) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support notable and article is well cited. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Julio César ToresaniEdit

Article: Julio César Toresani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Nacion, Teller Report, El Mundo

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Argentinian football soccer player and manager. Played for three of the biggest teams in Argentina. He was depressed and committed suicide. Most of news about his death are in Spanish. --SirEdimon (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's not going to win any awards but it's just about ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems at least to need some referencing work. There seems to be no source at all for all the results in the infobox, and many teams mentioned there that aren't in the text, but I can't see how to tag that. I've tagged a few others that seem to be missing but I don't read Spanish so they might well be in the existing sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy McNeillEdit

Article: Billy McNeill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Celtic FC, BBC Sport

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish Football Hall of Fame member; record holder of most appearances for Celtic; captained the Celtic team that won the 1966–67 European CupJmorrison230582 (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • 'Oppose Support Went through it and several statements need referenced. Given iconic nature among Celtic fans am sure this will be done quickly.

Look fine now, nothing especially contentious I can see.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted --Jayron32 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Hannelore ElsnerEdit

Article: Hannelore Elsner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Welt and others

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German actress, a national institution with a career of 50 years, late (2000) international recognition. Article was a stub. There could be more, but on a funeral day in real life, and with another woman to cover, this is it for now. The list of films (which I found and left) could possibly be shortened. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support a dn needs resolving in (currently) ref 1, but otherwise this is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What's a dn? Ref 1 looks ok now. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
{{dn}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Tagesschau went to a disambiguation page. I was so sure that was a primary topic, - well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems well-referenced, and although she was probably internationally not as well-known as Bruno Ganz, she was one of Germany's most familiar actresses with a continuing presence until her death. --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking good, @Gerda Arendt:, but I'd like a source for her birthname of Elstner (or hide this text in lead & infobox) before posting. (There's also another minor sourcing issue tagged that need not hold up posting, imo.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Birth name and marriages sourced. More obits over night, - anybody welcome to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Not seeing much in English; I'll take another look this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Polly HigginsEdit

Article: Polly Higgins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish lawyer, and pioneer of the ecocide recognition movement, dies at age 50. Article has sourcing problems. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until references are added for claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've expanded and referenced, though I've only been able to find her organisation/personal site/PR material to support the honorary degree/professorship. That could perhaps be removed if necessary. Pinging @The Rambling Man: to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: David LamaEdit

Article: David Lama (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Not confirmed dead yet (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The IP is right. All the sources say "presumed dead".--SirEdimon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - until confirmed. Then Support.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - reopened as death has been confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Very notable mountaineer. Article is ready. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:6D6E:4CB4:B734:395F (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe a blurb for all 3 is reasonable. We did that for those 3 athletes that died in a helicopter crash about 4 years ago. Particular if all 3 are in good sharep. --Masem (t) 04:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the idea in principle, but Auer is a short stub, and neither of the other two is properly developed, despite their presumed deaths having been in the news several days ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The news today is that the bodies were found, so its no longer guessing. --Masem (t) 05:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple tags, several sections are unsourced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ukrainian presidential electionEdit

Articles: Volodymyr Zelensky (talk, history) and 2019 Ukrainian presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: Volodymyr Zelensky wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
Alternative blurb: ​Comedian Volodymyr Zelensky wins the Ukrainian presidential election by a wide margin.
Alternative blurb II: ​Political newcomer Volodymyr Zelensky, known for playing a comical president on TV, wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: Volodymyr Zelensky (pictured) wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
News source(s): BBC, AFP, Reuters, dpa, AP

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Open to suggestions on the blurb (this is my first ITN nomination). Funcrunch (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I've slightly copyedited the blurb per standard practice. Brandmeistertalk 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I included the "political newcomer" bit in my suggested blurb because that seems to be what is most newsworthy. (Not only a newcomer, but a comedian known for playing the part on TV that he's now more or less replicating in real life.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb – Of five RS sources, one, AFP, declares Zelensky victor outright, while four say he's won "a landslide" but hedge with references to exit polls. AFP says he drew 73 percent to Poroshenko's 25.5 percent. (Four sources added above.)Sca (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support not altblurb which is loaded like a tabloid, we're here to report facts, not spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Comment – (a) "A wide margin" is not sensationalism at all. (b) All RS sources above – none of which is a tabloid – use more effusive terminology: "Wins presidency by landslide" (BBC), "Appears headed for landslide victory" (AP), "wins Ukrainian presidential race by landslide" (Reuters), "becomes president-elect in landslide win" (AFP), "drubs Poroshenko" (dpa).
    Regarding the snide comment, "Spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting," I'm getting tired of these kinds of disparaging, belittling comments, which violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF, among others. Please desist once and for all. – Sca (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    You're not making any sense. I commented on the content not the commentator. I don't even know who constructed the journalistic alt, nor does it matter. Give the threats a rest, boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support yes, this is an okay thing to happen. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The filmography and TV appearances sections seem to be completely unreferenced. Support alt3 is these issues are fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't the election article be the target here? ITN/R is for the election, not the candidate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. A comedian with no political experience winning a presidential election is funny, but I don't think it's necessary to highlight. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb The extra details in the other proposed blurbs are not consistent with our normal practice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Not that I necessarily support "funny" (per Zetta) alt blurb, but just because an event is ITN/R, that doesn't mean the blurb has to fit a mold; why not write a blurb that accurately presents the news being reported, since recurring events are still going to be different each time. Here, the not-politician who has done no campaigning won with a landslide, which is remarkable, and also plays the president on a comedy show. Both facts are notable, and half what has put this election in international news (can you remember the last time there were US headlines about a Ukrainian election?) Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment bold the election, not the winning candidate. Election needs a copyedit, I'm not sure this is a normal sentence: " However, March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of parts of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast by separatists (since April 2014), roughly 12% of eligible voters were unable to participate in the elections." --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Election article actually isn't terrible, just bold it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The election should be the target article and it isn't ready: no reactions, it isn't fully updated in the lead and the grey map is probably intended to be colour coded with the results. Also we do not usually post based on non-official results, so please could someone with the appropriate language skills check that the table has the final official results, preferably using inline direct links for clarity. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Reactions are an aftermath to the election and not necessary, and some would argue superflous. The only relevant reaction now, the president's concession is included. We have official preliminary results with more than 70% (updating) 99.27% of the votes counted. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We used to require at least one sourced paragraph of post-result analysis, including such things as a note as to whether the election was considered well conducted, comments on turn out, any discussions over government formation, and how the election result was viewed internally and externally. Otherwise the article provides no real expansion on "x won", and there's no point in linking it. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. I will keep working on expanding the Results section. But AFAIK there has been no contention about the results. Even the incumbent president has Tweeted about the fairness of the elections and mentioned it in his concession speech. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I was talking about the general case of an election. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The map has color,The other map doesn't so I'm guessing it's been updated in the last half hour, since it read well, too. Added picture + alt3. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The first map shows first round. The second map is for second round. The election article is otherwise ready and has a summary of the results. We could use some one SVG skills to update the second map.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment The first round map has been moved to replace the grey one, but there have been prose updates, and it looks ready. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The election article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Don't worry, Ukraine, we have some right comedians in politics here in the UK too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Why hasn't this been posted? Most RSs have shifted to second-day stories, such as "Comedian's win in Ukrainian presidential election poses riddle" at Reuters. All agree on the 73/24% result, which once again is oviously a "wide margin," no two ways about it.
    Updated links: AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    You do know that we aren't concerned with what other news sources do because we aren't a newspaper. Complaints of this nature are not useful to anyone. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No, we aren't a newspaper. But in cases like this all our information comes from RS newspapers or news agencies. Why should we ignore the information they provide about the character of this election? Cuz we're above that sort of thing, or what? Absurd. – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
PS: What do you mean by "other news sources" - ?? ITN is not a news source, it's more or less a news summary. Wiki/ITN dies not have reporters covering news events; it's entirely dependent on news entities for information about such events. – Sca (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
More useful to the readers (remember them?) would be a blurb that told something about the nature of the election and its results. One of the possibilities in this election was that Poroshenko would be reelected. That he wasn't, and that political neophyte Zelensky outpolled him by a wide margin, shows how widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions is in Ukraine. It makes no sense to exclude that fact from the blurb. Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If readers want to learn more, they are allowed to read the article. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
And if they don't want to read the article, ignorance is bliss? – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted alt3, keeping with tradition. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Boring. What does an internal ITN 'tradition' have to do with real events in the real world? Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We aren't interested in being exciting. We're interested in being correct. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Please explain why "by a wide margin" (73-24%) is incorrect. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 The bolded article should be the election.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the fact that he was a comedian before becoming the president should be mentioned in the blurb. That's what a all of the major media networks mentioned in their titles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Sri Lanka bombingsEdit

Article: 2019 Sri Lanka bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 138 people are reported to have been killed and hundreds are injured in explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Details are not known as it is developing. Will update blurb as soon as more news comes through. Unnamed source tells AFP "at least 80 people had been admitted to hospital in the capital". Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Would it be appropriate to withdraw this until we have enough information to consider a blurb. Given the little that we know, this seems to be a suitable candidate once the article is more than a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is growing and well-referenced. The topic is significant enough for a blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb should be updated before posting. The article is developing with new information so wait for some time so we have some accurate information before posting. Incident is clearly important. -Nizil (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as is, number can be updated again as appropriate even after the blurb is on the main page. (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • support Sadads (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – This has an almost 100% chance of being posted. Give it an hour or two for the page to develop properly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable event/tragedy. --AntanO 08:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support needs to be posted ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. I have used 156 as the highest figure I could confirm (NDTV), please keep it updated. -- King of ♠ 08:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment at 443 words it could be considered a stub. What was the reason to express this to the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Nope, see WP:STUB. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I did. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well you can lead a horse to water. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    But you can't make it post articles to the Wikipedia main page with sentences like "Explosion in Dematagoda reported from a housing complex in Mahavila Udyana Road."
    If you find it so upsetting, you are welcome to fix it. In the meantime, trying to claim this was posted as a stub is not the way to do things to improve article quality, now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article has lost its front page quality. Do we pull? Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Background is missing, reaction information is more than all other information on the page. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, good work. Better to help improve the article, rather than wasting everyone's time debating pull/post/pull/re-pull, like the Notre Dame fire article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't pull an article that is obviously the top story on every news outlet around the world. Good call to keep news items in the news. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks adequate for now, although the reactions are basically padding, IMO.
Let's not go down the pushmi-pullyu path again. Sca (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Article is not of excellent quality, but it's clearly improving. Echo Fuzheado; this obviously belongs at the ITN. Once, the media-blackout is pulled, I hope to see a much well-documented article. WBGconverse 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I would stress that article quality has to take into account of the location of these type of events. If this event took place in a major 1st World city (eg like the fire at Notre Dame) I would fully expect many many more details. But Sri Lanka is not a First World country, news is generally slower there, and with the social media blackout imposed, it will be even slower. What is there (excluding the international reaction section) is pretty damn good in this situation. The article is sufficiently well structured to make it easy for new contributors to add to it. And unlike the Paris fire, there's not a massive rush of edits, it is relatively more stable. So seems fine at this point. --Masem (t) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are all valid reasons to keep the article at an AFD, but it doesn't explain why it is important to feature an article on the main page which is as light on details as this article. It was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
How about ITN Purpose #1: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news? Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, we still want quality, but I stress that what that quality is varies on what exactly happened. I am willing to give an event in a more remote/less technically advanced country the benefit of doubt of lack of details compared to something happening in a major Western city where there is no shortage to news. There's enough details of this event, and the necessary organization, to make it postable for something happening in Sri Lanka, but wouldnt' be appropriate if it were an event in the US or the like. --Masem (t) 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Did I say the subject is inappropriate for the main page? No, I did not. I said that there was no reason to rush the article out. The attacks section is still laughably short. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually agreeing with Laser here; I'm working on the article but getting it clean and correct is hard with a lot of disruptive IPs and the well-meaning edits from users that are uncited and/or in poor English. It's better, but still has enough issues for two templates at the top. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The attacks section may be short compared to if this happened in Europe or the US, but that's because of Sri Lanka not being a highly advanced countries, remote enough that Western reporters are going to be a bit slower on uptake, and that there is a social media block out, which is going to delay info getting out. When this was posted, the major attacks were all IDd and an initial death toll had been made. We're still waiting on the "who" but we had what, when, and where all covered and the rest will take time to get filtered to the WEstern news. --Masem (t) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
More updated now, happy to be posted. I objected not on content, per se, but on written quality and layout.Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever., well wrong, twice over. Firstly what was said above, it clearly meets one of the major pillars of ITN, to publish information on events that people come here to see (e.g. how many pageviews do you think it'll have by tomorrow? how many complaints from actual readers have we had about its appearance, either upon posting or now??), but secondly, clear consensus to post. Really, if we're trying to translate "two real reasons" into "no reason at all, none whatsoever", I think there's a problem in understanding here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, TRM, as always you've added clarity and aided in my understanding of how best to help the project. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You're very welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 20Edit

Armed conflict and attacks
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline SaburidoEdit

Article: Jacqueline Saburido (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Saburido suffered severe burns as a result of an accident caused by a drunk driver and became a famous speaker and campaigner against drink driving appearing in several TV shows and public campaign alerting about the consequences of driving under influence. The article is fine for me. I fixed some dead links and update information regarding her death. --SirEdimon (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • OpposeSupport purely on article quality—whilst well-written, it reads like a narrative of the entire accent with bare-bones for the rest of the content. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Updated article to be less storytime about other people-y. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourced. And definitely a person that has recieved enough of pulblicity and attention overall for over 20 years to be RD worthy. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ready for posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The photo is copyrighted by the Texas State Department. I did not remove it as a courtesy to Kingsif to correct me if I am wrong. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposing based on a photo? Remove the photo and then discuss it with Kingsif.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:COPYVIO is a basic tenet on the Main Page and Wikipedia in general. I could be mistaken about the license. Forgive me if I am not quick to revert an edit made by another editor. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems fine for me, but as there's a reasonable doubt I removed it myself until Kingsif is able to clarify it. I'm prety sure that Kingsif will not be offended about it.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Not offended at all :) does Texas not come under "original work of the US government", which all bears no copyright? Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Each subnational government in the U.S. has its own copyright laws. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Great, should probably PROD it on Commons then Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be rude of me when I know the user who uploaded it is active almost everyday and they can self nominate for deletion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The article appears well written and minimally comprehensive. Restored ready mark.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Monir Shahroudy FarmanfarmaianEdit

Article: Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, The Art Newspaper

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article looks pretty solidly sourced. Only showed up in the news today, though she died on April 20 Challenger l (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Xiao YangEdit

Article: Xiao Yang (judge) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Caixin, BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of China. Article is fully referenced. Zanhe (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Turpin caseEdit

Apparently of insular interest and significance outside the US as well as sordid and perhaps sensationalized. Withdrawn so we can move on. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Turpin case (talk, history)
Blurb: David and Louise Turpin are sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after they plead guilty to several criminal counts including torture, child abuse, and false imprisonment.
News source(s): The Independent, The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A high quality article about a subject that has been of significant interest in popular culture as well as the news media. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose yes there's some moderate news coverage, yes the article's of decent quality, but it's a lurid story of limited encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have to sadly oppose this. It is a national story brought to international attention because it happened in the US. Not saying its not notable or within Wiki criteria, but just not for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen this in the news at all, ever, and hadn't heard of it until I saw this nom. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Lyra McKeeEdit

Article: Lyra McKee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Journalist shot dead during a riot in Northern Ireland. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable death because of background, and circumstances in which it occurred. Also received international coverage. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per This is Paul. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing Ready. Let's slow down a little here; it's unclear to me whether or not the subject was notable prior to her death. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe she meets WP:CREATIVE but I can understand the hesitation.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Now appears adequately sourced and developed. I think the subject's notability before her death is very questionable; the standards for journalists are very (too?) tough and she would not have been eligible as an author (requires a minimum of two published, reviewed books); such figures appear at Speedy quite often, in my experience. Let's see if anyone wants to move it to "Killing of..." but I don't think that needs to hold up an RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extinction RebellionEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Extinction Rebellion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Extinction Rebellion group occupies major road junctions for several days in London to protest climate change, with over 1000 arrested.
News source(s): The Guardian, Telegraph, Met Police arrest count

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Protests have been major news in the UK all week and are being heavily discussed in the media. User:GKFXtalk 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment & Support Added more context to blurb to explain why it's not just a plain ol' protest. Kingsif (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This barely registered as a blip in the World section of the New York Times, who are usually quick to report on these sorts of things if they are notable. So I have my doubts as to the notability of these protests.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Agree with Walt that it's below the radar on most major news sites. (The Guardian, though often a valuable RS, favors these kinds of topics. And the Telegraph 's Thursday piece about Emma Thompson? C'mon.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: News coverage of it has been pretty significant here in the UK. I count eight related headlines on the homepage of the Telegraph, which is much further to the right of the political specrum than the Guardian, and in the paper edition over the last few days it has also taken up a large amount of space. However I will acknoledge that it's been less reported abroad. In terms of notability it's unusual for protestors to be arrested in such large numbers in the UK - over 500 people at this point. It's been even reported that police were running out of cells to hold protestors. As an example of TV news there's this interview on Channel 5, and another on Good Morning Britain. User:GKFXtalk 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Where are you getting "closing stations" from? They caused a brief interruption to service on the Docklands Light Railway for an hour or so, but there's no mention—either in the Wikipedia article or any coverage I can find—of them closing stations, let alone "for several days". ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That wasn't my version of the blurb. I've amended it to focus on the road-based protest and the number of arrests. (ref Met Police on Twitter) User:GKFXtalk 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it's quite un-British to do this (and the French do it practically weekly), it's still not enough for me to be considered worthy of even a passing mention in the year's most encyclopedically interesting events. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll take the risk of disagreeing with TRM, and say that this isn't even un-British. A similar group (probably including most of the same people) were camped out outside St Pauls a couple of years ago, the fuel protestors blocked roads practically weekly in the 2000s, anything with the slightest connection to either GM crops or oil drilling can expect a group of protestors camped out nearby… "Blocking the road" is nowadays the default course of action for any British special-interest group trying to draw attention to whatever cause they're promoting. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: When was the last time over 400 people were arrested, in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well, according to the government, last year, an average of 1914 people were arrested in the UK every single day. Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It seems like a bigger deal than the Boston Marathon, which was a routine local sports event, but is currently in ITN. It looks like there's more to come as people like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg get involved. Andrew D. (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly will not get anywhere. Climate change last year was deemed [next to] irreversible as this point. All the protesters will achieve is legal trouble and (to a degree) embarrassment. (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the reversiblity of climate change or otherwise has a bearing on this ITN candidate. (Also, citation needed!) Nor does anyone appear embarrassed. The relevant factors for notability are the amount of disruption caused, actual or likely impacts on government policy, etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The great unwashed have now gone home, after their mummies and daddies picked them up in their 4x4s. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Lug, if they're riding in Range Rovers their mummies & daddies doubtless made sure they were thoroughly washed before they left home. – Sca (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There's literally still an XR truck and several hundred people chanting on... a bridge... as I type now. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moderate sized protests, no where near in size to what we generally look for at ITN. Long term significance is likely negligible, if that zero. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the good reasons outlined above. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant protests, with a decent article. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has received little coverage outside the UK. The impact of these protests have been very limited. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Capitalistroadster. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 18Edit

Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Lorraine Rita WarrenEdit

Article: Ed and Lorraine Warren (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MSN, NY Daily News, Deadline

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The article is about her and her husband. Her husband died several years ago and she died on April 18. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose because it is missing a biographical section and has no mention of death in prose. The criticism section also needs to be integrate to avoid undue emphasis. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lacking references and the criticism section has an NPOV tag. The media appearances section is unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is in poor shape and contains next-to-no reliably sourced biographical material. Could someone remind me of previous instances when we have published RDs of individuals in this type of joint article? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Mountaineer deathsEdit

Closing/withdrawing this given snowish comments and that one is now posted as RD. --Masem (t) 02:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: David Lama (talk, history) and Jess Roskelley (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mountaineers David Lama, Jess Roskelley, and Hansjörg Auer are killed in an avalanche while climbing Howse Peak in Alberta, Canada.
News source(s): Toronto Star (confimed bodies)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is an alternative to the next 3 immediate RDs, since they all died from the same event. This should be read as either we post the blurb, or we post the RDs, but not both. Masem (t) 05:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I could accept this solution. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb little/no international coverage. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - tragic as they are, the significance of their deaths does not reach the level usually required for ITN blurbs. Besides, out of the three articles, only Roskelley's is close to being ready in terms of quality. -Zanhe (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I think I'd rather see 3 RDs than a blurb for this; a blurb would give this more importance than the news coverage suggests. It also looks like not all three would be ready to post at the same time anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A very sad event but the trio are not exceptionally notable. The avalanche has received some coverage but not enough to justify a blurb. Just post each to RD once article quality is sufficient. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Jess RoskelleyEdit

Article: Jess Roskelley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed per Coffeeandcrumbs There is no mention about it or a citation. Aviartm (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hansjörg AuerEdit

Article: Hansjörg Auer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: article has now been created but still a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Update 2: now Support after expansion by Espresso Addict. -Zanhe (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you kidding? The article currently comprises six sentences. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the great work, Espresso Addict! I've changed by vote to support. -Zanhe (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Mueller ReportEdit

Nominator's comments: After about 2 years of investigations and much anticipation along the way, Attorney General William Barr/Department of Justice has released the Special Counsel's final report to the public. Aviartm (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Ongoing major story which has been in the news around the world for years. Parent article and various sub articles get regular, quality updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing. Stuff will trickle out over the next week or so as people and the news read the report. The release of this report was highly anticipated and is global news. If this is posted as a blurb, the fact that the report was redacted should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We posted when we knew it was completed, so the fact that a (redacted?) version is out was something that was going to happen - whether voluntarily or coerced by Congress. As I suspect that every outside that even slightly off-from-political-center is going to try to find or disprove the evidence towards Russian involvement, we're likely going to be dealing with a lot of POV in the short term (that is, this is not a good state for Ongoing). The better point to post is if the Justice Department seeks any action, or reports they will take no action, against Trump or others from this report. --Masem (t) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Justice Department policy (especially with Barr) is that they can't do anything to President Trump; only Congress can. There were other matters referred out of the SC's office but those were redacted so we don't know what they are(though one is likely Assange) 331dot (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So we can wait for Congress to take action. We posted that it was done, but since no one else can do anything with the redacted version, this is not a ITN point. It's "in the news" but we try to avoid too many stories on the same topic when they are inconsequential updates. --Masem (t) 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Other than more hearings, Congress is not going to take action as Speaker Pelosi has said there will be no impeachment as long as the chance of conviction in the Senate is zero. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Then this is a non-story from an ITN point. We posted that the investigation was complete, and if no one plans to take any action, then its done. I know its all over the news because the media are looking for any dirt to throw, but we don't engage in political mudslinging stories here. --Masem (t) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Good points Masem but if we were to specify any potential action that the Department of Justice might take would still go back to the articles wikilinked in the blurb currently. And the Justice Department has already said they do not plan on charging President Trump or his inner-circle. And the special counsel said they have no more indictments.1 Aviartm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing Concur with the above. This doesn't seem like a blurb-able story, but it's a top news item, and we have a good article to direct people to which is current and up-to-date. Seems to fit ongoing well. --Jayron32 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing per above. Article is pretty good, and it's certainly receiving significant coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article may be renamed to just "Mueller report" per my suggestion there. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Didn't we post this before? I can see this is a big news story in the States but it's not so key elsewhere. I see no rationale whatsoever for posting it to ongoing; what conditions would it be removed under? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Espresso Addict My nomination is not for Ongoing, but for Wikipedia:ITN. And my other nomination about the conclusion of the report which was highly contentious, which got uploaded in the end, is similar, and that was just about the conclusion of the report. This nomination is about the public release of the report. Hopefully that clarifies things! :) Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: it's making headlines around the world. Conditions for removal would be the same as any other: the article is not getting updated, or the story is no longer "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: I haven't looked at the article, but I don't oppose a blurb in principle; it should probably not have been posted before, but that's not a great reason for not posting it now. I am stating my opposition to ongoing because several ITN regulars suggested that above. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Oh, Ongoing refers to the Ongoing section? I know about the existence of the section but I thought Ongoing meant to wait until more details came out, ex. "Event is ongoing; standby." Aviartm (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: I can guarantee it won't be in the news in the UK for more than a few days unless something major ensues. Given the relatively small updates that have led to other articles being kept at ongoing in the absence of heavy global news coverage (see the two removal nominations currently open), and the bias in editing activity towards US topics, we might be looking at this for weeks or months. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but not as Ongoing. The release of the report itself occurred at a fixed moment in time. That report is now available online at the DoJ, as is Barr's "summary". It was two years in the making. Its release, even redacted as it is, should be blurbed in ITN. In contrast, repercussions of that report (and other ongoing investigations, for that matter) should be differently captioned. Whether the repercussions will continue to be front page news around the world has never been an ITN criterion for a basic blurb. - Tenebris (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) might make a better target for ongoing than Mueller report. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs That page has already been nominated before by me as you can see here. And the importance of the news is the final report, not the whole entity that is the special counsel. Aviartm (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Tons of coverage followed by Demo vows to keep on digging, but the only really new detail so far is that DT tried to get Mueller fired – which considering all the other muckymucks he's canned is somewhat less than surprising. Nevertheless this remains a big topic. I'm not averse to Ongoing, though. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment marked ready. Looks like there is consensus to post, leaning towards ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing for now. Discussion regarding a blurb can continue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment tiresome, never blurbworthy right now, ongoing at best... if something comes out of the redaction subpoena, let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisisEdit

Seems WP:ITN doesn't matter anymore. I can use ABP to remove this from the box for myself, and that'll be good enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Stale LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In the last week, there have been few, if any meaningful updates to the article. Certainly not continuously updated as stipulated by WP:ITN. An arrest in Spain on charges from 2008, humanitarian aid for a crisis going on long before the election, sanctions starting in 2015, these things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis. The last update which had anything to do with the actual contest was the IMF denying Maduro access to reserves -- and that was over a week ago. The fact is, neither man is going to concede, there are no new defections, Maduro controls the military and the whole thing has faded into the larger Crisis in Venezuela. The presidential crisis is over, and if someone wants to nominate a different article for ongoing, they can, but this one is stale and it's time for it to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Major events have long tails - thousands have been killed this year in the (how-can-they-still-be) ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria. Just because things keep happening does not mean ITN-worthy things are still happening. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose recently there was the arrival of the Red Cross, and a lot US-Canada sanctions. Also sub-articles have received major updates.--MaoGo (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Red cross aid for a humanitarian crisis that has been going on for years, long before the election. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The Red Cross entry was two days ago and was updated recently. The major plot may be going cold (who know what will happen next), that is why I mildy oppose, but surely the crisis of Venezuela in 2019 is covered with this article, independently from the title.--MaoGo (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh? The presidential crisis is over? Independently of whether the article stays on the main page, or is changed to the broader Crisis in Venezuela ... What has happened to the Presidential crisis article is that it has grown so large that major updates are now done in the many sub-articles (almost one for every section), with smaller summaries back to the main article, but the crisis is far from "over", and remains the most highly viewed Venezuelan article. "These things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis"? These things (corruption, crime, humanitarian crisis and failure to accept aid) are the reason there is a crisis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Respectfully -- and I know you're basically the sole maintainer of this -- be it the humanitarian crisis or the sanctions both of those sub-articles make it abundantly clear that those issues were ongoing well before January 2019. That is, while the presidential crisis may overlap with those other issues, neither of those issues is a direct consequence of the crisis. The presidential crisis didn't cause the food shortages, it's just that the latest round of humanitarian aid has been politicized by parties in and out of Venezuela with a stake in impacting the leadership. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • When a very large article (about a geopolitical event of major significance to a number of countries with ongoing developments in multiple realms-- sanctions, censorship, healthcare crisis, aid delivery, recognition of representatives in major governmental bodies, etc) is well structured, well cited, and with contributing editors getting along congenially, one might expect that most content is being regularly updated in the sub-articles, with thankfully rare but succinct summaries back to the main article. On the other hand, your requirements might be satisfied if the involved editors were not correctly using summary style, and instead chunked all new content into the main article, so that it would later have to be cut and moved to the summary article. Do you want ITN to reward that kind of editing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Contrary to the assertions of the OP, there have been several meaningful additions to the article right up to within less than 24 hours of when they made the nomination. There were several substantive additions made just yesterday, and information in the article covers information as recently as April 16 and April 17. This is still producing enough new information to keep the article moving forward. Evidence shows this is still an ongoing and evolving story. --Jayron32 15:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Jayron32 the 24 hours before that? And before that? Adding images and fixing refs != continuously updated. I went through and cataloged every update > 100 bytes for the last week, if I'm wrong, then fine, but you don't get to tell me that adding a few images on the 13th is "good enough". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was. I said the text added yesterday represented a substantive update, and there are several items about information from as recently as April 16 and April 17. Cherry picking some days when no updates were made doesn't make the other information go away. Also, expressing incredulity at the evidence presented by others, and taking a rude tone doesn't actually make the information go away either. --Jayron32 15:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry if you felt I was being rude, it was not my intent. WP:ITN stipulates a continuously updated Wikipedia article not a sporadically updated Wikipedia article. This one fails the test, because the story is going cold. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • There is going to have some disagreement on what is continuous enough. For me, this one is continuous enough. It isn't for you. We've established both those as true things. There's no need to beat this into the ground anymore. --Jayron32 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Well, independently from whatever ITN requirements are, why do you think the presidential crisis is over? There are two men with claims to the presidency, and a pretty significant geopolitical conflict building up around that problem, not at all resolved, but reflected in issues like delivery of aid, sanctions on Cuba, oil supply to Caribbean countries, US international relations with Europe and Latin America, etc. Yesterday's sanctions were a pretty big foreign policy deal, and all of that editing action took place in three sub-articles, and was summarized back to the main article as it should be in one succinct edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • The sanctions, the humanitarian crisis, the oil embargo, all of those things were going on before the presidential crisis. That's the point I keep trying to make: the presidential crisis is largely over, Maduro won, he's not in any danger of being unseated anymore, and the ongoing Venezuelan crisis which has been happening since 2010 -- well it's ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Ah, I see what your point is now; thanks for responding. That you believe that "Maduro won" the "presidential crisis" aids in understanding your position in the matter, in spite of the familiar geopolitical alignments of countries who don't yet believe anyone has "won". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • I'm not saying that he won and is legitimate, just that Guaidó is out of cards to play and the story has gone stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Jayron.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal but no issue pointing to the general VZ crisis article. The fact there's so many sub-articles makes this a difficult topic to see lots of activity at one level but the crisis clearly is ongoing. --Masem (t) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd rather that, if it's getting regular updates, because this story is about done. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - The presidential crisis is FAR from over. This is an ongoing crisis reported every single day in several media outlets. I really don't understand the insistence in trying to remove this from the main page.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ITN stipulates a continuously updated Wikipedia article and as I've demonstrated, the target article is not being continuously updated with details about the presidential crisis. Does WP:ITN matter or not? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • And here I am, spending sunup to sundown updating about a dozen sub-articles. :) :) Seriously, this allegiance to "rules" could contribute to poor editing practices! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Sub-articles about the Crisis in Venezuela which has been "ongoing" since 2010 and of which the Presidential crisis is part of, not the cause of. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Serious broken record here. You can check contribs, right? Yes, the crisis in Venezuela is ongoing, and because the Presidential crisis is on the main page, I cleaned up the mess that was there, too. Here are some of the new sub-articles about the presidential crisis, mostly created to keep the size of the main article manageable: Venezuelan crisis defection, International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela, Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Roberto Marrero, 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts (if you don't understand how those relate to the Presidential crisis, please inform yourself), Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy, Troika of tyranny ... and more ... not to mention all the individual BLPs affected. Other editors have probably created at least a couple dozen BLPs to be used in the Presidential crisis articles. Seriously, I am wondering why you keep this up; my talk page is open if you'd like to spare this page the ongoing back and forth. It's pretty clear that most people understand that this is a rather significant, ongoing geopolitical matter, which is too much to be contained in one article. Seriously, I don't care if the article is on the main page or not, but your persistence in this matter is intriguing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @SandyGeorgia: One of the problems we have here is that there is only really room for two items at a time in Ongoing, or three if they are all short (which this is not). When Ongoing goes over 2 lines, as it did for weeks until the recent removal of two items, it causes ongoing & annoying main-page balance issues, requiring daily addition of recycled DYKs, for example. There are two new proposals for Ongoing receiving support at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Ah, Espresso Addict, thanks for explaining! I'm not sure I have ever frequented this page, but I was beginning to think the only reason Laser was advocating for removal was that we have a well-oiled machine, dedicated editors, and a good structure of sub-articles, so that the main article is mostly used for summary and doesn't get hit with a gazillion edits! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • SandyGeorgia I would ask that you kindly never again, under any circumstances, comment on me or my motivations. You don't know me, or anything about me. Since you asked (without actually asking) I want this turd of an article off the main page because it goes days between updates and the sub-articles (talk about a broken record, we get it, you're updating articles in the Crisis in Venezuela) have absolutely nothing at all nothing in the slightest to do with the "Presidential crisis" which ended with Maduro keeping control of the military. That's why I wan't it off the main page. Full Goddamned stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • @LaserLegs: I think you missed the sarcasm in Sandy's comment. Sandy doesn't use the main page, didn't see the reason to not have as many articles in ongoing as theoretically wanted (when half your argument is "it's full"), and made a joke about herself not knowing that once it was kindly explained by someone else. I think you owe her an apology for that obscene last comment. Of course, you also overlooked when she listed a good half dozen or more articles with "presidential crisis" in the name that have been created and maintained. (It also seems most other editors disagree with you that other articles without the most explicit of connections are only Crisis in Venezuela-related. And I would side with their view.) Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • If the OP didn't want a caustic response, they should not have used sarcasm to denigrate me and utterly ignore my carefully documented position. Still I appreciate your response. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal It's not over, and the articles are being updated. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal If you take a look at any of the talk pages for many Venezuelan politics related articles, you'll see a great deal of organization in editing the daily updates of the presidential crisis across them efficiently. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, 8:1 for oppose removal, I suggest this be quickly closed as WP:SNOW Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Venezuelan politics" isn't in the ongoing box, the presidential crisis is, and it's not being continuously updated. It seems WP:ITN doesn't matter anymore. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Articles: NepaliSat-1 (talk, history) and Raavana 1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nepal's first research satellite NepaliSat-1 alongside Sri Lanka's first orbit satellite Raavana 1 launches into the space from USA
Alternative blurb: Cygnus NG-11 launches satellites NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1 on its way to a successful docking with the International Space Station.
Alternative blurb II: NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, respectively Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched during Cygnus NG-11
News source(s): Kathmandu Post

 Abishe (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Consider changing the blurb to "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose One article consists of 3 sentences, and thus is a stub, so ineligible for the main page. The other article, as of this writing, does not even exist. When there are two, well-developed and well-referenced articles, ping me to re-assess their quality. --Jayron32 12:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    One down, one to go. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Support Articles are short, but still sufficiently past stub-stage for main page readiness. Good to go. --Jayron32 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If the newsworthiness of this otherwise common occurrence is that it a first for Nepal, is it not reasonable to debase that significance by noting it was built in Japan and launched from the US? Surely substantial contributions were made by groups and scientists for whom this is old hat.GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've expanded the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Awesome. Can you do similarly to the second (as yet nonexistent) article on the Raavana 1?
    @Jayron32: Yes i can, i will be working on it. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: I've created the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Danke schön. --Jayron32 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Danke dir auch ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb and alternative by me. All three articles appear ready to me.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support nomination, Oppose blurbs – Blurb should instead be more concise and factually accurate. Coffee's blurb implies Cygnus NG-11 is a launcher. In actuality, NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1 were payloads of a mission called Cygnus NG-11. The blurb should instead be along the lines of "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched during Cygnus NG-11" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I added "respectively..." to avoided the impression of co-ownership of both satellites by both countries. I also stand corrected and have struck my alternative. Support Alt2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both these satellites weigh around 1kg, will be in short term orbit and use, and are minor payloads for the ISS resupply mission. Hardly their respective country’s entry into the space race. Stephen 23:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Stephen: But an entry nonetheless; nothing wrong with having a cubesat / microsatellite as a country's first satellite. In addition, they're not payloads to the International Space Station, they're payloads to be launched from the International Space Station as part of the Birds program. [1]PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal of 2019 Iran floods from ongoingEdit

Article: 2019 Iran floods (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Activity on the article has slowed down, with little new material added since 15 April. The floods are no longer in the news in the UK at least. (The last BBC website coverage seems to be 6 April.) Espresso Addict (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Wait a day or two. I can still see some updates dealing with information as recently as 3 days ago, it's certainly heading in the stale direction, but I'm not sure I'm ready to declare it dead yet. --Jayron32 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose same as Jayron32, I saw updates a few days ago. Unlike political posturing, floods actually end, so either the waters will recede or the article will go stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Jayron32 and LaserLegs: to reassess. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. There have been no substantive edits since 15 or 16 April. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Helium hydrideEdit

Article: Helium hydride ion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists announce the discovery of naturally occurring helium hydride molecules in the planetary nebula NGC 7027 (pictured)
Alternative blurb: ​Helium hydride, believed to be the first chemical compound ever formed, is observed for the first time, in the pictured nebula NGC 7027.
News source(s): The Guardian, Engadget

Nominator's comments: Helium hydride is believed to be the very first molecule to have formed in the universe, ~100,000 years after the Big Bang. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not the paper from that issue of Nature I expected to see nominated here! (In fact, the BBC is currently highlighting two other papers from the issue.) While the article is updated, there is insufficient there or in the blurb to tell the reader why this is important. Also needs more clarity on the compound name; it's an ion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I note the entire update appears to be "and its first unequivocal astrophysical detection was reported in 2019" +ref. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bolded article is sufficient and well updated, item is a current event which has been reported in reliable media. --Jayron32 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron zzz (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Potential WP:EGG should be sorted out, as Helium hydride currently redirects to Helium hydride ion. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. -- King of ♠ 05:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull. This doesn't rise to anywhere near the same level of importance or scope for scientific discoveries that some recent posted items have. It's a fairly run-of-the-mill science story. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Edit. As written it is unclear (even to me as a chemistry undergrad) why anyone should care about HeH⁺, and whether scientists have found it for the first time this week or if it's something they see all the time. If on the other hand, the blurb was "Helium hydride, believed to be the first chemical compound ever formed, is observed in space for the first time.", then it would be clear why I should get excited about it. User:GKFXtalk 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    I completely agree. This really is a "so what" hook to anyone other those deeply entrenched with (whatever) the significance might be.... Needs some kind of explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarify. Explain significance. Right now, to the layman at least, it's like saying "stars have helium and hydrogen in them." In other news, water is wet. I may be showing my ignorance here, but I think that's how people will perceive this story as written.Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I did understand the significance on first reading, but from my education, so I concur with the above that it needs a rewrite. Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull. Doesn't explain the importance of the issue. Bolded article is fine, but ... Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull, the discovery was only of helium hydride in a nearby nebula. The hypesters make a claim that helium hydride was the first compound formed in the universe, which is just them repeating an existing theoretical result, and connect it to the discovery of some helium hydride created 600 years ago. Then Wikipedia users fell for that hype because the picture of the nebula was pretty. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Just from a procedural standpoint. The nom was active for 48 hours with full support at the time of posting. After all the brouhaha re: Notre Dame, the last thing we want to do is pull because some people now see it as meh. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Significance was added to the blurb some days ago. Stephen 02:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Singapore's non-oil exports slumped in March, according to numbers released by Enterprise Singapore. This was the biggest year-on-year monthly drop since October 2016. The slump in the export of electronics was especially marked. (The Strait Times)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Yale University researchers led by professor Nenad Sestan announce, through the Nature journal, that they successfully partly revived the brains of deceased pigs, four hours after death occurred. However, there were no signals from the brains that would indicate awareness or consciousness. (NPR)

(Posted) RD: Mya-Lecia NaylorEdit

Article: Mya-Lecia Naylor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: She died on 7 April but it was not announced until yesterday (17th). One citation needed on the article that should be easy for someone on a desktop to verify or remove. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It is tragic that such a young person has died suddenly but the article is only slightly above 1000 prose characters. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • What do you feel is missing from the article? Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Anything beyond the list of roles she performed and the fact of her death? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Also reliable independent sourcing for all the material sourced only to her online CV [4], currently I think accidentally deleted, but I'm not prepared to restore it. Nikkimaria has replaced the Daily Mail source which was used until a couple of hours ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • I also don't think the subject meets WP:NACTOR, per a single recurring role in a television series on which we have an article, in which according to our article she was 9th billed. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support not a stub, well referenced, satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is short, but I don't see any refs issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two CNs, filmography not references. --Masem (t) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, both those two cn's were completely incorrect, they should have been {{Better source}}. But in any case, resolved. And the Filmography is entirely referenced in the prose. This is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, that's good; I'd personally prefer the refs also on the table but there's a 1:1 matchup. Tiny concern one source is a primary, but not enough to stop RD at this point. --Masem (t) 23:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 23:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Christina Koch/Peggy WhitsonEdit

Too soon, renominate in 2020. --Tone 20:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Christina Koch (talk, history) and Peggy Whitson (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA announces that Christina Koch is set to pass Peggy Whitson with a new record for women in space.
News source(s): Agence France Press
Nominator's comments: I was intrigued to read about these women when I read the AFP article. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A new record for what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Women spending time in space, so "women in space" was what I thought of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, according to the article, it's set to be the longest single stay by a woman at ISS. That's not quite how I read your explanation. And for what it's worth, oppose a "set to become a record news story". When it becomes the record, consider nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Ok but the AFP article actually does say, "record for the longest spaceflight by a woman". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
          Alanscottwalker, when will Koch pass Whitson? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
          • She's in space now and the mission was announced today that she is set to make the record -- she is set to make it, next Feb, so the 'newsiness' is present and ongoing (also, I think they are interesting people, so there is that, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
            Alanscottwalker, thanks for answering that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until this event is imminent. This event will not occur until February 2020. Our article on Christina Koch has some tone issues and other MOS issues which should be handled in the mean time. I recommend WP:GAC followed by WP:DYK. Close this nomination so we can focus on actually possible nominations.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The record won't be set until February 2020. Consider renominating then. There are all sorts of things that could prevent her from making it that long, per WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD blurb: Alan GarcíaEdit

Articles: Alan García (talk, history) and Operation Car Wash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured) commits suicide following an issued arrest warrant.
Alternative blurb: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured) commits suicide following an issued arrest warrant in the Operation Car Wash investigation.
Alternative blurb II: Alan García (pictured), former President of Peru, kills himself to avoid arrest on corruption charges.
Alternative blurb III: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured), dies by suicide after a warrant was issued for his arrest.
News source(s): The New York Times The Washington Post AP The Independent

 —Jonny Nixon (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment yes the article is an orange tagged mess. Lets give interested parties a few hours before piling on opposes. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Both recommended articles are not in good shape, Garcia more-so with many many CNs tags. Op Car Wash lists a number of named individuals without a single source (no "overarching" one that I see either) which is a BLP problem. Clearly significant however, no question this should be ITN when quality is there. --Masem (t) 15:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb once the orange tags are solved. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb; not convinced that he was a "major transformative world leader", and the manner of his death doesn't really make him one. Would obviously support RD once reference issues are dealt with. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    No one would suggest that he was. There is a completely distinct criteria for the unexpected death of prominent figures by suicide. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb when quality issues are fixed. The story is suicide when he was about to be arrested regarding corruption allegations. The allegations are a big story and while we would not normally post until the conclusion of the trial, there now cannot be conviction so this major change is when we should post. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The story is not so much that the person died but their manner of death was unusual and significant(suicide to avoid arrest on corruption charges). 331dot (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Referencing is dreadful and unacceptable for a BLP. Posting on the main page is out of the question absent major improvements in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly way sub-par on a quality front. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Alan García was an extremely influential figure in Latin America. Highly notable death. We've linked to far worse articles on the main page. --JECE (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not as targets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Tentative oppose Operation Car Wash is not too bad; I've added refs for Early Life on García's article, but for a vital article it is very poor, and too poor for main page at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) With article improvements, support; I've also removed the use of "suicide" as a verb in alt2, replacing with "kills himself". Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Although you said that he did not die when I stated that, and I turned out to be right at the end.DoctorSpeedWant to talk? —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two sections with orange tags at the top and citations needed elsewhere in article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support on principle, oppose on quality. Looks like a significant international story. Three citation needed tags in the first article, one citation needed tag in the second. The second article appears to be in much better shape than the first, although there are a couple of unreferenced paragraphs and lists; if the first article isn't fixed in the near future, we should just bold the second article and post that as a blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)) Article is improved. Note that I am supporting a blurb on the "unusual and significant manner of death" principle, not the "transformative figure" principle. It's a rare occasion when a fairly well-known former head of state living in a democratic republic kills themselves to avoid prosecution. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, with alternate wording – I support this nomination, but omit the "commits" portion. Please use a more appropriate term such as "completed suicide", "suicided" or "took his life".----

ZiaLater (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • "Suicided" is not a phrase that most native English speakers would use and I guarantee you it will not be used in the blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pawnkingthree: I did not include "suicided", but thanks for the concern. I will include different blurb in this edit. Does "dies by suicide" translate well?----ZiaLater (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"Dies by suicide" is technically correct, but uncommon. Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Suicide" cannot be used as a verb in English; replaced in alt2 with "kills himself", but "takes his own life" is another option. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The fact that he was president of Peru doesn't by itself make him significant, nor does the fact that he committed suicide. Lacks wider import. RD only. – Sca (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - The ITN death criteria does state that a blurb may be merited for unexpected manner of death, but really, I just don't think that applies here because this wasn't a transformative figure nor a current sitting head of state. That might merit a change in the death criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip: I think this meets the death criteria: (emphasis mine) ("For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is frustrating that such relevant news don't get quickly to the front page on quality grounds. Yes, I understand the reasons and I respect the rules. I understand this is English WP, and Alan García might not be quite as relevant for the English-speaking world, but as a non-native English speaker, I also see en.WP playing a global role. I mean, a twice-democratically elected former President (with both terms finished, totaling 10 years of rule) of a 30+ million people country with a fast-growing mid-income economy commits suicide among accusations of corruption. I also wish/hope that more committed, fluent English speaking editors were willing to contribute with their experience —and maybe even with the same time they invest in voting oppose— to improve one of the articles and make this happen. Cato censor (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment@Masem: @Awkward42: @Ad Orientem: @The Rambling Man: @Capitalistroadster: @NorthernFalcon: Tagging you all because there have been some updates to the article. It's not perfect, but there have been some improvements. I suggest supporting specific blurbs if you choose to support this nomination as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I still feel the blurb needs to mention Op. Car Wash (that's a well-known term) but it doesn't have to be featured as long as Garcia's article is to shape. Understanding the scope of what the arrest warrant was for gives some idea to why he committed suicide. --Masem (t) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article has been improved significantly. Not the best shape, but it is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This is obviously notable; few deaths per year get more notable than this. Former head of state, unusual method of death, and connection to a major scandal. This received significant coverage by all the news sites I visited yesterday. Article has been improved since yesterday. Davey2116 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb – Great work! @ZiaLater: can you check the sourcing in the Election history section. I am unable to verify that information. What is Infogob and Nohlen? It does not seem to likely to be challenged though. Oppose Alt0 and Alt1.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Please at least post to RD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb. Regarding terminology such as "dies by suicide", we don't want to use unidiomatic expressions just because they sound a little better. "Kills himself" is not really better than "commits suicide" and also sounds more informal. -- King of ♠ 22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-comment this should mention a connection to Operation Car Wash. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree with Headbomb; at very least the nature of the charges needs to be mentioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-comment:Should mention the nature of charges, i.e. Operation Car Wash, and President of Peru should probably be linked. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Another post posted: I am not the first to find "commit suicide" problematic, and alternatives such as "took his life" have been offered above. I should not be in the "commit a crime" corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • While there's alternatives, which I proposed because I know how fussy people can be about it, the actual verb in English is "to commit suicide", it's the only correct way to say non-idiomatically, and 'commit' does not have inherently negative connotations in English (you "commit yourself to marriage", for example). Kingsif (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Propose RD This is, after a very busy week, about to drop off the list - it's more recent than 4 of the RD deaths, so I suggest Garcia be added to RD when it rolls off the list. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: