Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2019

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

Contents

December 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) 2019–20 Australian bushfire seasonEdit

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Guardian impressively I got these by Googling for the word "Australia", not even using the word "bushfire" → AP, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Been seeing this in the news for quite a while Banedon (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support ongoing, the article is in a good shape. --Tone 08:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support much improved from prior nom. Very nice work. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Two sources added above re "thousands' being trapped on beaches in southeastern Australia. Pretty dire situation, to say the least. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question the criteria for ongoing is "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". What fires are active right now? The South East section mentions a 10 ha fire which is hardly notable. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"On 30 December, there were three active fires in East Gippsland on Sunday with a combined area of more than 130,000ha" GreatCaesarsGhost 15:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a major event that is in the news. Article quality looks decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely. It's not over and there still are daily news updates. It's also an issue of international interest. —PaleoNeonate – 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    Example of current active coveragePaleoNeonate – 07:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready for OngoingBabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted as ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I would support moving this and the Citizenship Amendment Act protests up onto the bullet points if someone wants to suggest a blurb or photo, actually. I see them as more important than at least two of the items there. Blythwood (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The Citizenship act was already posted as a blurb and would be inappropriate again. Ongoing is correct for that. For these Aussie fires, the problem is that they have been ongoing for several months, only now that they have started to have more threatening effects are the rest of the world taking notice. A blurb would not make sense here while ongoing is perfect. --Masem (t) 06:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
If things get any worse, I think we might consider a blurb. Wars go on for a long time too, but now and then there are significant developments that make news. AP puts total deaths in Australia fires at 17 .– Sca (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: 4,000 people stuck on burning beach in Mallacoota. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
ITN items are ordered chronologically, not in order of "importance".--WaltCip (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonny MehtaEdit

Article: Sonny Mehta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Person is notable and passed recently. I have updated the article and it is in good shape to appear on front page.  Harshil want to talk? 11:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

December 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Harry KupferEdit

Article: Harry Kupfer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Der Spiegel, Die Zeit (in German), AP (in English)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Stage director in Dresden, Berlin, Bayreuth - when Germany was still divided, a rare thing - and the world. There was no uninteresting moment in the productions I saw, - even the last choir member had to support the action. - I am happy that we updated the article in 2019 while he was still alive. Happy 2020Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I can't see any refs issues preventing it from being published.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – A significant, longtime international cultural figure. "One of the most important German opera directors" – Spiegel. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready. BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - a substantial article, very well referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Valereee, I think you forgot to give Gerda Arendt the "credits". I did it. If I done something wrong please revert my edit on Gerda Arendt's talk page. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    SirEdimon, whoops, thank you! New at this! --valereee (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    Valereee, no problem. It's good to have more admins around here. Thanks for your job.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syd MeadEdit

Article: Syd Mead (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Art director for films like Blade Runner and Tron. Unfortunately article has major sourcing gaps. Masem (t) 01:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I worked on improving the page a bit but it still needs some outside sources in certain sections. The referencing is better than it was, at least. Spengouli (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is satisfactory. A day or it was nothing more than a few disjointed paragraphs and a list. HAL333 23:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The orange tags that this page had are now gone. Spengouli (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prosper GrechEdit

Article: Prosper Grech (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Vatican NewsMalta Independent
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Augustinian Roman Catholic Cardinal in 111 years, co-founded the Patristic Institute Augustinianum in Rome Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just a few sentences needing sourcing.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Updated sourcing, hope it's satisfactory Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - still thinly sourced. Adding sources to the summary for facts already sourced below does not address the issue. I’ll add some tags to clarify. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I've taken care of the citation-needed tags; in most cases, those details weren't very relevant to the article. The remainder of the article is adequately sourced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

December 29Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Neil InnesEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:06, 5 January 2020 (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: Neil Innes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Comedian, songwriter (The Rutles, The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band) and Monty Python collaborator. Article needs a lot of citations. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak and regretful oppose - the article has far too much unsourced content and I just don't have time at the moment to go through and cite everything. A shame, because I was fortunate enough to meet Innes when my (then) wife was expecting our first child, and he was a thoroughly nice and enthusiastic guy, full of life and optimistic for both his and our future. A sad loss :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree - Neil Innes the man should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Grogan UX Designer (talkcontribs) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (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: Vaughan OliverEdit

Article: Vaughan Oliver (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Noted graphic designer, particularly for his work with 4AD Records2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:B5B0:CF8C:CCE2:6E4B (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted I have edited this myself to add a source for place of birth, but I don't think there are any doubts it's ready for posting. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Alasdair GrayEdit

Article: Alasdair Gray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1][2]
Credits:

 Jheald (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Significant Scottish author and artist. Article could use a few more references, and an overview assessment of some of his literary works (many of which have their own articles with critical reception sections); also doesn't quite yet capture the mischievous liveliness of the man. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 00:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

December 28Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • A North Korean ghost ship washes up on the shore of Japan's Sado Island, containing the corpses of five people onboard, suspected to be fishermen. The bodies are described by Japanese police as "partially skeletonised", suggesting the boat has been adrift at sea for a long time. (BBC)
  • Five people are killed when a plane crashes near a Walmart supermarket in Lafayette, Louisiana. One occupant survives, while three others on the ground are injured. (BBC)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) December 2019 Mogadishu bombingEdit

Article: December 2019 Mogadishu bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 73 people are killed by a car bomb in Somalia's capital.
Alternative blurb: ​More than 90 people are killed in a suicide truck bombing at a police checkpoint in Mogadishu.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Stub for now, will grow as more details are known and added. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Bus plunge disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Hey, two bus plunges in two days, already? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Scroll though current events they're daily you want me to nominate every body count story? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Some difficulty parsing your sentence there. But all editors are free to propose as they wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - it's very different to a bus plunge, which is usually an accident with a death toll of low double figures at most. This is a very notable attack in which over 70 people were killed in a suicide truck bombing in a major city. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, pending development of article. Note that Reuters quotes source saying "at least" 90 killed. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, Death toll needs update as per Sca, and It would be better to highlight it was a suicide bombing. --CoryGlee (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, in principle as it is a trending situation. --cyrfaw (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Solely on article quality. The article needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's unlikely to be edited by many people unless it's put on the homepage. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not how ITN works. Quality before posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
How else can we bring more editors to it? Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Notify Wikiprojects, tag it for improvement, add it to the current events portal. Either way ITN isn't for getting mediocre articles improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's in 8 projects & on that portal, yet has only had 6 editors. I can't see which tags could be appropriate for it. Jim Michael (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: There's been more expansion; would you be able to have another look? Best, SpencerT•C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on expansion. Still not wowed by the article, but it's good enough for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but should be expanded before main page. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not surprising it's short; it has only had nine editors. What is missing from the article which should be included in it? Jim Michael (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Does not meet the minimum "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs", but is almost there. SpencerT•C 00:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support Has been sufficiently expanded to minimum standards. SpencerT•C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1300 characters of prose would not even meet DYK minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say that a specific minimum number of characters is a requirement for articles to be posted to ITN or DYK? Jim Michael (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
At the appropriately titled "WP:DYKRULES," a 1,500 character minimum is noted. Bagumba did not state ITN had a character minimum but implied DYK's standard was lower than ITN's (most ITNC contributors would agree). GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The article is 5203 bytes. How many characters of prose does it have? Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: You can refer to the readable prose guideline WP:RPS.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
That link says it has 2922 characters of prose. If there's a minimum number of characters to qualify for ITN it should be stated somewhere. Jim Michael (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: There's been more expansion; would you be able to have another look? Best, SpencerT•C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Spencer: Striking my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Significant death toll and coverage. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. What is there is sufficient for a Start-class article. Brandmeistertalk 11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good enough for ITN inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose If we're going to post something so short, the quality should be better. This is going to sound petty, but three straight sentences use the subject-verb combo "group claimed" in the Responsibility section. In addition, we say no one claimed responsibility, then we say someone did. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a minimum length requirement for ITN; if you're saying there is, please link to the relevant policy/guideline which states it. Also, please say what reliably sourced info should be included in the article which currently isn't.
When a terrorist group say they were the attackers, the phrase claimed responsibility is the usual term that the mainstream media use. Now that al-Shabaab have said they were the attackers, the article no longer needs to state that it was initially unknown which group did it.
Most of the commenters in this discussion have made no edits to the article or its talk page. If the article had more than 13 editors it would likely be of better quality. Jim Michael (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
A) Again with this straw-man argument? No one said there is a minimum length. There is minimum QUALITY, and short articles will struggle to be comprehensive. B) My objection is not to the term, but that it is poor composition style to use the same subject and verb repeatedly. The article needs a copyedit. C) editors are free to contribute wherever, however, and it what quantity they like. There is no expectation that contributing at ITNC requires you to work on each article that is nominated. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria, it states: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" and includes an example of what a minimum standards looks. While not a minimum character requirement like DYK, let's not be disingenuous and conclude that this requirement is "no evidence of a minimum length requirement for ITN." Best, SpencerT•C 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It fits those criteria in regard to the paragraphs.
By minimum length, I meant in terms of number of lines/characters/bytes, in response to the claim that it's not even long enough for DYK - strongly implying that ITN articles must be significantly longer than the minimum for DYK.
Had this bombing occurred anywhere in the Western world, the article would have been edited by hundreds of people & would be multiple times longer. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is notable due to the high death toll & it appears the article now meets minimum standards for quality & length. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 01:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

December 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Science and technology

RD: Don ImusEdit

Article: Don Imus (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Huffington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Well known radio host. Article has minor sourcing issues. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I've seen worse articles. Though it does amuse me to see an article of a radio host whose "Controversies" section is much longer and more exhaustively detailed than his "Career" section.--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Highly notable radio host who was on the air for 50 years and influenced several others (i.e. Howard Stern). Was basically the first shock jock. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the usual reasons and because a CSECTION on a BLP is never appropriate in my book. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: He's not a living person any more. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
BLP continues to apply to pages about recently deceased persons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a great example of why it's a bad practice. The focus on a few negative events minimizes a long accomplished career. GreatCaesarsGhost 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
They weren't just a few negative events; they were a big deal and garnered a lot of news coverage and controversy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
There's an entire article about the controversial stuff Howard Stern has said on the air so Imus's page having a few incidents mentioned is fine. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
A perfect demonstration of recentism causing undue over coverage of then current events. Federal Communications Commission fines of The Howard Stern Show should be trimmed and merged into The Howard Stern Show which is only 25,884 characters (See WP:PAGESIZE). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Charles JonesEdit

Article: J. Charles Jones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBS (WBTV)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable civil rights leader with a decently sourced article I and a few others worked on making (albeit I wish now I had gotten it up to GA before his death). Seems worthy of being listed at RD. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Very well sourced. Spengouli (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 00:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Turkish court overturns Wikipedia banEdit

Article: Block of Wikipedia in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: Constitutional Court of Turkey overturns ban on Wikipedia in Turkey and rules the ban unconstitutional.
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I was taking break for last couple of days and came to know about this news. So I preferred to nominate here as it is about the key judgement given by the Turkish court. I didn't know whether the ban on Wikipedia by Turkish aithorities was posted here. I think this could be significant in order to add it in ITN. Abishe (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - As tempting as it might be to look at our own navels.--WaltCip (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand the navel-gazing concerns, but this seems to be a notable ruling for Turkey. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per 331dot. Widely caried by RS sites (3 added above) as significant for freedom of information. (FWIW, German Wiki has led their ITN box – In den Nachrichten – with it all WEEK.) – Sca (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've never been tempted to gaze at my navel. – Sca (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree that this does not have lasting notability; this is a significant free speech ruling in a country not known for free speech. I don't see it as a Wikipedia story, but as a free speech story. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If that is true, the article does not have any information regarding the implications of it being unblocked. Besides the sentence in the introduction, the article only has On 26 December 2019, the court ruled in a 10–6 vote that the block of Wikipedia violated the freedom of expression and ordered it to be lifted immediately without any further reactions/information about how this sets precedent, etc. If the article can be expanded to show how this is clearly the case, I would be willing to support. SpencerT•C 19:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The ruling has broad implications regarding censorship. As such I am inclined to believe this is more than navel gazing. I do note that there are a couple of tags related to the technical aspects of the article, though I don't think they are enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support if the wikipedia gets opened (Still blocked as of 28 December 2019 22:49, Turkey time). Court decision does not mean it will be applied, we're not Switzerland. --Joseph (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • DNS over wifi, I check with mobile data.--Joseph (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I agree with 331dot wrt navel gazing but I also see Joseph's point that the Turkish government routinely ignores court rulings against it, so the story is only newsworthy if the ruling goes into effect and Wikipedia is actually unblocked. Regards SoWhy 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Widely carried by reputable sources and the article is in good shape. I disagree with those saying we should wait; ITN is for the news not the result. Whether the government complies with the ruling or not, the news is that the court ruled this is unconstitutional, and that's what news media are all frenzy about. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If we are ever going to post a Wikipedia story this should be it. P-K3 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has had a cleanup tag since 2018 and still seems too vague about the actual status of the block. Court rulings don't mean much if they are not enforced. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose First it's a local item, second it's a one-off news item that has apparently already dropped off the news. Searching for this item for example does not yield stories newer than 3 days old (or new developments). Turkey's own news portals are focusing on other things, in particular the war in Syria. Banedon (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not a 'local item', this is a national supreme court ruling involving one of the top visited websites in the world(which has a global physical presence). Very little would be posted if more than one country had to be involved in any posting. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You sure? As of right now, there are three items in the box. The first involves a plane crash. Per Boeing 737 MAX, this kind of plane crash can have international consequences. The second is about Jamal Khashoggi. A quick Google search yields three new items, variously titled "Khashoggi decision unacceptable attempt to acquit real perpetrators of murder, Altun says", "Saudi Arabia under fire over Khashoggi ruling – Middle East Monitor", and "'Antithesis of justice': Khashoggi verdict roundly condemned", showing it's continuing to make the news. The last item is about the Netherland's court ruling on climate change. Climate change obviously has international consequences. I'm not seeing any evidence this item is on par with the blurbs already posted. Banedon (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There are good stretches and bad stretches. The fact remains that ITN is not (and should not be) limited to international events/events involving more than one country. We even call this out at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As I indicated as well, Wikipedia has a global presence, both physically and on the internet. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

* Remove photo of Jamal Khashoggi, please. Must be someone more important by 2020!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Interesting from an encyclopedic standpoint, and overall relevant. --bender235 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

O

  • Support: On principle I think it disimproves the encyclopedia, contrary to our 5th pillar and the related WP:IAR, if we self-destructively allow weak arguments about things like alleged navel-gazing to wittingly or unwittingly assist the harming of Wikipedia by failing to use the power of our front page to publicize serious harm being done to Wikipedia. In this case Wikipedia has been banned in Turkey for over 2 years, which is perhaps the most serious-ever attack on Wikipedia (and certainly one of the most serious-ever attacks on Wikipedia), and the outlawing of the ban by their Constitutional court is currently seemingly being ignored. We should not apologize for seeking to let our readers know about this and hoping this will help bring pressure to bear to implement the Court's decision. And any inappropriate wikilawyering arguments against this, such as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RGW, should simply be ignored as outweighed by our 5th pillar and the related WP:IAR, and by the common-sense requirement that when attacked we should take reasonable measures to defend ourselves, as any sane organization would be expected to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Bek Air Flight 2100 plane crashEdit

Article: Bek Air Flight 2100 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A domestic passenger crashed in Kazakhstan, killing at least 12 people and injuring 60.
Alternative blurb: ​A domestic passenger flight crashes in Kazakhstan, killing at least 12 people and critically injuring 54.
Alternative blurb II: ​A domestic airline's passenger plane crashes in Kazakhstan, killing at least 12 people and injuring 54 others.
News source(s): BBC. Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

 Sherenk1 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub, Bus plunge --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Half the crash section is the eye witness account of a passenger. Literally nothing is known of the cause at this time. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You seem to be now leaning towards a non-brainless wait, even though it was just a "rickety airframe fished out of a is"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Nah it's still an insignificant Bus plunge disaster stub that is going to be functionally orphaned and atrophied as soon as the wire services stop following it. I was just pointing out that literally half the crash details are the eye witness account of a "businessman" passenger. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
          • I see. Yes, a rapid and coherent eye-witness statement is quite notable from a fatal aviation crash. Even businessmen sometimes survive, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. you intend to re-mark it now as a "stub"?
            • Nah, the speculation of a fortunate survivor who is not in aviation, was not on the flight deck, was not privy to the preflight checks preformed and whose observations were provided to a media outlet and not trained air crash investigators actually has no value at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
              • That's your reason for still opposing? Good luck if you decide to remove it. Not sure we'll get much of a statement from the captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support upon improvement. The story is developing which is understandable, notability is a no-brainer. Brandmeistertalk 15:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Because for unknown reasons a small low cost domestic carrier cashed a 20 year old regional jet from a company which has been out of business for two decades? I must be brainless since I'm not seeing the notability here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
How does "out of business for two decades" feature here exactly? Those 12 lives are worth comparatively less? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Beyond those fatalities, this crash was unusual in that 86 survived, of whom 49 were hospitalized. (The plane was of Dutch manufacture.)Sca (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
So it's a memorial thing? What are the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for notability? A little context -- because if a rare Uncontained engine failure of the most common power plant on the most common airplane wasn't notable then please explain how a podunk airline crashing a rickety airframe fished out of a is ... other than the completely irrelevant body count. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 Sca (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A fatal civilian airline flight has been the standard for posting air crashes since ages. WP:MEMORIAL or MINIMUMDEATHS are irrelevant in this case. Brandmeistertalk 17:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
IntoThinAir's MINIMUMDEATHS essay notes that the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash killed 9 people but failed to be posted on notability. It does also quote you, wherein you state that double digits in airline deaths is automatically considered notable, so there's that.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Suggest that, if and when this gets posted, we don't actually use the word "podunk" in any blurb. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. "Taiwanese trash bin"?
Top story on BBC News at Six tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - article now in a reasonable condition. No major problems. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now long enough for posting. Notability is obvious.  Nixinova  T  C   19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I also agree to post it in ITN as it is a significant story making headlines on routine basis. Abishe (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and long enough. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Will probably no longer be in the news when the cause is officially determined. But that is often the case with aircraft accidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Minor syntax revisions made to lead. Though comparatively short, looks good to go. Marked ready. – Sca (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt2 offered above. ('Flights' do not crash, planes do.) – Sca (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt2. SpencerT•C 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the blurb format we use for these would be: Bek Air Flight 2100 crashes near Almaty Kazakhstan killing X of Y people on board. Lots of examples (I can't paste links on my phone). Can we please just use the standard air crash blurb instead of the ambiguous "a domestic airline"? @Spencer: --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The blurb originally approved for this item said, "A domestic airline's passenger plane crashes in Kazakhstan, killing at least 12 people and injuring 54 others." All three blurbs considered said "domestic" rather than "Bek Air" because few outside Kazakhstan and other ex-Soviet states have ever heard of Bek Air, thus it's not generally familiar to our English-speaking audience. Further, as noted above, 'flights' do not crash, planes do, so the approved blurb said "a domestic airline's passenger plane." In the interest of reader comprehension, suggest we return to the Alt2 blurb approved here (minus the word passenger, made redundant by "airline"). – Sca (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
"Reader comprehension" is improved by naming the flight like we always do. "A domestic airline" is ambiguous and unhelpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't an issue for the Ural airlines crash we posted last August. The standard air crash blurb is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
So, the ultimate criterion at the English-language Wikipedia is "it fits the format." Forget about what the words signify to the reader. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Treating similar news in similar format is part of NPOV. Not naming the airline would be an indication of a Western/European POV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm a reader. I knew this was coming and when I saw the blurb my reaction was "a domestic airline, what the fuck does that mean?". Of course it's an airline a flock of condors didn't crash here and what does it matter if it's international or domestic? I don't know why you're so hung up on "flight" either. A flight, that is "a trip made by an aircraft, particularly one between two cities or countries, which is often planned or reserved in advance" to which this story is obviously referring can have numerous outcomes such as arriving, delay or crashing into the dirt a few miles from the airport. Seriously, I don't see a single actual published news story using the description "a domestic airline" because it's nonsense. Maybe the Guardian got it wrong?. We post these every 4 to 6 weeks what is suddenly wrong with the standard informative air crash blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
A 'flight' is an abstract, descriptive word denoting an action by an airplane (or bird). It is not a noun referring to an airplane – it does not denote a thing-in-itself. It is the thing that crashes, not the action, which is not a thing but rather a mental concept. As Oxford states, a Flight is "an act of flying; a journey made through the air or in space, especially a timetabled journey made by an airline."
'Flights' don't crash because they aren't physical things. Airplanes sometimes crash, killing or injuring people inside them. That some at Wiki have made it a habit to refer to a 'flight' as if it were a thing does not make such irrational usage linguistically correct. The so-called "format" of which you're so unaccountably fond should be avoided by all. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
"Flight 2100" is a compound noun. Stating that a numbered flight, such as United Airlines Flight 93, crashed is perfectly grammatical and idiomatic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Possibly, but still not a thing in itself. The phrase refers to an action by a thing. It's not really an idiom – and besides idioms by their nature are not transparently intelligible, usually being metaphoric. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I meant Idiomatic: "Using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Same diff. Still not a thing.
Further the affiant sayeth naught.Sca (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a free image (CC-SA is free enough?) of the accident aircraft in different livery if we want to update the box --LaserLegs (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

December 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Kushal PunjabiEdit

Article: Kushal Punjabi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hindustan Times, India Today, India Today, NDTV
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Indian film and television actor known for his roles in movies such as Lakshya. Committed suicide. DTM (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Citation issues throughout the article. Especially for films section - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sue LyonEdit

Article: Sue Lyon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Montreal Times, NY Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American actress know for her roles in Lolita, The Night of the Iguana, among other movies. --SirEdimon (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - sufficiently referenced, so looks good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry HermanEdit

Article: Jerry Herman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP NPR
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Prolific Broadway composer and lyricist. Refs needed for some statements, especially in the article text, but it's probably in better shape than a lot of articles with "works" lists/sections because that part is already decently sourced. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support We're down to only four cn tags, and the article has been expanded and updated. I think this is probably ready. --valereee (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    May need checking for copyvio, situation is a little confusing --valereee (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Valereee, there is no copyvio issue. BroadwayWorld copied from us (not surprising, not the first time, we should ban this source as unreliable). The other hits on EarWig's are mostly quotes and titles of plays. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, yes, I could see they copied the obit from us, but I wondered if there were an earlier version somewhere. The language of the unsourced sections was more professional profile/obit than encyclopedic: In 1964, producer David Merrick united Herman with musical actress Carol Channing and librettist Michael Stewart for a project that was to become one of his more successful, Hello, Dolly! It just set off my spidey sense. Obits are often written well in advance, and possibly could be used as profiles somewhere before the person actually does die. --valereee (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    Valereee, that's funny! That sentence is so good that it has been plagiarized by books like this one printed in 2016. However, it appears in earlier versions as in this revision from 2010. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, lol, sorry..it's not the professional-level writing by itself that makes me go hmmm, it's that when I see it, I expect that professional-level writer to also know to provide a source. :) I don't expect to see that kind of writing unsourced. But yeah, ten years ago, that was much more likely. --valereee (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Betelgeuse may be about to explodeEdit

No consensus to post now, renominate when it explodes. --Tone 17:44, 27 December 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: Betelgeuse (talk, history)
Blurb: Betelgeuse's recent dimming may be indicative of an impending supernova
News source(s): NGC; CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: [3] Count Iblis (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the source, "about to" explode it means "within the next 200,000 to 300,000 years" and there's still the asterisk that it may happen in that timeframe, and the source says that this curious behavior has been observed for decades. Credit for a good-faith nomination about a fascinating subject, but "a large star may or may not explode within the next three hundred thousand years, as indicated by decades of evidence" isn't really news.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 15:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. Far too speculative. --Masem (t) 15:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – More 'news' no one can use. – Sca (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That's bad news for Ford Prefect, but for us, it's a bit far out of sight and mind. WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree with the comments above - nonetheless - seems the best sources may be as follows[1][2][3] - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Guinan, Edward F.; Wasatonic, Richard J.; Calderwood, Thomas J. (8 December 2019). "ATel #13341 - The Fainting of the Nearby Red Supergiant Betelgeuse". The Astronomer's Telegram. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
  2. ^ Guinan, Edward F.; Wasatonic, Richard J.; Calderwood, Thomas J. (23 December 2019). "ATel #13365 - Updates on the "Fainting" of Betelgeuse". The Astronomer's Telegram. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
  3. ^ Drake, Nadia (26 December 2019). "A giant star is acting strange, and astronomers are buzzing - The red giant Betelgeuse is the dimmest seen in years, prompting some speculation that the star is about to explode. Here's what we know". National Geographic Society. Retrieved 26 December 2019.

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.

(Closed) 26 Dec solar eclipseEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 01:24, 2 January 2020 (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: Solar eclipse of December 26, 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An annular eclipse visible across much of Asia occurs
News source(s): [4][5][6]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I don't know about this. Annular eclipses are not ITNR, and they aren't that uncommon apparently, annular eclipses that are visible from large swathes of Earth are uncommon. It's making the news (just put in "eclipse" into Google) so I'm nominating this. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Such event occurred after 296 years of long wait, a unique event. I think it should be in news. Rocky 734 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Unique event. Article looks ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Annular or not, more suitable for Children's Wikipedia. These happen—predictably—every year it seems.[7] This would only be news if science was wrong. You can plan for the 2020 annular now.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    For what it is worth, total eclipses are ITNR. But that only adds to your argument rather than detracts from it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ephemeral, though hyped, past event with zero impact on Earth. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom. Normally the enumeration at ITNR of certain events shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other events. However, all eclipses are predictable, so the absence here does seem indicative. Also, an event is not "making the news" because it comes up when you Google it. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not even almost a unique event. The last annular eclipse occurred in February 2017; the next will occur in June. —Wasell(T) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - We post annular eclipses here at ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Eclipse was visible from a widely populated area. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:958E:F6C1:2F9C:3668 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not significant. P-K3 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eclipses are run-of-the-mill events, and thoroughly predictable. Not of sufficient interest for ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Might have been a possibility for rapid posting, but now seems stale as four days ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 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.

December 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Lee MendelsonEdit

Article: Lee Mendelson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Needs more refs. On the phone now, will try to update once I'm home. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why the template is not working for me... Article is Lee Mendelson, refs need work, will try to update later. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Fixed the nom, the paramater name had some nbsp;s in it.  Nixinova  T  C   19:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nixinova: No wonder I missed it, my phone must have mucked up the template when I copied and pasted the wikicode. Thanks! –FlyingAce✈hello 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some entire paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter SchreierEdit

Article: Peter Schreier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As the BBC writes, one of the leading lyric tenors of the 20th century, The GDR export to the West. - His article was in poor shape, and could still be imprved but I need a break. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I added a bit. It seems no longer recent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is generally OK, there are two uncied sentences in the "Career" section. It would be nice to get the two missing ISBNs for the "Literature" section for verifiability and is there a way of sourcing the "Documentary films" section? - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I think, that this two GDR books don't have ISBN numbers. Grimes2 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't really need the 3 old documentaries at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - a couple of citations needed, but solid enough otherwise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Citation issues were all dealt with.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Táňa FischerováEdit

Article: Táňa Fischerová (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Český rozhlas, Novinky.cz
Credits:

 Jenda H. (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding her career. SpencerT•C 00:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing looks good. P-K3 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ari BehnEdit

Article: Ari Behn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Express.co.uk, De Telegraaf
Credits:

Article updated

 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – I found nothing to complain about. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; first sentence states that Behn was an "author and painter" but there is very minimal information about his career in the body article. SpencerT•C 00:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    Isn't it nice to have the "more notable spouse" issue in reverse? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems fine to me. No refs issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Phanfone causes at least thirteen deaths in the PhillipinesEdit

Article: Typhoon Phanfone (2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Typhoon Phanfone makes landfall in the Phillipines causing at least twenty deaths with many more missing
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death toll stands at 13 this morning, the article is being updated as I write so hopefully it will contain good details Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Support in principle, but existing piece is far too technical in a meteorological way and completely fails to tell the human story. AP says 28 killed. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • support - Article needs some human stories indeed. But the overall article right now are ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some parts need references. SpencerT•C 00:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Similar track as Yolanda, but thankfully much less powerful. Deaths at least 28 now. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:958E:F6C1:2F9C:3668 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

December 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Attention needed) RD: Kelly FraserEdit

Article: Kelly Fraser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, CBC News
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Canadian Inuk pop singer-songwriter, whose second album was Juno-nominated. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support Would in general like to see more depth of coverage of the subject, but looks like she passed away young, just as her music career was starting to take off. SpencerT•C 00:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what attention is needed, but I see that some sources have been removed, including the obituary in The Guardian which I added. I don't know why reliable, independent, international sources would be removed, so I will leave it up to others to do whatever is needed on this, or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • RebeccaGreen "Attention needed" is kind of an "alert" for admins who may have "forgotten" a nomination which is, eventually, ready to be published on the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Spencer. I don't see any major ref issues preventing it from being published, but the article is a "start" at best.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Allee WillisEdit

Article: Allee Willis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, Rolling Stone
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Prolific songwriter ( Friends theme, September, What Have I Done to Deserve This, Neutron Dance). CoatCheck (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Referencing appears good.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The 2016 Best Musical Theatre Album Grammy did go to "The Color Purple," but Willis is not listed as a recipient on the Grammy's site. Looking through the history [9], the composer/lyricist is sometimes awarded and sometimes not. Just my guess, but it seems they are omitted when existing songs are used (Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, Once, American Idiot, West Side Story (2009)). Otherwise, article looks good. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Willis is listed here (in category 58). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Andrew MillerEdit

Article: Andrew Miller (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Daily Mail
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British former politician. Article needs further sourcing. Skteosk (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now as it is undersourced. Lmk if sourcing is improved. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Some improvement in sourcing over last couple of days but some parts still unsourced. Skteosk (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Citizenship Amendment Act protestsEdit

Articles: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk, history) and Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In India, Prime Minister Modi defends law on citizenship for migrants, while the protests (pictured) continue with twenty five dead.
Alternative blurb: ​In India, protests (pictured) against the law on citizenship for migrants continue with twenty five dead.
News source(s): CAA protests deadlier than months-long Hong Kong protests: 25 killed in India, 2 deaths reported in Hong Kong, BBC India protests: PM Modi defends citizenship bill amid clashes, CNN Protests rage across India over citizenship law
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Protests continue, Excellent sourcing, Deadlier than the Hong Kong protests already. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Ongoing would probably be a better idea.--WaltCip (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. The government instead of relenting has decided to defend the law, even though death toll climbs. Both are major news items across major newspapers. So a blurb is merited IMHO. An ongoing, though acceptable, will be the bare minimum for this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb or ongoing. Proseline in the extreme, bad grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, I did one round of copy-editing (edit: protests article). DTM (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs quite a bit of cleanup: there is a lot of duplicate information throughout, some copyediting is needed, and I'm not sure if a name list of all of the protest casualties is helpful in the article; I don't think that's typically done for similar articles (but I could be incorrect). SpencerT•C 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing support for the protest article. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both blurb and ongoing Nothing notable enough to warrant another blurb. Ongoing would be ideal, but oppose on quality issues per LaserLegs because the proseline is too much at Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Also, since its currently organized geographically instead of chronologically, it's hard to navigate to the ongoing details. One example would be organization of 2019 Hong Kong protests, which had been in ongoing for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
24 December Times of India In one voice, 80,000 Bengaluru citizens reject CAA , the  article has a timeline for fans of chronology. The geographical names are listed chronologically and not alphabetically. The protests are not under a central organisation so it is useful to read geographically how it proceeded. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The comparison to HK is not applicable to India. One is a city and other is a large country with many states. Please propose your changes on article talk page. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 13:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The protests are still making headlines and of course Indian PM has strongly defended his aim of bringing the CAA into force. The blurb is looking good from my point of view. However protests are usually recommended to be posted in ongoing section. I see only Maltese protests are included under ongoing section and that too is in the verge of removal. Now the main opposition party Congress has come into the party as they also hold rally against CAA. Abishe (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing support as the protests continue to make headlines in international news sources --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing – This is just the sort of topic Ongoing is meant for. If there were a sudden, significant development of course a blurb could be reconsidered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing per Sca, et al. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing as this is a significant event with ongoing action. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing - Yes to ongoing! Sherenk1 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Ongoing if alternative blurb gets changed to protest against and in favour of as protests supporting the bill are also on peak by ruling party and other affiliates.— Harshil want to talk? 14:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Harshil169 your comment makes absolutely no sense to me at all. An ongoing has no blurb. If you have a better blurb, feel free to add it in the template above and support your own blurb. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing - this is very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Can shift to ongoing if needed later. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This story was already posted two weeks ago and rolled off. As an ongoing nomination the protests article is terrible, tagged, bad English, proseline, extraneous details about every region, etc. Has anyone actually read it? Stephen 08:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Stephen, I did one round of reading and copyediting (edit: protests article). It isn't that bad... DTM (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article must include loss of public property. Many state governments have assessed the losses and sent bills to the rioters. Without this information this article clearly looks highly opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangid (talkcontribs) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Jangid please provide the refs for this concern, so that it can be fixed. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 13:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
DBigXray, here they’re: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-protests-up-government-starts-process-seize-property-protesters-involved-violence-1630471-2019-12-22 and https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/explain-or-pay-for-damage-up-administration-sends-notice-to-26-people-in-sambhal-for-caa-violence-1631638-2019-12-26 . However, so far, only Uttar Pradesh has done this...RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed RedBulbBlueBlood9911 and Jangid thanks for the kind note and the link. I have included this into the article. thanks.
  • Support - yes to Ongoing and Blurb. Phoe6 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing only - we already had a blurb. Besides, it looks like the protests won’t slowdown anytime soon, given the fact that they are seen as a protest against the government itself... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
RedBulbBlueBlood9911, do you find the blurb not notable enough ? the death number is significant. As Muboshgu suggested, what stops from promoting this as a blurb and roll it off to ongoing if it still continued ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Because this story was already posted two weeks ago, and subsequently rolled off. We don’t post the same story twice. Stephen 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for blurb only, as the time progressed and information can be changed I think this article needs to be included in Ongoing section, which is none since Maltese protest was remove from ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.47 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment May I know what is the hold up now ? are we waiting for this to get archived by the bot ?
DBigXray, it seems there are some issues on the page (neutrality, grammar and so on). From what I’ve read, there is no reason to not put this in ongoing now, however, so I guess the admins have to get back to editing. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
4-5 editors have done massive C/E on this page. The grammar issues are mostly fixed since the time it was pointed out. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 16:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
In the so taken step by government of India, seems that there's lack of public awareness in certain sections and is even noticed by the violent and atrocious situations arrived.The Article should highlight the content and should work a assistance to public awareness and lack of efficiency in handling the situation in initial days.

Thanks a million

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the "hold up" is the atrocious state of the article. The "protests" and "timeline of protest" sections need to be combined and the proseline eliminated. Still many grammar issues. There is half a sentence mentioning a protest of 300,000 people with zero detail. Not main page ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you want "The "protests" and "timeline of protest" sections be combined". Unfortunately that is not going to happen, as this current structure has been discussed on the talk page and as per consensus, preferred over other structures. This structure helps readability since events are spread over multiple days and are happening in parallel on several places. You are free to propose and argue the benefits of one over the others. In any case this is not sufficient reason for an ITN Hold up.
Thanks for pointing out the "protest of 300,000" I have now included more content.
Regarding Proseline and Grammar issues. IMHO they are largely fixed, An admin should check the article and decide. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
"In Lucknow, police prevents students of Nadwa University to come out of the campus to protest, leading to clashes.". So, grammar. How many students? Why? For how long? What clashes? What consequences? Why is this bullet point factoid notable at all? The article is full of this stuff and I'm frankly tired of featuring garbage like this on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed I copy edited that line. You can read the details at Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Nadwa_University. This is still an ongoing event. Investigations underway and will be updated as and when we have the details. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 10:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Also both the timeline and Protest section are organized in chronological order. the Protest section is divided into sub-sections on states that are arranged in chronological order.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 19:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Requesting another review since a major copy editing has been done on the article. ping User:Spencer,Muboshgu RedBulbBlueBlood9911 . Marked ready--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While I didn't do the most thorough review, I don't see the readability issues anymore others have raised. It's certainly a good article and a significant event. It'd be in our best interest to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing (Oppose blurb). This was already posted earlier this month and has rolled off, so if there are continuing newsworthy events connected to it, then Ongoing is exactly what covers that situation. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing. I !voted above, but I think there's clear consensus above to post it to Ongoing, and that the quality issues were resolved. And nobody else has actioned it. If anyone thinks that's an incorrect call let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

December 23Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sri Lankan cricket team in PakistanEdit

Article: Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan in 2019–20 (talk, history)
Blurb: Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team.
Alternative blurb: Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series to be played in Pakistan in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team.
News source(s): DAWN BBC Al Jazeera France 24 NYT WaPo AFP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The first home Test series in a decade in Pakistan is In the News and the article now also contains summary of the matches. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Question had Pakistan not played a match in their own country in a decade or Sri Lanka had refused to play in Pakistan for a decade? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, latter. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 21:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this nominated before and rejected. --Masem (t) 04:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous discussion was here. Seems to have been a combination of the topic not suitable for ITN and quality of target issues—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Had SL cricketers been killed or they stayed away for decades, I could see the case here. I realize that editors from Pakistan and Sri Lanka will see this as callous, but in my view as an objective observer, the attack was not that bad and the lull was not that long. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: John CainEdit

Article: John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former premier of Victoria. I have added references to the article, and think it is passable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support References were very shabby, great job! --Canley (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. Well sourced. Can't see any reason for delay on this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I changed the death date in the article to 22nd, since it was reported on 23rd source that he "died overnight". Unless it's a timezone discrepancy ...
    That date of death seems very hard to pin down. The ABC source that the article and you have used is the only one I can find that goes close to giving a precise date, and all it says is "died overnight". We cannot tell if that means before or after midnight. What I can see happening now is that a lot of other sources will begin to post whatever we write as the date as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    The Canberra Times says "died on Monday", but that could be a "date announced" assumption. May have to wait for a death notice. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    Now that we have the death notice, it says "in the early hours of 23 December". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to just post, but will let other eyes verify the death date change I made.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - added another (Australian newspaper) source that states died on Monday (23rd) Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mr. NieblaEdit

There's nothing more to discuss, badger, or harangue. It's been posted. Go enjoy your Christmas. WaltCip (talk) 22:48, 25 December 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: Mr. Niebla (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MedioTiempo (es)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Mexican professional wrestler MPJ-DK (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Solid sourcing, good story, no glaring Spanglish. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too much of the article is about the fights and championships he "won". In pro wrestling, this information is telling us nothing more than what scriptwriters at the time decided his character would do. It tells us nothing of the person who has just died. It's the equivalent of discussing the activities of characters an actor played in movies or plays, as if they actually happened. Not an acceptable article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Thoroughly sourced Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn't realise it had been assessed as a Good Article. That's seriously ridiculous. How can a collection of acting scripts become a good article? Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
So I am sorry to see that you think this is the appropriate platform for you to get on a soapbox. Your non-policy based point has been clearly made, how bout we let other people chime in? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
What is non-policy based about my Oppose comment? Do we really accept the scripts of pro-wrestling as somehow describing a person's life? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do point to the policy that supports your oppose based on the fact that the article is "too much about his career" - would you lodge a similar complaint if an article about a golfer is primarily abou their golf career? if an article about a career military office is primarily about their army career? If the article on a politician is primarily about their political work? Please show me that policy and i'll happily withdraw this nomination on the spot. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Misrepresentation is a crappy form of argument. At no point have I said that the article is "too much about his career". Of course we write about the successes of a pro-golfer, because they would be real. The "successes" of a pro-wrestler are not. They are created by scriptwriters. There is a massive difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The successes, while you might consider them to be created by scriptwriters, are due to the wrestlers' ability and drawing power, so it's not like the wrestler is removed from the equation. As such, even a fictitious championship is an accomplishment, as it is an acknowledgement that the promotion has enough faith in them to make them a face of the company. I would argue, therefore, that it is not as empty as you claim, and that the most talented performers rise to the top, much like in more "true" athletic competitions. However, we're getting distracted from the fact that the article is considered sufficiently notable for posting, and it has already been reviewed for quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I misrepresented anything, I presented your argument in a different context and you didn't like it. So let's compare them to actors - except here he played the same role since 1994 basically - So championships could be considered the same as awards, appearing on major shows = "Special guest appearance" etc. his in-ring achivements is to a degree a result of his skills, charisma etc. not that different than an actor. Are you saying that the article on actors with a 30 year career should not include the awards someone voted for him to get (not won "competitively" after all), not include supporting or starring roles in shows and movies? is that not, generally speaking, what an actors career section covers? So yes here he gets in the ring and pretends to want to injure his opponents, no different than getting on a stage and do Shakespear, no diffent than guest starring on the Golden Girs, no different than being a space cleric with a fantasy weapon - except he played that role day in and day out any time he was in public. And you never cited any actual policy, so as it stands it is your personal opinion and nothing more. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
"...championships could be considered the same as awards" Utter nonsense. The championships only exist because someone wrote them into the script. Never the case with awards. There is no way that article deserves to be "Good". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
So again more clear hostility towards the subjet matter, but nothing policy based. Thank you for confirming that there is nothing but your personal opinion behind the objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, completely wrong. I have no feelings either way about the subject matter, but I know that the article supporting this is a load of total rubbish. That IS a policy based issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • An even stronger Oppose ...based on new information added to the article today. See Mr. Niebla#Name confusion. It tells us that at least four different wrestlers have used the ring name "Mr. Niebla". That makes the nomination of the death of just one of these people and linking it to this article somewhat problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Bolding three separate votes from a single person seems like it's designed to mislead others. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
ITN is supposed to encourage people to read our best articles. Sensible readers will laugh at this one. It's like going back to the 1960s when people believed pro-wrestling was real. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 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.

RD: Ahmed Gaid SalahEdit

Article: Ahmed Gaid Salah (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, France 24, NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Algerian army chief, compelled President Bouteflika to resign this year. Jamez42 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is there any information about him besides recent events? Otherwise the article does not appear to have good coverage of the subject. SpencerT•C 00:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal 2019 Maltese protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Maltese protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: The last "protests" were on December 13th (though the article doesn't say how many people) and the last update a was a week ago for an "NGO" calling on he government for "protection". Not "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". In addition, the article makes numerous references to non-specific "NGOs" which makes it impossible to attribute actions and statements to specific groups. Finally, the whole thing is in desperate need of a copyedit for grammar. LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove No updates for the past week. SpencerT•C 15:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Still plenty of edits over the last few days. I say lets keep it on for a few more days at least.BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It's ref improvements and reactions. This article about protests is not being "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Most recent substantial update is for 16 December (even though the events on that date are very mild) and the oldest ITN item is from 17 Dec. Per WP:ITN, Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. SpencerT•C 00:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Also seems to be out of the news now. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Everything seems to have subsided. – Ammarpad (talk)
  •   RemovedBagumba (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Assassination of Jamal KhashoggiEdit

Article: Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A court in Saudi Arabia sentences five people to death for the 2018 killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One orange tag on one section, otherwise a solid well-sourced article. Significant development in this case now that Saudi Arabia has handed down the first legal judgements regarding culpability. Spokoyni (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Article should be better structured to identify the trial and sentencing here. Also, the list of purported names in "Alleged perpetrators" seems like a BLP violation per BLPCRIME, unless they are those that have been part of this sentencing. --Masem (t) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are a part of this widely popular case. 17 of them are Sanctioned by US Treasury. I have noted this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a major contributor of this article. Article has excellent sources, upto date and contains all the info a reader needs. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Section on the sentencing could use some more expansion: e.g. reactions, impact, etc. SpencerT•C 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have expanded the section and included major response. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The verdicts have attracted widespread criticism for convicting the hit men but allowing the high-level organisers to walk free. This needs to be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RGW may be of interest to you. No comment on the nom --LaserLegs (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RGW may be of interest to leading human rights groups around the world, as the internal affairs of RSA often are? The article should just report what they say, because it's in the news? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I misunderstood your comment. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support significant development that is in the news, but Martin is right that we should also mention of the widespread criticism of this verdict. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. But by all means, please feel free to draft an alternate blurb. El_C 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
credits given by User:Ammarpad. Thx. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Ammarpad - you've only given credits to one of those listed. User:Octoberwoodland and I are still waiting. Spokoyni (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

December 22Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ram DassEdit

Article: Ram Dass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Recent deaths: Ram Dass. Dass died on December 22. The author of Be Here Now and other books. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Solid article. Schwede66 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a bit more for those who may not know of his work. Ram Dass' importance in both the 1960s counter-culture and the 1970s western understanding of yoga and perceptional consciousness training is very notable, and his book Be Here Now influenced many in the same way Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi had done for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is indeed solid, with strong references in all sections except “Works” which will require help before posting. Jusdafax (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Have made some clean-up and polishing edits in "Works". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good work. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only 1/4 recordings and 1/7 films cited. Let's get a majority.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Was just able to add cites to three of the films, and can attest to one of the recordings, but as with many "counterculture" figures there's not going to be a lot of main stream coverage of the recordings and films. IMBD covers some, and sales sites others, but the New York Times, not so much (unless an obit mentions some). Hopefully this be might be enough to add Dass to our recent deaths mentions. Even with little main stream coverage of his death (probably not yet added to the CNN crawler) the page has gotten hundreds of thousands of views since he died. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I saw a couple on Amazon. Probably ok. Strike oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Tony BrittonEdit

Article: Tony Britton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British actor, article needs a bit of work Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Tony Britton was a prominent and well-known British actor who had a long career because he periodically reinvented himself. He was a leading man in films in the late 1950s; a character actor in films and on TV in the 1960s and early 1970s; and a sitcom star in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Alanrhobson (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Needs more in-line citations for verification. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Prime Minister of CubaEdit

Article: Manuel Marrero Cruz (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Forty-three years after Fidel Castro abolished the position, Manuel Marrero Cruz becomes the 17th Prime Minister of Cuba.
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Notable change in Cuba's governing, first appointment in 43 years. PotentPotables (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Per nomination as it is ITN and a story of significant global political impact. Dr42 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per DR42. Very important news in political world. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It is a remarkable developing news but yet he didn't contest in the elections to become the PM. However it is still a major news in Cuban politics. On the other hand, the article has just been created and need more expansion. Abishe (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article's in realtively decent shape, and it's covered by most of the major news outlets. ——SN54129 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As both BBC and CNN are reporting, this is mostly a ceremonial position: the power of the Cuban gov't retained in the Communist Party and the President. --Masem (t) 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Reuters quotes govt. as saying PM will be "the administrative right hand of the president." – Sca (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - historic. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Basically a stub. The article is not a biography. It is basically a press release. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, consider this support if/when article is improved. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Thomas ChandyEdit

Article: Thomas Chandy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Former Kerala minister Thomas Chandy died Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Not widely covered; lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • RDs are not evaluated by their "significance", but by the quality of the article. If the article is ok the RD is approved. ALL people with an article on Wikipedia are considered notable and/or significant enough for a RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • This is true, but the death does need to be reported in reliable news sources. Not a question here for Times of India. --Masem (t) 03:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Needs improvement to sourcing. We do not need a separate WP:CSECTION for unindicted allegation. Allegations are levied against politician daily. I doubt it even has due weight in an article this short. It reads like a minor accusation that was blown out of proportion because it is recent. The man lived for 72 years. Is this thing that happened in the last 2 years worth 1/5 of the article space? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

December 21Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

RD: Emanuel UngaroEdit

Article: Emanuel Ungaro (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Vogue
Credits:

Nominator's comments: French fashion designer Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: A few unreferenced sections. SpencerT•C 05:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 FIFA Club World CupEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 05:16, 25 December 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 FIFA Club World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Liverpool defeats Flamengo to win the 2019 FIFA Club World Cup.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 --SirEdimon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think football has enough coverage on ITN already, and this is not a significant enough competition. P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • First of all, this is the most important club competition on football world. Second, this is ITN worth, please check WP:ITNR.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
      • It’s not ITN/R, so I am free to oppose on significance. And it is nowhere near as important as the UEFA Champions League which gets much more attention. P-K3 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
      • FIFA World Cup is ITNR, FIFA Club World Club is not.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd agree with Pawnkingthree, although in one sense this is the ultimate prize in club football, being a tournament for the winners of the continental cups, it doesn't actually have the prestige of the individual UEFA and South American events. It also doesn't look like we posted it last year, and I don't recall seeing it any other year either.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality), despite it not being ITNR, and despite it receiving less attention than the Champions League in much of the world (though Latin America, or at least South America, may well be an exception, as may some of the other countries whose teams are taking part). But that's seemingly WP:systemic bias, a bit like saying that we should not report the British or Brazilian elections, or elections at the UN (to give another instance where the world is deemed less important than some of its parts), because we supposedly have far too much politics anyway and because the US elections receive far more coverage (yes, I know most such elections are ITNR, but that's not really the point). In this case it is likely to be of interest to more of our readers than usual because it's a rare case of an English team winning this cup (which, incidentally, is probably part of the reason why we didn't post it last year). To those who might say that's systemic bias in favour of an English-speaking country, my reply is that in this case any such biaa is legitimate because this is after all English Wikipedia (I would not expect, for instance, German Wikipedia to omit stories of interest to their German-speaking readers on the basis that this is bias in favour of such readers). I might perhaps add that this year, unusually, I was more interested in this cup than in the Champions League (because that was an all-English final this year, which is less interesting than English v Brazilian), despite me being neither English nor British - and I suspect I'm not alone among our readers in having felt that way. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - The only clubs that win this competition are European teams or South American teams, and we already post when those teams qualify to this tournament when they win their respective continental championships. Furthermore, the manager of the winning side had several quotes justifying the value of this tournament to the press, found in this article on BBC, implying that the tournament is looked down upon enough that he felt he had to justify its value. That said, this is technically the ultimate competition of club football, and FIFA treats it this way, even if the fans do not, so it's only a weak oppose. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Klopp's above-mentioned comments are because the tournament is looked upon with contempt and hostility by some elements in Europe (tho not the remaining 90% of the world). The fact that the BBC chose to show the final live in prime time on its main channel (BBC ONE) suggests that this contempt and hostility is not shared by huge numbers of ordinary fans (and Europe's excellent recent record in the cup suggests that major European clubs like Real Madrid now take it seriously too). This does not mean that they regard it as more important than the Champions League, but if that were a requirement for posting at ITN, then about 90% of our ITNR sports items would have to be removed (and huge numbers of non-sporting events would also have to be removed), etc. Incidentally the last Cricket World Cup to be held in India (about 4 years ago, if I remember right) chose to market itself as 'the Cup that matters', presumably because many in India think the T20 world cup is more important, but we quite rightly did not use this as grounds for not posting (nor even for removing it from ITNR). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability and ask where to propose proposed this for ITN/R (here - there are single-country and continental club competitions, yet not the World club competition, that seems counter-intuitive). Main article is updated with final, though more prose on final is in the separate article on it. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no final match summary in either 2019 FIFA Club World Cup or 2019 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I would support if the article on Final had a summary. We've had a lot of non-sports news recently. Doesn't hurt to have this posted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soccer receives plenty of recognition via ITN/R events. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Club World Cup is not highly regarded in the Anglosphere, in part because of its format (a straight knockout with byes for certain confederations). When the new format debuts in 2021 and the tournament becomes a quadrennial event, I think it should warrant a place in ITNR. SounderBruce 06:56, 23 December 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: Martin PetersEdit

Article: Martin Peters (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: English footballer and manager. Member of the England team which won the 1966 FIFA World Cup and played the 1970 World Cup --SirEdimon (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced and good depth of coverage of subject. SpencerT•C 17:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Nice well referenced article about an important football player 46.7.236.180 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - the career stats and honours sections are unreferenced at the moment. Rest of the article looks good enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a number of ref's and fixes. I ref'ed the honours section which Amakuru noted. The career stats haven't been ref'ed but I don't think we should be worried about that. I am happy with the article as it stands. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted If anyone wants to remove the appearances section, that's fine, but given that this is a well sourced article, I'm unconvinced we should be worrying about that. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Could someone give me the "credits", please?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        Done --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

December 20Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Creation of United States Space ForceEdit

Article: United States Space Force (talk, history)
Blurb: President Trump signs defense bill that officially creates the United States Space Force.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States Space Force, the sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces, is officially created.
News source(s): NPR, The Guardian, BBC, ABC.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is the first time that a new branch has been added since 1947. This will also be the first time that the United States will have a dedicated space military presence, as NASA is a civilian agency, and the Air Force only did this as a side mission. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose A United States Space Command was created in 1985 and there was an announcement by Trump about this in August. It's not clear that this is any more than an administrative reorganisation. What's the practical impact? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • This is more than an administrative reorganization. A new branch was announced on 20 December. This new branch is of equal status to the Army and Navy. This is completely different than a command being shuffled around for bureaucratic purposes. This new branch will have its own uniform, song, march, rank structure, etc. It's as independent from the Air Force as the Marine Corps is from the Navy. This hasn't been done since 1947. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Its own song!? But it doesn't actually have one yet, right? I see that people have been parodying this for some time – see Billboard, for example. This seems to be similar to Trump's wall on the Mexico border – more of a work-in-progress than a discrete achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • By the way, note that Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been the top-read article on Wikipedia for several days now, because nobody cares what ITN thinks about it. That's something that actually exists – you can go to the movies and see it yourself whereas Trump's Space Force seems to be like Reagan's Star Wars; an aspiration rather than an actuality. "No one’s ever really gone." – Luke Skywalker. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        • The funding already exists as this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress, and a Chief of Space Operations has already been appointed. The comparison to Reagan's Star Wars is incredibly weak. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 23:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
          • The Act of Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which is a huge bundle of programs, policies and pork for the Department of Defense. There's lots in there such as items for cyberspace, for example. A bill of this sort is passed every year and we would need a good reason to highlight particular items in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
            • "There is established a United States Space Force as an armed force within the Department of the Air Force." Last time something similar to that was said, the Allies had just emerged victorious from World War II. It's been over 70 years, hardly the annual occurrence you make it seem to be. I'm not sure what everyone else isn't getting. Congress has created a new branch of the Armed Forces. It's as official as it's ever going to get. This rarely ever happens, and it reflects a major change in American military policy, and how it has been affected by changing technologies. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
              • Emerged victorious from World War II directly due to extremely real and important air superiority of armed forces. No such clear and present danger this time, just similar in that they're new branches and the press is concerned with the commander-in-chief. Almost a whole other scoop, 72 years later, each with its own official and imaginary merit systems. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is going to be at least a year of administrative setup before there is actually a separate branch. It would be better once the Space Force is officially the 6th branch, as right now, all activities will be under the Air Force. [10] --Masem (t) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It already is a separate branch. It's true that they have allotted 18 months to fully separate the branches, but the official separation has happened. Everything from here is purely administrative. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not fully separate. There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member, only that they are part of the Space Force division under the Air Force. In 18 months a lot can change (and this also potentially is where the impeachment process may come into play, to revoke such programs after the fact). When it is actually separated, then it might make sense to post. But as noted in these articles, this is not the first national-level military-directed space agency anywhere, so I don't see why calling out the US version is necessary. --Masem (t) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        • "There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member..." In that case, we should definitely edit the lead to John W. Raymond, which reads "John William "Jay" Raymond is a general in the United States Space Force..." --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Also worth noting that this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress. It's unlikely that same Congress is going to revoke it just because Trump happens to be the President that signed this into law. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Another step of Trump solidifying his political legacy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose another Trump fake victory that will never be funded or really implemented. At most it's a reorg of the air force and another big government expansion and waste of public funds. Let me know when Mars leaves the UN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Trump news, we have enough. As space war news, it's too soon, still feels "fake". I'll support when the first drop of blood is vaporized (rebel, robot or imperial). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time any nation has created a space force, making this a historic milestone. Weak support because it's not the first time space-related weapons have been destroyed, see e.g. anti-satellite weapon. Still, if other countries respond by establishing their own space force, not posting this would be a mistake. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda FoundationEdit

Article: State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, establishing the first legal case of climate change impacting human rights.
Alternative blurb: ​The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, creating the first legal precedent on the impact of climate change on human rights
News source(s): Bloomberg, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While this case had made news in 2015 from the lower court ruling, it had been appealed twice, but upheld at all points. I think the article is pretty much there? There's some weird formatting stuff I can't figure out immediately, but sourcing, it seems to be there. Masem (t) 16:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to be a pretty landmark case, Supreme Court verdict. Kingsif (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per historic landmark case/ruling.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Could someone fix reference 11? It doesn't point anywhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • No idea where the "Black 2005" source is but I found the original (or least versions of) of the documents that it was sourcing, so bad ref 11 is now removed. --Masem (t) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Historic case. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No article about the case itself? Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Oddly named target, a 2,500-word piece, is too general and broad. This Netherlands ruling is more than halfway down in it. Needs a separate article. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • While there is probably enough details for a separate article about the case, the news is not so much the case but the fact that we have an affirmed highest-court ruling that climate change impacts human rights, which is the whole point of the term "climate justice". --Masem (t) 16:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs a stand-alone article for the case. SpencerT•C 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support Standalone article created and looks good; kudos to User:Masem. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - Agree with Spencer. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Spencer, Sca, and Nice4What: Separate article has been created, blurb updated. --Masem (t) 01:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Suggest removing "Climate Justice" piece as a target, leaving only State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. (Unwieldy article name could be simplified, though.)Sca (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Sca. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing "climate justice" (as I wrote the case article, I think it needs to be tuned towards "climate change litigation" to be a bit more neutral, but that would take more work). Not sure how to reduce the name, as not familiar enough with how Dutch law cases get shortened. (Could it be "Netherlands v. Urgenda?" not sure?) --Masem (t) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"2019 Netherlands climate ruling" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted alt blurb. The newly-created article has been stable, and there was sufficient support already beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Is the term "precedent" accurate? Are lower courts in the Netherlands bound by prior cases? Is the meaning of the word "precedent" in Dutch law different from its generally understood meaning in common law, the legal system used by the majority of English-speaking countries (considering that this is the English Wikipedia)? feminist (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Boeing Orbital Flight TestEdit

Article: Boeing Orbital Flight Test (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An anomaly occurs during the first test flight of the Boeing Starliner spacecraft, preventing a planned rendezvous with the International Space Station
News source(s): BBC, Space.com
Credits:

 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose On the basis that if it successfully got there, on something really bad happened, it would definitely be ITN-worthy, but this is a bit of a boring nothing in between both. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: The failure of a crew-rated spacecraft is "boring"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I don't believe it is yet crew-rated(hence the test flight). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, nothing effectively happened? It missed the target, when reaching would be interesting. It didn't blow up or set on fire or otherwise cause injury. A blurb isn't "thing was supposed to happen but didn't", you know? Like "guy was going to break the world record but fell short" isn't worth a blurb unless there's an independently interesting reason why. And per standards of ITNs for space exploration, I think only a successful flight & rendezvous warrants a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support First paragraph needs a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Test flights generally should not be ITN, even if the eventual purpose is to carry a manned payload - unless crew are already aboard, as with the fateful Apollo 1 test.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Really? Pretty sure this falls under ITNR of "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". The equivalent would be the first landing of Buran or the Space Shuttle. Also, this specific flight had enough drama/anomalies to make it more notable, and it's the first time a ground-landing was done by an American entity. 2601:602:9200:1310:B8D2:9472:B23:A690 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    This is 81st launch of the Atlas V rocket. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    But the first orbit of the Boeing CST-100 Starliner.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Polish judicial disciplinary panel lawEdit

Article: Polish judicial disciplinary panel law (talk, history)
Blurb: Polish judicial disciplinary panel law passed by Sejm, despite warnings this may force Poland out of EU evoking widespread protests throughout Poland.
News source(s): [11][12][13][14][15]
Credits:

 MozeTak (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait Per the article, not yet passed into law. Unless however the protests from this decision rise to an ITN-notable level of posting. SpencerT•C 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

December 19Edit

International Relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Closed) Evo MoralesEdit

Unlikely to gain consensus to post. The feedback is clear. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:52, 20 December 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: Evo Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bolivian prosecutors issue arrest warrant against Former Bolivian President Evo Morales
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Arrest order issued to former Bolivian President who is already facing charges related to corruption. He has been given refugee status in Argentina Abishe (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They need to catch him first.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Seems to be an incremental part of a larger story which has not yet reached its climax. The big two aspects here would be 1) When he was deposed (already posted) and when (if) he is convicted (hasn't happened yet). --Jayron32 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for a conviction. An arrest warrant is not enough to justify an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Obviously. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose They did it a while ago and are not going to get him. IMO the next ITN-worthy Bolivian politics post would be Morales dies or the elections that Áñez keeps pushing back. Or Áñez arrested. Who knows. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose though I think if he was actually arrested it might merit posting as former heads of state are not often arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The situation is speculative at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 19 December 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.

(Closed) Star Wars: The Rise of SkywalkerEdit

SNOW close. Bring back to nominations if it breaks the box office record or something. We did post the Avengers Endgame because of that. --Tone 13:35, 19 December 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: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The final episode of the Skywalker saga premieres and goes on general release.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is big news, of course, but I'm not sure if we should focus on the premiere or the general release. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for a longer plot summary that has actual refs (can you do that? Seems odd to be ok with several paragraphs of prose based on some attendees recollection). As a cultural story, this is as worthy of posting as any literary award, article is pretty decent otherwise. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • -whimper- ... Oppose. Yes, Star Wars is a cultural phenomenon, embedded into the psyche of the Anglophone world (primarily the U.S.) but we do not post blurbs of a movie's premiere based on that alone, unless it's coupled with the smashing of a major global record. In fact, I can't imagine a single instance where we would post a premiere of a movie sans a record-breaking - perhaps Stanley Kubrick coming back from the dead to make a movie?--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until something newsworthy aside from the release happens. --Jayron32 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose lets leave such blurbs (i.e. blurbs of a movie's premiere) for the tabloids. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the mere release of a film. Iff it breaks box office records, then we could consider it for ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:36, 19 December 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.

State of emergency declared in Australia's New South WalesEdit

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​State of emergency is declared in Australia's New South Wales following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires.
Alternative blurb: ​State of emergency is declared in New South Wales, Australia following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bushfires are quite regular in Australia but this time around the bushfires have been uncontrollable. The bushfires have also resulted in implementing state of emergency in New South Wales. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if it should also mention the "record-breaking heatwave" with the record set on Tuesday and than broken the next day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Misleading title and blurb. The state of emergency is only in one of Australia's six states, New South Wales. It covers only slightly more than 10% of the country. I won't support the current blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Oops it is my error and I just included NSW in the blurb. Abishe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Although there have been "only" 6 fatalities, these bushfires are notable in that they have been ongoing for over a month, and have only grown larger during that time. Furthermore the air quality in Sydney has been at hazardous levels for many days since early November, with flow on effects to residents' health and the cancellation of various events. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "Australia's New South Wales" sounds very clumsy. It's unlikely a blurb about Arizona would say "The United States' Arizona". I added an alternative blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Need clearer indications of impact. State of emergency is as much about becoming prepared than a measurement of incurred doom. The California wildfires in October/November did not get posted; a state of emergency was declared there.[16]Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - News from that region of the world tends to be rare on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That would be less of a problem if more editors (not just Australians) worked to prevent such nominations falling off this page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, seems better suited to ongoing as a topic, though I note the current target article is rather sparse; many sections consist of a single sentence and it needs a lot of expansion. --Jayron32 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is NSW's second State of Emergency (first one for this fire season was in November). This isn't a typical fire season, in NSW the season typically starts in mid-late November north of the state and early-mid December in the south, this season started around August and ramped up in September due to drought and above average temperatures. In a season you'll see one or two big (major) fires but so far I have lost count. I do know that approximately 2.7 million hectares has been burnt so far.
The blurb needs more work, I would help but I'm off on a deployment in a few hours. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Gigantic, intense fire situation that's been and continues to be widely covered by RS media. (Record-breaking as a compound modifier of temperatures is hyphenated.)Sca (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current state (though significance is met). Have any of the support votes actually attempted to read this article? The NSW section first has a few paragraphs, each about a different fire. Then a few graphs in summary of the whole season, Then more graphs each about a different fire! Then more summary! This isn't an article; it's research notes. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment, the article simply isn't up to scratch - it's a list of events, some of which are unsourced and many of which are out of date, with one line in the lead saying "A state of emergency has been declared". We can't put that on the front page at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ...for now. Maybe this is linked to the wrong article. 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is just this year's ongoing article about the season's bushfires. Such articles are typically a mess for a while, often being contributed to by enthusiastic, new editors unfamiliar with our conventions. It will be in poor condition for some time yet. Bushfires in southern states are usually worse in January and February. These articles are cleaned up later after things settle down. The problem is, I don't know what article to point to that will be in good condition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Target suggestion Agreed that it's an inappropriate target for a main page item. All of Australia is not on fire now. A model might be like 2019 California wildfires, and even that has individual links to specific fires, and is not proseline for the entire state.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Two firefighters killed. We really shouldn't be ignoring this topic. (Two sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's the second comment you've made in this nom arguing this event is significant. No one is disputing this - the objection is quality. If you are passive-aggressively arguing that quality should be ignored, be less passive. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Not 'suggesting' anything of the kind. Be less disparaging. I do suggest that some of our Australian colleagues familiar with the topic and the country work on the article. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Why just Australians? And this article is not likely to become stable enough to support the nomination in the time-frame required. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As GreatCaesarsGhost has just noted, we need a better quality article to support this nomination. I have already pointed out further up this discussion that the linked article, 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, is unlikely to become a quality, stable in the time frame we need. As its name shows, the period it covers extends into next year. It covers the whole country, ten times the area involved with the subject of this nomination. Fires are only just now firing up (sorry) in the southern states of Victoria and South Australia, and the southern part of Western Australia, and will continue through to at least April next year if past years are any guide. It's the kind of article that attracts new and enthusiastic but unskilled editors. It just isn't the right article. We obviously need an article on the declaration of the state of emergency if we are to follow our guidelines. Or, and this is the biggie, accept that this IS a major news item, and should not miss out on being posted just because nobody thought of situations like this when they wrote the guidelines. If we can't do that, we perhaps need to rethink the headline on our main page. After all, this definitely IS In the News. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Homo erectusEdit

Article: Homo erectus (talk, history)
Blurb: Homo erectus survived into comparatively recent times in South East Asia, a new study has revealed
Alternative blurb: ​Study reveals Homo erectus survived until around 110,000 years ago in South East Asia, more recently than previously known
Alternative blurb II: ​A study suggests Homo erectus died off due to rainforests destroying its natural grassland habitat in Java, around 110,000 years ago.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As per article "The latest study highlights a mind-boggling truth: that many of the species we thought of as transitional stages in this onward march overlapped with each other, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment On first blush, this seems to fail impact. It's been known for decades (and been postulated for over a century) that various Homo species were contemporaneous. The breakthrough work in the last few decades was establishing that they were co-located and intermingled as well. The actual story here is that it brings the most-recent date for (specifically) erectus forward by ca. 200 ky (to 100 kya from 300 kya). On one hand, I'd like to see stories like this get Main Page featured. OTOH, this is pretty "meh" even from someone who works close to this field, and the article is not great.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest changing blurb to give an actual timeframe. "Comparatively recently" is meaningless. The article is of high quality. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Current blurb is also a close paraphrase of the BBC subheadline.[17].—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any updates in the article. This is a must before we can discuss otherwise this ITN-worthy story. --Tone 10:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support different angle We've known humanity has been brutally attacking rainforests for a while, but now we "know" the rainforest killed our best cousins. Every last one of them! This changes everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed with above that "comparatively recently" is a phrase that is useless at best, and recklessly misleading at worst. Would prefer to see a more concrete timeframe.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added an alternative blurb based on the BBC article. User:GKFXtalk 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Target article has not been updated, no clear text related to this story in the target article. --Jayron32 13:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is incremental, and based on a sketchy dating method. We know that Homo floresiensis arose about 100ka on a nearby island, and their ancestor was probably H. erectus.Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted, Ongoing removed) Impeachment of Donald TrumpEdit

Article: Impeachment of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb: ​President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump.
News source(s): The Guardian; NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The vote is going to be within the hour, and no one thinks it will fail(if it did, that would likely merit posting too). I've suggested two blurbs though I'm open to changes. It could be pulled from Ongoing. I'm also open to a different image- and I wouldn't be opposed to leaving the current image of Musharraf up for awhile longer. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support and we can pull it from ongoing until the Senate trial starts --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support Extremely historic day, and with only 8 minutes voting to go on the first article, its looking definite that Trump will be the third president ever to be impeached (finally!).  Nixinova TC   01:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's internal to the US and part of a two-step process, but this is making so much news worldwide I think we should blurb it anyway. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support -- this is as much breaking news as the impeachment of any head of state. However, while his impeachment is all but certain now (needs 218 votes, at 208 at time of posting), we should wait until it actually passes -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Update Trump just became the third U.S. president to be impeached. 2 Dems and 1 Repub broke ranks.  Nixinova TC   01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Did a Republican vote yes? Amash is an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
There's only 1 indep vote at the moment but the Repub vote got removed a minute ago.  Nixinova TC   01:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Headline news in what I'm guessing is every major and medium news outlets. Really easiest support. Juxlos (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support...but wait until final results come through and the second vote is held. This is obviously notable, though. | abequinnfourteen 01:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Support original blurb. | abequinnfourteen 01:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Historic day. Only third time in U.S. history a president has been impeached. Master of Time (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Update Article II just passed.  Nixinova TC   01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Only third President in U.S. history to be impeached, obviously major news. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready @331dot: marked ready, this one seems obvious for a blurb, at least no one has commented on ongoing. You're involved but since you're around if you wanna post you may as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Historic moment. House is adjourned, both articles passed.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 01:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, incredibly historic to get impeached at all, let alone be the first impeached during the first term. Going to be in the news all over the place. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support HUGE news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the most important American political events of the last few decades. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Not counting all the wars, sure, it's up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support even if slightly pile on and per above -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Extremely Weak Oppose solely on article quality. The background section is under referenced. Fix it and we should be g2g. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • With how much traffic the page is getting, this problem will probably fixed in like 3 seconds.  Nixinova TC   02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted and Removed the ongoing on the basis that once this blurb falls off, the ongoing would likely go back on - at least, after Congress reconvinces in Jan and the Senator takes it up... (assuming they do). Trump image just added to prot queue. --Masem (t) 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Should the picture be updated to be of the US President? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Has he been sentenced to death? Why not wait until then before switching pictures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Not yet, but the top blurb gets the pic. It's in the protection queue now. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    If you include political death under that definition, then yes.  Nixinova TC   02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
How many times has he allegedly commited suicide now, six? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Now image is protected, so image swapped. --Masem (t) 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the blurb requires a clarification that Trump remains with 100% of his prerogatives until the Senate vote. I believe many countries besides US have impeachment where the person is actually temporary suspended until the trial vote. Or at least the locked linked article should clearly state that. 205.175.106.160 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Probably something to comment on the talk page of the article; clarifying all the details in the blurb would be too long. SpencerT•C 04:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The altblurb that was posted gives the impression that there's more to come. --Masem (t) 05:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Comment Forwarding to Senate may be held up apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talkcontribs) 05:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Suggest that we modify & bump the current blurb with the Senate's vote results, when they come in. Admins, please note this recent RfC.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The Senate is unlike to be voting on this anytime before 2020 - the House wanted this done before Congress leaves for holiday break. By that point the blurb will clearly have rolled off, and we'll likely have put back the ongoing on the impeachment hearings. But 99% likely that either way the Senate votes on conviction, we'll post (even if they fail to convict, which is likely expected). --Masem (t) 07:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anybody opposed to changing the blurb to "President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress"? The present blurb ("charging him with") grammatically seems to imply that Trump charges himself, although the true meaning is clear from context. Another way to make this clearer would be "The United States House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress". Sandstein 08:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Agree, and I went with your first suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting suggested re-word - Trump isn’t impeached until the House articles are sent to the Senate. Suggested re-word: The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump. CoatCheck (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • False. Trump is impeached. An opinion article and Fox News aren't the best sources to prove any points youre trying to make.  Nixinova  T  C   19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Support: Present wording is fine as it is. Sleath56 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Herman BooneEdit

Article: Herman Boone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone dies at the age of 84
Alternative blurb: Herman Boone, legendary coach of the T.C. Williams High School football team, dies at the age of 84
Alternative blurb II: ​Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone, who was immortalized in the 2000 film Remember the Titans, dies at 84
News source(s): https://wtop.com/alexandria/2019/12/herman-boone-alexandria-football-coach-immortalized-in-remember-the-titans-dies-at-84/
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This deserves a listing given the significance this person has in both local and national history. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure the nominator understand that he will be posted to Recent Deaths as long as the article is updated. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that... my point being that IMHO this deserves more than just an RD mention. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only. He was important for the local area, but wouldn't be as known nationally without the film. Blurbs are typically reserved for deaths where the death itself is an event, or for world-transforming figures at the tip top of their field. Neither is the case here. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No blurb I genuinely understand and appreciate how high school football can seem larger-than-life in some states, but most readers grew up in the real world instead. To them, a coach is just a sort of teacher. A better-paid teacher, but still pretty common. Scoring a movie deal is universally cooler, but only goes so far. Gets you a blurb nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, per 331dot. The only sportsperson I can remember being posted as a blurb was Muhammad Ali. (There may be others I've forgotten, but that's the level we're talking about). Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Gretzky's getting a great one someday. But yeah, Ali was the greatest. The Great Khali will likely be an exception to this unwritten "great" rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk It isn't unwritten, see WP:ITNRD. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I mean the rule about assuming greatness based on a person's clear and present moniker. Generally holds true, but there'll always be pretenders. Khali was good in the lesser The Longest Yard, but that only goes so far toward immortality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only Nowhere near as notable as "top of field" people. Juxlos (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD and RD-ready. All statements in article are sourced. pbp 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, obviously. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only. Even if we were to consider a blurb, the current ones listed are absolutely laughable in their use of loaded language and puffery. WaltCip (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Not absolutely "funny" yet. Remember when Jesse Owens was misdiagnosed as a "civil rights champion" for running against the backdrop of Hitler looking stupid? What if...no...we'd get cancelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I dread the day John Lewis dies. That is going to be one hell of a contentious ITN nomination. Gives me flashbacks of John McCain's nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Then let that fear guide us toward eradicating the orange menace at the heart of his activism, before people hear about him for the first time! By us, I mean you guys. Wake up, verifiers! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only per others. A respectable coach, but lightyears away from being a world-transformative figure required for a blurb. Article seems to be in good shape for RD. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, obviously. both local and national history - are you aware it needs to be of international relevance?  Nixinova TC   04:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Citation formats No impact to the merits of posting, but the inline page number referencing format used (i.e. the colons next to the footnote marker e.g.[1]:500) is rare and confusing enough, but then the page numbers in the inline text and the citation don't even match. Ideally, the citation would not need any page number with this "style". Perhaps anyone with access to those offline sources can resolve the page number conflicts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dummy. p. 210.
  Done. Looks like someone misinterpreted |pages= to mean the total number of pages in the source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

December 18Edit

Armed conflict and attack

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Geulah CohenEdit

Article: Geulah Cohen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Jerusalem Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks to be well referenced. P-K3 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good but the lead can be expanded. Gotitbro (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zafar ChaudhryEdit

Article: Zafar Chaudhry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:

Article updated

 Vegan Gypsy (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good. I'm not familiar with that citation style (e.g. :217[1][2]) and it looks incorrect. Please can you look into that? I've added one {{cn}} too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I'm hoping if the primary ref I placed would be sufficient. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I am tired and need some sleep so I can't help with this. However, the problem is that {{rp}} needs to go after the </ref> instead of before <ref>. Another issue is that an editor appears to have misinterpreted |pages= in {{cite book}} to mean the total number of pages in the book. Weird this is the second time I have seen this mistake today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I have placed the page no. after the refs end but haven't checked the pages= within the refs. Hoping it ain't something that'll hold it from being posted. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vegan Gypsy: I cleaned up the rest. But there is a small gap in the biography. Can you add when he returned from exile in Canada? He fled to Canada in 1974 but returned to serve in Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and died in Pakistan. But when did he go back to Pakistan? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – This is good enough to post. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyrus MistryEdit

Unanimous opposition – no chance.
Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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: Cyrus Mistry (talk, history) and Natarajan Chandrasekaran (talk, history)
Blurb: NCLAT restores Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Group and held the appointment of N Chandrasekaran as illegal.
News source(s): The Economic Times, The New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Ongoing boardroom saga in 100 Billion Tata Group Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The absence of any mention of the ongoing saga in the target article makes me hesitant to go against standard ITNC practice of ignoring the internal machinations of corporations, regardless of their size. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ...a controversial company fired someone? I don't see how this rises to the importance of ITN in any way. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Limited lasting ramifications. SpencerT•C 19:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems a bit too minor. 100 billion sounds big, but it really isn't that big given that there are many companies bigger than it (e.g. Apple, which has roughly $1 trillion market capitalization). Banedon (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose People are fired and reinstated by companies everyday. We recently declined to post Aramco's IPO (A trillion+ company), and I believe even Apple-related news must be something extraordinary for it to be posted. So being 100 billion+ is not even a good argument to start with. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I commented on the recent Alphabet Inc CEO nomination, I cannot think of any company where a change in the CEO rises to ITN levels of significance. Modest Genius talk 11:59, 19 December 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: Jerome L. SingerEdit

Article: Jerome L. Singer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hartford Courant
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death was announced today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of the references are not independent — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MSGJ. The Hartford Courant obituary cited reads like a paid posting as well.—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Your change only replaced the Courant obituary with pretty much the same one from Legacy.com. My original comment was simply an extension of MSGJ's point about lack of independent sources. Paid obituaries are not forbidden, per se. Quality is a concern w.r.t. NPOV if the article is not backed mostly with independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    @TDKR Chicago 101 and Bagumba: This and this may help. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    There is also this festschrift, but I think one of his sons was one of the co-editors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: & @MSGJ: Added more independent sources. I kept the Courant for his death section only as I think it is appropriate as its an obituary. Other than that, more independent sources added thanks to @Coffeeandcrumbs:! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I added C&C's NYT article for good measure (and future expansion, perhaps). Sufficient indy coverage cited now.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 16:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

December 17Edit

Business and economy

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) Pervez MusharrafEdit

Article: Pervez Musharraf (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is sentenced to death for treason and subverting the constitution.
Alternative blurb: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf who is currently residing in Dubai is sentenced to death and subverting the constitution.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is found guilty of high treason and sentenced to death in absentia for imposing the state of emergency.
Alternative blurb III: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf currently exiled in Dubai, is sentenced to death in absentia for treason.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is sentenced to death in absentia for treason and subverting the constitution.
News source(s): CNN,BBC, Economic Times, NDTV, Al Jazeera, Reuters, The Guardian
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Death penalty is issued to one of the prominent political figures in Pakistan. News is developing. Abishe (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on the merits. A former head of state being sentenced to death is certainly notable. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposupport – First, I want to say holy shit! But the article needs more of an update to the body. There is no mention of a conviction for treason in the body. Suggested a better blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support; Damn, you don't mess with the Pakistani judicial system. I believe this is very notable since a former head of state is sentenced to death. I would just like this to be mentioned more in the article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just added a new heading Death penalty in the article. I have been updating it and thank you Coffeeandcrumbs for rectifying my error and for modifying the blurb. Abishe (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Article is not completely referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be clarified that he was sentenced in absentia. He is in Dubai, which may not extradite him (sice Pakistan and UAE do not have an extradition treaty). --NSharma21 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The sentencing of former army chief and former President is highly significant moment in Pakistan where the powerful military has ruled the country for nearly half of its 72-year history. Even if this penalty is not going enforced but this is a bold decision and sign of powerful judiciary. --Saqib (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose clickbait blurb until concerns pointed by NSharma21 are fixed. This alone may have no impact as he is not a captive in Pakistan.Musharraf is free in Dubai and he will likely never return and is dying of cancer anyway. --DBigXray 14:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per NSharma21, wait to see if he's deported/extradited to Pakistan. Historically, quite a few politicians have been sentenced in absentia, without effect. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose since he is in a country that is highly unlikely to extradite him. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment 100% agree with what DBigXray and Nonstopmaximum say regarding the issue. I was not initially aware of the fact that he was residing in Dubai for over three years before nominating here. Actually it made me to nominate here when I reviewed the awaiting of pending change request for the article where I saw one of the editors added the info regarding his death sentence in the top section. Then I searched for it whether it was true or false and later confirmed it through reliable sources. Now I feel it won't be easy for Pakistan to extradite him from the United Arab Emirates. The news will develop in coming days. But I am feeling suspicious about NSharma21 because their contributions to Wikipedia mainly include edits to ITN section. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per Saqib. This is very significant event as military is considered above law in Pakistan. They pressurize everyone to impose their decisions. This was a tough decision as they delayed the decision using Islamabad High Court. Wikipedia should not censor this decision. Störm (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean support still reading the article, but the fact that he was sentenced to death in absentia says as much about the kangaroo nature of the "special court" as it does about his acts as PM. Article is actually really thorough and so far I haven't tripped over anything outrageous. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's both currently a top news story, and quite rare, that a former head of state is sentenced to death. It would be sloppy on the readers part—not the blurb's fault—to misinterpret that he's already dead, or that it's a guarantee of what the next actions will be. The sentencing itself is major news, regardless.—Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs to be clear about which country this was made in and where he is now. I also think we need a blurb that captures the fact that he is in exile, and that this penalty is effectively moot unless he is focused back to the country. --Masem (t) 16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have fixed some issues regarding the blurbs. I am not sure whether there is a strange relationship between Pakistan and UAE. Its simply because Pakistan played international cricket matches in UAE and adopted UAE as its home venue. Hope this extradition would happen as this is related to high profile treason case. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - should mention he is in exile.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment added an "Alt blurb III" with suggestions from everyone. Although I still dont agree we should be posting this, but if something has to be posted, it better be informative and non clickbait.--DBigXray 16:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    Agree that Alt3 would be best if post we must – but this is not a Support vote. – Sca (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    Clickbait is false advertisement. While his whereabouts might arguably be "informative", there is nothing misleading in a shorter blurb saying that he is sentenced to death.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Every headline from various news agencies that I have seen does not list his current whereabouts. It's in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    Bagumba obfuscating major plot details, that basically negates the whole story, is the kind of clickbait that tabloids do, not encyclopedia.--DBigXray 17:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    Your view of "major plot detail" differs from actual headlines of reliable sources. See samples of headlines below.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

*Support: Though it should be made clear that he isn't in the country and the sentence will not be immediately carried out if at all. Gotitbro (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Agree with Andrew, this is unlikely to have any impact on this former head of state or even the current ones. Inconsequential in the end. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just another show trial with no effective impact. There are numerous corrupt politicians all over and we should save our energy for the cases with impact. There's another Arab Spring brewing and developments in 2020 are expected. It's the revolutions and regime changes that matter, not inconsequential items like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are the headlines of seven sources listed in the nomination: "Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf sentenced to death for high treason" (CNN), "Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan ex-leader sentenced to death for treason" (BBC), "Pakistan's Former dictator Pervez Musharraf sentenced to death in high treason case" (Economic Times), "Pervez Musharraf Sentenced To Death In High Treason Case: Pak Media" (NDTV), "Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf handed death penalty in treason case" (Al Jazeera), "Pakistan sentences former dictator Musharraf to death in absentia" (Reuters), "Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan sentences former ruler to death for high treason" (The Guardian)—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: In absentia Some commenters here insist it's misleading to not mention it, believing it's informative and exposes the ruling to be toothless. However, according to The Washington Post, he's been receiving medical attention since leaving the country, and reportedly is seriously ill.[19] Giving the blurb the impression that he's a fugitive obfuscates the real story of the sentencing by omitting mention that he's ill and likely to die while never being allowed back to his own country. Keep the blurb focused on the current sentencing, not on future speculation. Use the original blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: waiting for 7 missing citations; otherwise this has sufficient support to post — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: citations have been added.
  • Support plus modified altblurb2, incorporating the newly created article. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You appear to have modified every blurb, including changing "president" to "dictator." Why was that?-- P-K3 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Although both are applicable here, but I note that most of the media houses e.g. CNN, NDTV are calling him president. so President seems to be more apt. --DBigXray 21:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have undone the "dictator". I think Alternative blurb IV is best. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support remaining citations added now Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The conviction is one thing, but it's sensational to say he's sentenced to death when we know that sentence is unlikely to be carried out. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    But impeachments in Western countries that are not expected to result in conviction is news. OK.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    If by "impeachments in Western countries" you mean a formal proposal to depose the holder of the most powerful position in the history of the world, YES; I would think that more significant than this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    He's talking about the position where you need to spend millions of dollars for a four-year term, only get it if millions of people have your back, are constitutionally limited to two terms and can theoretically be kicked out early if a few dozen lesser politicians choose so. Nobody's considering overthrowing a monarch, religious supreme, multinational chairperson or bank governor. Nor seriously wanting Trump killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Anyone can be killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. I'll get to the credits later — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Can the blurb be modified to incorporate the Musharraf high treason case article that is now fairly developed? --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The format of Musharraf high treason case is pure proseline, thus below the quality standard for linking from Main Page at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

December 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Basil ButcherEdit

Article: Basil Butcher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: West Indian cricketer. Article in fairly good shape. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed "ready" I was going to post, but found a couple of unsourced paragraphs with lots of stats references at the end of Basil_Butcher#Test_career. Being that this is an RD, mention that he was ill is important too (and even better if his death is moved out of the lead (MOS:BLPLEAD)—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I have added the missing refs. The death is out of lead and long illness added. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   PostedBagumba (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019Edit

Articles: Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (talk, history) and Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India's Prime Minister has appealed for calm as violent protests against a new law on illegal migrants entered a fifth day.
Alternative blurb: ​Atleast six people killed and many arrested in protests (pictured) against a new law on citizenship for migrants
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nationwide protests are still going on. Six people have been killed and 50 injured according to BBC article. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Alt blurb. The CAA has caused massive outrage and protests all over India. 5 trains and several buses burnt. Thousands of people arrested. covered by Media accross the world. The AfD nom has already been withdrawn and is heading for a Strong Keep.--DBigXray 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I was in the process of writing up this nomination and you beat me to it. Banedon (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Me Too. --DBigXray 13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose protests are tagged for deletion, citizenship act article needs the usual ESL copyedit ("Internet was shutdown in the north-eastern state of Assam and curfew declared in Assam and Tripura due to huge protests") --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and copy edited it. The AfD nom has withdrawn and is heading for a Keep. --DBigXray 12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Both articles look good, and this is a prominent story in major news organizations. Prefer altblurb. --Jayron32 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  Posted. El_C 13:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits.--DBigXray 13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Done by Amkuru--DBigXray 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now added this free image to the nomination, can the ITN pic be updated? I think we have seen Boris for a few days now. --DBigXray 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
      Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: The protests article now shows deaths as 15. DTM (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Number of deaths has increased to 24 now. Please update. -Nizil (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

December 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Monique LeyracEdit

Nominator's comments: Le chanteuse Quebecoise. Could use a little more expansion but is completely sourced. ミラP 04:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject's career. A single sentence describes her career in the 80s and aside from 2 awards she received there's no information about what she did in the 90s. There's enough information out there that the article notes that a biography was written about her. SpencerT•C 23:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What she did in the 1990s is this newfangled thing you might have heard about called retirement, which people tend to do in their 60s and 70s. Neither her article on fr (slightly but not significantly longer, but with fewer footnoted references than ours) nor her entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia (which is cited as a footnote in our article) say that she did anything in the 1990s but collect a couple of lifetime achievement awards either — and the French article even has "Années actives = 1948-1989" right in its infobox. So the article not containing information about her career in the 1990s is not a flaw in the article, it's "she was retired and didn't have a career in the 1990s for us to write about". Bearcat (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies; the article was not clear regarding when she retired. Even then, the only thing the article has about her career in the 70s is an award she won and a documentary about her, so my point still stands, regardless of when her career occurred. SpencerT•C 16:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient lead to start. Granted the page is small, but the lead should have a few hightlights from her career.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can be updated from the French article (but its lead isn't in a great shape either). Gotitbro (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: 100k people a week ago was a big deal, 100 people 4 days ago is not. The article is gigantic and overly detailed -- and has been orange tagged for NPOV for several days now. LaserLegs (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Pull Things have calmed down a bit and the orange tag is a main page showstopper. That needs to be resolved before this can be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull – Looking at the talk page, I don't expect the orange tags to be resolved quickly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull Less activity recently + orange tags that need to be resolved. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the constant attempts and counter-attempts to list/delist this article rather funny. Next time we have an "ITN is broken" discussion on WT:ITN, I'll be sure to bring this up. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    AGF. If not, discussing it could be at the risk of WP:BEANS too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    It's not about this nomination, it's about something else ([20] if you're interested). I really find it rather funny, considering that this article was posted to ongoing even though it was orange tagged because an editor said it wasn't warranted and removed the tag. As I mentioned, the next time we have an "ITN is broken" discussion on WT:ITN, I'll be sure to bring this up. Banedon (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull LaserLegs' personal quest finally comes to an end. The current state of the article leaves too much to be desired for it to be a main page article right now. I'd support putting it back up if/when the orange tags are resolved. --PlasmaTwa2 07:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Orange tag comment (from uninvolved editor) The NPOV tag is linked to the discussion at Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Deliberate_omission_of_context_in_the_lead_section, opened since 6 December. If I had to close that thread now as an admin, it looks like a no consensus. Wouldn't "no consensus" on an NPOV issue mean that it really is generally neutral already? Also, it does seem that a polarizing page such as this could always have some viewpoint "missing" and be tagged as "NPOV". The presence of the tag itself might not be an automatic showstopper for this specific page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Removed from ongoing. No opinion on the orange tag. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing removal 2019 Maltese protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Maltese protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Last protest of any significance was a week ago, article is orange tagged for neutrality. LaserLegs (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Pull Things have calmed down a bit and the orange tag is a main page showstopper. That needs to be resolved before this can be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull – Looking at the talk page, I don't expect the orange tags to be resolved quickly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Orange tag comment The NPOV tag, added 15 Dec, links to Talk:2019_Maltese_protests#2019_Maltese_protests_neutrality. So far, the two people who have commented (other than the tagger) have stated that more specific on the NPOV concerns are needed to justify the presense of the tag.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling. The orange take seems to be without merit, as the discussion seems to show; there have been substantive events that have occurred recently, which are in the article and in good shape (Dec 13 and Dec 16). --Jayron32 13:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What substantive events? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The December 13 events take up 4-5 paragraphs of text, which is more than sufficient. The December 16 events have much less, but the December 13 stuff was only a few days ago. Give it a few more days and see if anything else develops. --Jayron32 13:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I saw lots of text there, but I'm asking "what substantive events" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes the events substantive is that source texts which can be used to update Wikipedia are covering them as though they are substantive events. My personal feelings, familiarity, opinions, or interest in the events has nothing to do with my assessment of substantive, which in the context of Wikipedia relies only on what is written in Wikipedia and what is written in reliable sources. --Jayron32 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subsection for 13 December is quite substantial. There is another subsection for today. I also agree with User:Jayron32 about the neutrality tagging being debatable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull While there are some continual updates, they do not rise to the level of ITN-worthy postings, and thus it wouldn't make sense for the article to remain in ongoing. Future blurb-worthy items should be nominated as such, and then if that ages off the template, an Ongoing placement would then be warranted. SpencerT•C 16:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that for an item to remain in Ongoing, each update to it should be the equivalent in significance of an ITN posting in its own right? I don't think we've ever operated that way.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but that's the reason that the Ongoing section was originally created (the Olympics, so that Olympics-related items wouldn't clog up the section). My definition for In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. requires that there is some sense of notability to this information, that there would be consideration to posting to ITN as a blurb. For this item, where an NGO makes a request to the president and there's a relatively small vigil (in the context of broader protests), this does not rise to meet that minimum. SpencerT•C 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anna KarinaEdit

Article: Anna Karina (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Iconic French actress. --SirEdimon (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I think everything is sourced now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support I don't usually comment on RDs but there was only one support prior so I'll agree, it's good to go (though a bit list-y near the end). Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

December 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
Law and crime
  • Former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is sentenced to two years detention in a reform facility for corruption. There is heavy military custody of the government buildings and the court as followers of his now dissolved party rally in his support. Defense lawyers say they will appeal the sentence. (Reuters)

Omar al-Bashir convicted of corruptionEdit

Article: Omar al-Bashir (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir is convicted of corruption and financial irregularity by a Sudanese court and is sentenced to two years in prison.
Alternative blurb: ​Former president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir is convicted of corruption by a Sudanese court and sentenced to two years in prison.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir is convicted of corruption and money laundering by a Sudanese court and sentenced to two years in prison.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Omar al-Bashir was ousted as president of Sudan in April of this year; this is his first criminal trial since then. He is also wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity for the Darfur genocide, but it is unclear if he will be turned over. Davey2116 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support posting about a former head of state convicted of a crime related to their role. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nitpick? Financial irregularity isn't illegal; he was pinched for money laundering. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposupport Agree with InedibleHulk. Also this is a BLP and there are several uncited claims in the article. The article body has also not been updated to indicate the recent news.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Everything is appears fully sourced now. I have added a lot more RS over the past few days to ensure verifiability and update the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely significant. But "corruption and financial irregularity" is just verbose. Added alt blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose - I feel that if this were truly notable, wouldn't there be a separate article covering this conviction/sentencing? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC); Edited 04:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no rule that says something is only notable if it has a separate article. Splitting is done based on whether the main article becomes too long to handle it, not based on whether some incident is notable or not. At almost 100 kB of length, the article might indeed need a split (WP:SPLIT) but probably more for the ICC trial than this one. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a minor story with no significant impact – he lost power in a coup months ago and is not going to jail even now. Compared to other stories such as the extension and failure of COP25, it's too petty and local. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Who says he's getting out of jail? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
He is going to the ICC after this. Even the U.S. has agreed to send ambassadors to Sudan, for the first time in 23 years. This is a feat in the Sudanese transition to democracy. I wish people would stop treating ITN like a competition. We should have posted something about COP25 because it was significant news. We should also post this because it is significant news. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The BBC explains that "under Sudanese law, people over the age of 70 cannot serve jail terms. Bashir is 75." So, all the proposed blurbs are inaccurate. If the ICC does something then there might be more of a story but that's speculation. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

December 13Edit

Business and economy
  • China–United States trade war
    • Both countries announce an initial deal where new tariffs to be mutually imposed on December 15 would not be implemented. China says it "will buy more high quality of American agricultural products", while the United States says it will halve the existing 15% tariffs. (The Guardian)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Sheila MercierEdit

Article: Sheila Mercier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The Emmerdale star. Sourcing issues are minor and can be solved easily. ミラP 01:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I fixed a few ref issues and I can't see any others.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. I note that although she died on 4 Dec, this was only reported on 13 or 14 Dec — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny AielloEdit

Article: Danny Aiello (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American actor best known for Do the Right Thing. Article has sourcing problems. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - A few ref issues, that could be easily fixed. The filmography, is mostly unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    I've cited about 90% of the filmography, if someone wants to take a shot at the rest.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing is much improved and generally sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed and   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Samoa Measles Outbreak from OngoingEdit

Article: 2019 Samoa measles outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: No substantial prose updates to the article in the past 3 days (mostly addition of references or tallying statistics). While technically ongoing, this item would have been better fit for a blurb, given the lack of continual ITN-postable events occurring. SpencerT•C 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove addition was good at the time, but the news about this seems to have died down to just statistics updates. --Jayron32 15:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. It does seem like the only recent large updates have been the addition of citations, but little to no prose. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Any analysis of whether the article has been updated needs a time frame. The time frame of consideration is since 9 December (the date of the oldest current blurb). Since 9 December, there have been significant updates to the article. Maybe it should have been a blurb, but that is spilled milk. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the only requirement that actually exists is that the article be "continuously updated". The target is getting sporadic updates with minimal new information. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    This is not true. WP:ITN also says "Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." Continuosly updated is a useless description unless we define how often? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Removed for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: BrexitEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 04:18, 14 December 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: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Hot important ongoing event that keep appearing in the news on a daily basis. News regarding this issue are fundamental and important on the international level. Main article and sub articles are getting updates on daily basis. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, with the election done, the UK gov't will turn back to Brexit, but let's wait until we know what the next steps are. --Masem (t) 06:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Masem How does the next steps matter now that Brexit is officially back on the agenda? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32 provides a good rationale. We know Brexit will be on the table soon enough, but unlikely before end of the year. When they reconvene next year, I fully expect Brexit to be the big point, at which point we can judge better about an ongoing news item. --Masem (t) 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Boris Johnson has just won with the slogan “Get Brexit done” and so it’s back on the agenda again, with the clock ticking for a deadline of end-Jan. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is in much better shape than when it was last removed. I would be very willing to support, but there are (rather curiously) CN tags. Most of them are for historical things which should be easy to resolve (and by my recollection, those lines DID have sources in the earlier version). However, one is for a direct quote, which is a showstopper for the Main Page.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that the Tories have won the election, Brexit will get through much easier. I'm wondering if we should just wait to post passage of the withdrawal bill and/or something on January 31 when the UK actually leaves. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I fully expect some miraculous and totally unforeseen thing to occur before Jan. 31, which results in X more months of delays, which results in some other confounding thing, and so on. How many deadlines has this already blown through? In short and contra CRYSTAL, I think this is going to be ongoing for well more than 7 weeks. I'd prefer blurbs, too, in any other case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.3.203 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
If the Tories have that large a majority, the opposition won't be able to stop Brexit. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than 1-2 lines about the general election, there's not much written in that article from recent weeks. Not enough updates to justify posting to the ongoing link, and we're already covering the election in a blurb. When something worth writing about happens, we can do another blurb. --Jayron32 13:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's extremely easy to say that Brexit is a foregone conclusion now that the conservatives have a majority, but we should still avoid massaging crystal balls whenever possible. Let's wait for the actual politics to start.--WaltCip (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Boris says by Jan. 31. Mutti says unlikely even by the end of 2020. Whose vision is ... 20/20? – Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think a blurb when the next substantial event happens would be better.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm taking a "wait and see" stance on this, as the article currently is not being updated much. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The article suggested is a listicle of events and way below the standards of a good encyclopedic article. The timeline section should be converted to prose. Let's not make the same mistake twice. This sub-par article does not deserve to be linked from the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:17, 13 December 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.

December 12Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Scheer announces pending resignationEdit

Consensus will not develop to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 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: Andrew Scheer (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On December 12, 2019, Scheer announced he would be resigning as the leader of the Conservative Party effective upon the election of a new one.
News source(s): [21], [22]

Nominator's comments: Andrew Scheer is the leader of the Conservative party of Canada. The conservative party won the popular vote in the 2019 Canadian federal election. His resignation annoucement is being discussed in the news, which is why I thought this would be relevant here. I've never contributed to in the news before... I've tried to make sure that I've done everything right when it comes to nominating an article, but it's possible that I've made a mistake since I'm not familiar with the process. Clovermoss (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination- the resignation of a party leader that fails to win an election (in this case, the majority of seats if not the popular vote) is standard procedure, and this case it is an announcement of a pending resignation, not the actual resignation. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    @331dot: Justin Trudeau is still the prime minister, but Scheer recieved more votes than Justin Trudeau did, with 34.41% support compared to Trudeau's 33.07% (according to the 2019 Canadian federal election article). I just thought it was worth mentioning because you can win the popular vote and fail the election. Anyways, I don't particularly care whether it's part of in the news (you probably have a better idea of what fits and what doesn't). Clovermoss (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose popular vote aside, Scheer is not the Prime Minister of Canada. I cannot remember a situation where ITN posted a political resignation of a non-head of government/state (in fact, I don't really remember any examples of it posting resignations at all). --PlasmaTwa2 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a local politics. If we start posting "resignation of party leaders", then I am not sure what ITN would become. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - News is too localized to be featured as ITN. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While sudden and dramatic and significant for Canada, resignations of party leaders who are not sitting heads of state or government are not notable on an international scale unless it indicates political repression, which is not the case here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 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.

(Closed) 2019 Winter DeaflympicsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 23:47, 16 December 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 Winter Deaflympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 19th Winter Deaflympics officially opens in Italy on 12 December
News source(s): insidethegames
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the Olympics for the deaf. I prefer posting to ongoing event but I just mentioned a blurb as a remedy. I just wanted to make awareness about this event. The article is developing. File:2019 Winter Deaflympics.png Abishe (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Abishe Thanks for the nomination. ITN is not for merely spreading awareness about things; we feature articles that get coverage in the news. Do you have news stories about this event? 331dot (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually I am unable to find sources in English and are mostly available in Italian language. I just added a source in English language in the template. I am sorry for the errors and I have nominated articles like this before. Abishe (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Abishe Sources for article content do not need to be in English, but what ITN is looking for is evidence that this is getting coverage in the news- and to a certain degree English language news, since that's what most readers here get for news. The chances of this being successful are low without such news sources. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, however I'm not seeing widespread news coverage of the events which would indicate the level of significance necessary for ITN requirements. I see lots of little local papers writing about local athletes who plan to compete in the games, as in here but nothing that indicates that this has the sort of widespread coverage in major news sources that put this over the threshold for me. --Jayron32 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You could try DYK or perhaps OTD for 21 Dec? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Appears to be very a niche sports that struggles to get mentions in mainstream media. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A worthy event, but one that has received no attention from mainstream media and does not rise to the level of significance necessary for ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The what? (Okay, as for serious review, I haven't seen or heard of this from anywhere.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 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) 2019 United Kingdom general electionEdit

Article: 2019 United Kingdom general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Conservative Party, led by Boris Johnson (pictured), wins a majority of seats in the UK general election.
News source(s): AP, Reuters
Credits:

Nominated event is 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: Polls are currently open in the UK for a very crucial snap election and results are due to come out in the evening. XAnio (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • No need for ongoing, the results will be in soon enough, and we will post that. --Tone 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, this will be over in a day, too short a timeframe for ongoing postings, and we'll have results shortly to post anyways. --Jayron32 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32, A new blurb can come up when we have the winner. DBigXray 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. XAnio I think you misunderstand the purpose of Ongoing- which does not have blurbs; it is not meant to feature any event in progress, but to feature an article that has incremental, continuous updates over a long period of time. General elections are on the ITNR list(recurring events list) so notability is not at issue, this will be posted as a blurb when the result is clear and the article has a decent update. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Tone. ——SN54129 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I decided to go ahead and just convert this to an ITNR listing, though it's certainly early. I've used the Tories as a placeholder since the general consensus seems to be that they will have the most seats and the chance of a Labour majority seems remote- but again, it's just a placeholder. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    In that case Oppose for now as the article has not, as yet, been updated with results. When I have something to judge the quality of, I will return to do so. --Jayron32 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the placeholder blurb and replaced it with a true placeholder. It is not appropriate to 'predict' the result of the election here (it is entirely possible no party will have an overall majority), certainly not while voting is still in progress. Can we please not do that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth Fair enough, but I was not predicting anything, simply posting the general consensus of reliable sources, which is something that is not uncommon here. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the placeholder based on exit polls, but the results still need to come in. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose for now as the results are pending and no need to mention under ongoing events. When a clear winner is announced I will support it and the blurb is yet to be updated. Abishe (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - obviously don't post this right now, as the result is only based on an exit poll. But assuming it's confirmed, and the article has no issues, this will go straight up when the result's confirmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because by the time somebody decides this is "ready" and then it's finally posted, the results will be confirmed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, there is NO prose in results section but it was still posted? The section is not even filled. Is it because it is a UK election? Too much bias! Only 1 support? - Sherenk1 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, thats a major oversight. This really should be pulled until the results get prose with it, but I don't feel we also need the disruption over pulling it. --Masem (t) 06:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sherenk1 I took the wait opposes as delayed supports, given this is an ITN/R item. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled pending consensus to post. While posted in good faith, that was clearly premature given the state of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment This is an ITN/R item. When I posted it, the result of a Conservative majority had been confirmed, the image had been protected and I checked that there were no {{cn}} tags. I felt that this was one of those cases where the article was one that would be rapidly edited and improved and posting was justifiable. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • ITN/R means a consensus has already been obtained as far as notability is concerned. It does not mean we post a shit-quality article to the main page, even if there is the expectation that it may be fixed later. WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @WaltCip: it was a solid B class article, with no {{cn}} tags. I stand by my decision to post. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
          • I'd agree with your decision to post. Now we're just slowing down the process to post for no good reason. How long until another editor decides this is worth posting again? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No idea what shape it was in when pulled, but the article has several paragraphs of prose describing the results; everything is in the right tense. Looks fine for the main page right now. --Jayron32 13:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - obviously I can't post this again, so I'm supporting it now. Should be posted ASAP. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ready to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Re-posted  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is still no prose discussion of the full results. We expect this for sports and other elections, UK elections get no special pass here. --Masem (t) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    There was scant prose on the results at the time of the original posting, but some had been added to to the lead at the time of the re-post.[23] There is still no prose in the "Full results" section. (Merely observations, meant neither as a support or oppose)Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    I see three full paragraphs of the results, as of when I supported, which are still there. Of course, improvements are welcome, but that should be sufficient for posting on the main page. I would not, despite your insinuation, opposed posting any other article on the main page with a similar amount of text, and I did not give this a pass because it was the UK. Your accusations against me are entirely unfounded, and quite insulting. --Jayron32 15:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still see no prose in the results section! Sherenk1 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Comment Then you have no one to blame except yourself. You should get on that! Remember, Wikipedia articles only get better because people who want them fixed up do it themselves. If you want it fixed, and don't do it, it's only your own fault and no one else's. --Jayron32 15:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    It's in the intro. The article has been updated with prose, that's all that matters.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, that was my observation when I re-posted, noting the support !votes above. Yes, it would definitely be preferable to have a full write-up in the body too, but it's not a requirement for ITN as long as there's something written, and it's sufficiently well-sourced etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    I have to disagree. We have rejected posting dozens of elections for exactly this reason. We have undone years of consensus and accepted practice at ITN/C. This is really a disappointing IAR. By posting this, you have disrupted the normal operations of this project. You have put us in an impossible and unsolvable situation. You have made us all hypocrites. If you were desperate to post you could have written 4-5 sentences in the Full results section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps if we feel this strongly about the presence of prose in the results section of an election article, we should put it in writing. There are multiple project pages dedicated to both general criteria and criteria for recurring items when it comes to posting - neither currently state that prose is required for election results. The situation is not unsolvable. If we want hard rules, we can hold and RFC and change the elections section of the ITN/R criteria page. I'm not defending the posting of this blurb, just pointing out something that may need to be done to prevent a similar issue in the future. It's not hard to put precedent into writing. mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    We do not need written rules about every criterion for what we believe is a quality article. We have a general quality standard. Years of discussion and failed nominations have established precedent for what is a quality article for ITN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    It's absolutely not true that I have opposed articles in the past for not having text in a specifically named section, which is what you just claimed is the problem. I've only ever opposed similar articles for lacking prose, not because it wasn't exactly organized a certain way. It is extremely upsetting that you first accuse me of doing something I've never done, and then call me a hypocrite for doing the thing you accused me of doing which i never actually did. Please stop your un-called-for personal attacks against myself and other editors who also voted to support this and who also did not do the things you accused them of doing. --Jayron32 13:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate changeEdit

SNOW close. (No pun intended.) SpencerT•C 16:52, 12 December 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: Climate change (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A number of different issues regarding the subject in the news lately, sub articles getting regular updates per WP: SUMMARY and the target itself is in good shape. LaserLegs (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Target article has no information on recent events, which is a bare minimum for ANY posting (blurb or ongoing) to ITN. --Jayron32 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. Additionally, if we posted this to Ongoing, wouldn't it be up there for at least the next hundred years? mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Until there is consensus to remove it, just like any other ongoing item. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be a topic of perpetuity, there's clearly no "end" to it (well, until the human race ends up extinct from it). This is not what "ongoing" is for , it is for topics that are supposed to have some type of conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. --Masem (t) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If there is an article to feature that is more focused on the current events, I would be open to that, but this is far too broad. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 12 December 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.

December 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Greta Thunberg addresses COP25Edit

No consensus to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:02, 12 December 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.

Nominator's comments: The discussion below was closed too quickly (just 7 hours). The thing is that Greta Thunberg is not just the youngest Time person of the year; she's also in the news for addressing the current UN conference, COP25, and so we can score a double. Note that we only have three blurbs currently and they are not getting much readership – Thunberg is already getting more than all of them put together (163K yesterday while even the volcano only got 29K). The COP25 conference is generating other major news such as the acceleration of Greenland's melting and so we ought to have an entry of some sort for this set of major stories. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the mere giving of a speech by someone who is not a government official able to announce a significant policy change or initiative. I closed the aforementioned discussion as there is no arbitrary minimum discussion time and a clear consensus against. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
If one wants to post something about Greenland, they are free to nominate it. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) 331dot rushes to oppose even while I'm still fixing up the entry but what's the rush? ITN is currently devoid of news and so we can take a full day to let everyone have their say. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate it if you addressed me directly instead of acting like I am not here. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What's the news though? We rarely ever blurb people just giving speeches, as shes done several times before. I feel like this is too similar to the below nomination and can be opposed for similar reasons. Additionally, neither a slow rotation of blurbs through the main page nor low readership on those articles is reason to support another article. mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I think at best this would be an ongoing post, however, I don't see that the article has enough regular updates to even qualify for that. If it were more detailed on the events of the conference itself, and looked as though it were likely to receive clear updates on a regular basis throughout the conference, I could possibly support an ongoing post, but this is not really a great blurb. --Jayron32 13:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder to the community, COP25 was nominated, opposed, and closed last week. Only pointing out for those who may have missed it! mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose person makes speech to other people=dog bites man. ——SN54129 13:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even the New York Times is covering this, and this sort of thing is their bread and butter.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe she could have Skyped in, instead of actually travelling there. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Addressing the UNCCC isn't notable itself, and doesn't really mean anything. However, I wouldn't be opposed to more creative proposals on including Thunberg on ITN right now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Much as I find the peripatetic Ms. Thunberg interesting, no, this speech in itself isn't significant. Nor should we stress her unsurprising selection as Time 's "Person of the Year." Let's not join the chorus of adulation making her into a media luminary. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 12 December 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.

(Closed) 2019 Inates attackEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:38, 18 December 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 Inates attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 71 people were killed after terrorists stormed a military base in Inates, Niger.
News source(s): (BBC) (Reuters) (Al Jazeera)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Numerous deaths. ArionEstar (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose orphaned disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. While the stub is cited well, it is unfortunately too short to be featured on ITN. mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Very light on text. Would need to see a big expansion before I could support. --Jayron32 13:02, 12 December 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.

(Closed) Greta Thunberg Time Person of the YearEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 December 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: Greta Thunberg (talk, history)
Blurb: Time names Greta Thunberg the 2019 Time Person of the Year.
News source(s): Time, NBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Youngest ever to be selected DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in great shape, recognition on the front page of Wikipedia richly deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Wait. Should Greta Thunberg's article be the target article?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we usually post Person of the Year? Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I looked, it was nominated twice in the past in 2010 (Zuckerberg) and 2006 (You) and in both cases was shot down. Maybe others. This nomination should stand on it's own though. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is great, but we posted the climate strikes in September and we had it in ongoing for a period of time -- that was the news story, Person of the Year is magazine fodder. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per LaserLegs. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – magazine cover story with the rationale for the winner boiling down to "they were in the news a lot". For example, elected US Presidents are named Person of the Year before even taking office. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This sort of thing was cool when Time was where people got their year-in-review fix. But everyone has an opinion in December now. Quite a few of these channels and websites dwarf Time in popularity, including Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not denying she deserves it and its an incredible recognition, but we have traditionally never posted the Time Person of the Year before, and we shouldn't do it for just this case. --Masem (t) 03:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting of Time person of the year awards in general. Limited lasting notability or designation of someone at the top of their field (as with other prizes, such as Nobels or sporting trophies. SpencerT•C 05:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks any long term notability, as does the winner. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:33, 12 December 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.

RD: David BellamyEdit

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Famous botanist and broadcaster Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - the article looks in reasonable shape, although the last two sections are rather under-referenced. A long list of positions and awards, the majority of which are unsourced. RIP to Bellamy, he was a bit of a fixture on the TV in my youth!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - flurry of recent edits have brought the article up to scratch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - still a bunch of unsourced claims; the date of death was both unsourced and wrong. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Date is now correct and sourced. Honours and awards still lacking some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The subject's article got 82000 views yesterday – more than all our blurbs combined. Given this level of readership, what I made sure was that the picture was sorted – the thumbnail was being squeezed too tight when I found it. Sourcing such a prominent person's extensive history of appearances is mostly busywork because few readers care about such details. By the time all that is sorted out, few people will be reading the article and so it's wasted effort. But if we each have our different priorities then, between us, the page is made more presentable. Many hands make light work... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Making Wikipedia articles better is not busy work, it is literally the only reason we should be here. --Jayron32 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, sounds about right. A prominent person will get huge page views, regardless of article quality. When the article has finally been "improved enough" to be listed on Main page (about 2 days later usually), most interested parties have already read it and are more interested in the next news headline. I'm not sure the rationale of "directing the reader to high quality articles" really works for RDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If you think it's impractical to fix all of those uncited claims in a short time, simply delete them from the article. They can then be added back if and when sources are found, and Bellamy could appear in the RD section. Right now there are still too many uncited claims to justify posting on the main page. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Information that is likely to be true and relevant should be WP:PRESERVED. Don't do a disservice to readers merely to get an RD.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Attack on Bagram Air BaseEdit

No consensus to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:24, 12 December 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: Attack on Bagram Air Base (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Taliban launched an attack on a US controlled air base in Afghanistan.
Alternative blurb: Taliban forces assaulted an United States air base in Afganistan amidst peace talks between the two parties. The attackers used a car bomb and armed personnel, but were successfully repelled by a NATO mission present at the base.
News source(s): (New York Times)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Taliban Attack on US military Base forces NATO to repel an attack. This is already in the "Current Events" section on Wikipedia, so it needs to be in the "In the News" section. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A couple of things - 1) This should be nominated under In the News - it's an attack, not some specific person dying. 2) Current Events doesn't necessarily correlate to on the ITN page. 3) The first blurb is a bit too short, but the second is too long. Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is too short, just at the stub level. --Jayron32 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub. Two fatalities. Significance marginal. – Sca (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Calling this a skirmish would be hugely inflating its importance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 12 December 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.

(Closed) Saudi AramcoEdit

No consensus to post, stale. Stephen 01:36, 18 December 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: Saudi Aramco (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi Aramco commences trading on the Tadawul stock exchange, following the largest ever initial public offering, and becomes the largest publicly traded company by market capitalisation
Alternative blurb: Saudi Aramco becomes the largest traded company after a record-breaking US$25.6 billion initial public offering.
Alternative blurb II: Saudi Aramco becomes the largest traded company after a record-breaking US$25.6 billion initial public offering for 1.5% of the state-owned business.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/11/saudi-aramco-shares-soar-as-it-becomes-world-largest-listed-company
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Largest IPO ever; largest publicly traded company by market capitalisation Chrisclear (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Consider the graphic at the top of this article, comparing Aramco with the other giant market cap companies. Pumping a company on thin volume to achieve pro forma valuation is a trick used in the private markets (recently and famously, the We Co.). The P in IPO is supposed to stand for "public", and the extent to which the public can trade on Tadawul is very limited. Per Tadawul's rules: "Tadawul permits only established institutional foreign investors and not individual investors". This would have been a bonafide IPO had to happened on the original venues: NYSE and LSE, which allow world-wide access, but that was withdrawn in part due to concerns like the above. All that said, it is available to the public through derivative funds like ETFs, and the valuation is what it is on Tadawul, and extrapolating that value through the other 98.5% of the shares (which are NOT public) gets us to around 1.9 trillion USD. So, the blurb is technically correct although we have to do violence to common English to get there.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - the valuation is indeed what it is - with over $25 billion publicly traded. That $25 billion alone makes it a large company, even ignoring the other $1.6 trillion (or more?) which is not part of the float. In September 2014, the (then-record) Alibaba IPO was posted, so I don't see why this should be any different. Chrisclear (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't vote for it, but the BABA IPO was for ca. 10% of the company with explicit intentions to float more in the future (it is now about 65%, considered "low" for an enterprise of it's size), and it did it at a venue which allows broad and public ownership, with associated enforcement of property rights. This compares to 1.5% for Aramco, on a stock exchange that explicitly prohibits virtually everyone from participation, and under a government that just a few years ago violently extorted billions from it's own citizens under the guise of "anti-corruption". And the stock has no voting right whatsoever. Like I wrote above, the blurb is technically correct, but we're really stretching the meanings of stock and public and even traded.130.233.3.203 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Aramco is not wholly public: it is still controlled by Saudi gov't, just that a portion of it was made public by the IPO. --Masem (t) 11:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this matters - the blurb does not state "wholly public" Chrisclear (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The blurb States "largest public company" which is not true because it remains state owned. --Masem (t) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose we could argue over the semantics of what "public company" means, now that the IPO has been completed. What is clear is that it is no longer 100% owned by the government. Regardless, for the sake of clarity I changed the proposed blurb to state "largest publicly traded company" which is not in doubt. Chrisclear (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I would go with exactly what the Guardian stated : "Largest listed company". That only 1.5% of its ownership is now public from this makes it hard to use the word "public" here. I have added alt-blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, based off article quality. There is an orange tagged section, Women Empowerment, and the Saudization section reads poorly, needing some copyediting. Personally, I'm not sure this is super newsworthy, but since Chrisclear pointed out that we posted Alibaba's IPO, I will support if others do and article quality is improved. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have also at least improved the IPO section on the target article; this was connected to the drone attacks from September 2019 so had a few pieces to add from that. --Masem (t) 14:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per mike_gigs. While the news is clearly covering this event, the quality issues he notes needs to be fixed before this could be posted. --Jayron32 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our struggle to find the proper superlative is quite telling. It would no doubt be noteworthy if SA went public, but it hasn't. If this is not "stock" nor "public" nor "traded" in the conventional understanding of those terms, from where do we derive an investiture of importance? Simply being covered in RS is not sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As I understand it – and I don't understand it all – this is primarily a domestic capital-raising program by the Saudi government, since the vast majority of shares have gone or will go to Saudi investors or entities. It's not trading on Wall St. Thus, little broader impact. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 11 December 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.

(Closed) The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019Edit

rough consensus seems to be to wait until the act actually passes and survives constitutional challenges before considering posting. --Jayron32 13:52, 12 December 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: The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants from six religious communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan eligible for citizenship.
Alternative blurb: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants, who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan eligible for citizenship.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants from six religious communities from three neighbouring nations eligible for citizenship.
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: May require some copyediting. Bit early because the Bill is under discussion in Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament) right now. If passed (which is most likely), this nomination should be considered.
  • Comment Most sources describe this bill as making non-Muslim illegal immigrants eligible for citizenship (the source linked above does this; as does the NYT, and the BBC). That is what the blurb, and the lead, ought to say. I'm still debating whether this is significant enough to post, leaning yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93:. Non-Muslim is generalisation but it should be noted that the bill also excludes atheists, jews and any other than six mentioned communities. So writing non-Muslim would be not true/neutral way of presentation.-Nizil (talk)
    @Nizil Shah: That's bordering on original research. If we describe the bill, we need to describe it the way reliable sources do; and all decent sources I've seen suggest that both the intent and the effect of this bill is to exclude Muslim immigrants from naturalization. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bill is controversial in various ways, hasn't passed yet and may then be subject to constitutional challenge. The current article is packed full of criticism contrary to WP:SOAP and would need copy-editing just to correct its English. Immigration is a hot topic in many countries (see current UK election or the hearings about the Rohingas in the Hague). It's not clear that we should highlight this particular case. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, generally per Andrew. The Criticism section is almost longer that the rest of the article, and there is an orange tagged section. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Mount Patagonia (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the law has actually passed, at least. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the very least, until the law has actually passed. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The bill has been passed. Please update the vote count as per new report; initial reports last day confused vote numbers a bit. WP:UNDUE criticism issue has been resolved. (emphasis purposefully added, not WP:SHOUT)— Vaibhavafro💬 03:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It is top news on BBC. The bill is now being challenged in court. Article looks well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until such a time as my concerns with the blurb have been addressed, per my comments above. We need to describe legislation the way reliable sources do, not its supporters (or opponents) in the legislature. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I have been added to the updaters list, but I guess I can still have a say; and the first thing I want to say is that this article isn't updated enough! There is too much confusion surrounding this bill + the article doesn't explain the Bill well enough for my liking. Forget the protests or who is supporting it.... what does the Bill actually do other than the one or two statements being harped by everyone, how does it connect to the main Act it is amending, what about the Foriegners Act etc etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a source for even more confusion and misinformation. DTM (talk) 11:03, 12 December 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) Autonomous Province of Bougainville independence referendumEdit

Article: 2019 Bougainvillean independence referendum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a plebiscite held as an outcome of the Bougainville Peace Agreement, the Autonomous Province of Bougainville votes overwhelmingly for independence from Papua New Guinea
Alternative blurb: ​In a non-binding referendum, Bougainville votes overwhelmingly for independence from Papua New Guinea
Alternative blurb II: ​In a non-binding referendum held as part of the Bougainville Peace Agreement, the Autonomous Region of Bougainville votes overwhelmingly for independence from Papua New Guinea.
News source(s): The Age CNN NYT BBC AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: While the vote needs ratification by the PNG parliament, this is a substantial stepping stone in the creation of a new sovereign state Mattinbgn (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is a huge step on the path to independence, and it was almost unanimous. This could be the first new country in the world since South Sudan in 2011.Playlet (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Have not looked into quality. Added altblurb. ― Hebsen (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support on quality also, following major changes to the article. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative support but before posting I'd like to see some reactions and follow-up in the article. --Tone 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but referendum article needs some work. I think it's notable regardless of whether it happens; legitimate independence referendums are rather rare occurrences. --Gerrit CUTEDH 09:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Historic. Will likely be the first new independent country of the next decade.BabbaQ (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose for now, no prose update on the results, only a table, and several places in the article need fixes for tense, as it implies in several areas that the vote is still in the future. If those issues are fixed, consider this a full support --Jayron32 10:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support based on recent expansion and improvements. Article is both of sufficient quality, and of an event which is being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources. Checks every box. --Jayron32 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's a new country. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently. This is step one of several for formation of a new country, and will take time before anything is official. --Masem (t) 12:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's very light on details. Was there no active campaign? No bus plastered with lies? The article doesn't do a great job of establishing the significance. Also it's non-binding which I'd overlook if the article were better. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a pure ITN material as the success of this independence referendum marks the birth of a new country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent material for ITN, a new country would be huge news -- orbitalbuzzsaw 3:27 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as there is no prose in results section. Also, I'm wondering just how much weight this referendum will have on the future of Bougainville, as the article states The vote is not binding and the Government of Papua New Guinea has the final say on what becomes of Bougainville. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I've updated the article with an "Aftermath" section. Please feel free to let me know if there are anymore issues with posting in regards to the article's quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this does not create a new country as the supports claim. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question have any of the supporters read the article? There is no "new country" here. Per the article "The vote is not binding and the Government of Papua New Guinea has the final say on what becomes of Bougainville if the vote is in favour of independence." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I have only skimmed it, but I did not assess the quality. Yes it is a non-binding referendum (as altblurb makes clear), and it might not create a new country, at least not right away. But it will set the mood for the relation between Bougainville and the rest of Papua New Guinea. It is at least as notable as regular Papua New Guinean legislative elections, which is on INT/R. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fortunately for Wikipedia, things that happen here are not based on opinions, feelings, or what we think should be important. Instead, what happens at Wikipedia is entirely based on what is written in reliable sources. If reliable sources are treating the subject with importance, it is, by Wikipedia standards, important. The fact that someone can restate the basic facts of a subject, but do so in a tone of incredulity and annoyance, does not actually make the reliable sources go away, so please stop doing just that. --Jayron32 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I've simply chosen to ignore the votes of any editor who thinks that this referendum actually makes Bougainville a new state. Regardless, the referendum is still notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I assume this is something that needs to be clearly separated from the declaration of independence that might not occur at all. What we identify as notable here is the will of Bougainville's residents to get independence. Whether they will get it is another matter that may (or may not) be discussed at a future point of time. Draw a parallel with South Sudan: we posted the results from the referendum in January 2011 and then again the declaration of independence in July 2011. At the end, most support votes, including mine, don't state that this will surely be a new country but simply comment on the likeliness for it to be born.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Just worth nothing that you wrote most support votes, including mine, don't state that this will surely be a new country yet you also wrote the success of this independence referendum marks the birth of a new country. The referendum isn't indicative of anything certain. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
        • The birth of a new country is a long and painful process, sometimes never-ending, built on the grounds of people's will. This referendum certainly lays the foundations for that and it will have major implications even if independence is not granted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the significance of event but article needs some work. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the article, this is non-binding and could take years to actually happen.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support a blurb that combines the two blurbs together so that it is not misleading. It should be mentioned that this referendum is directly related to the peace agreement, and it should be mentioned that the referendum is non-binding. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Over the last few hours, Nice4What and I have done a lot of work on the article. Prior opposes based on quality should probably be reassess. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Non-binding.--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb, oppose nominator's blurb. There's a huge difference between a binding and non-binding referendum. The alt blurb is fine, but the other one implies it's a done deal. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled/reverted - a trout to Tone who posted it immediately after I unmarked it as (Ready). Please discuss first before acting unilaterally. Trying to assume good faith here, but it's highly disingenuous to post to ITN just after I unmarked it, as there is clearly no consensus here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I saw a sufficient consensus to post. It is non-binding, true, but the blurb states that and the actual independence will merit a new blurb. The article is fine. Please discuss with me first before reverting me on ITN straight away next time. --Tone 11:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I was unaware that an item was required to be marked as ready before it could be posted. After all, anyone could mark the item as ready. WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, the vote right now is running about 2-1 in favor of support. Yes yada yada yada not a vote yada yada yada, but there does appear to be enough that automatically reverting Tone is clearly not supported. That's acting as a WP:SUPERVOTE; Tone was clearly posting within allowable discretion to post, and you have now just reverted him for no good reason other than the fact that you felt upset that your opinion wasn't followed. --Jayron32 12:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • The current tally is 15 support and 6 oppose. I think that is more than enough consensus to post (and I voted to oppose and still stand by that vote). Regardless of why it was taken down, I think it needs to be reposted. Saying that having over 70% support is not a consensus to post sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • It's not a vote count. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
          • It's not only a vote count. But the number of votes is a significant factor, and cannot be summarily ignored. Consensus does require more people to be on one side over the other, and checking that requires some level of counting of votes. --Jayron32 13:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support significant event and well sourced article. Per list of independence referendums there has not been a government-recognised independence referendum with a "Yes" vote since South Sudan in 2011, so this is a rare event. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, a significant referendum with a significant result. Article looks good. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Opposing Alt blurb II as "Bougainville Peace Process" here just links to Bougainville Civil War; the article goes beyond the scope of the peace process, isn't the main focus, and hasn't been updated. Reiterating support for Alt blurb I. Also, how has this not been posted yet? Seems like we're just sitting on an established consensus to post. Non-binding doesn't mean not-notable; remind yourselves that Brexit was also non-binding. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted per consensus. I left out "overwhelmingly" because I don't think we should use subjective words like that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Have posted results of prior referendums; article is in good shape. SpencerT•C 04:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support The article does a good job of placing this vote into context wrt the multi-step independence process. Had this not been a stipulated and pre-defined vote within a larger conflict resolution action, I would not have supported. Judging by the above discussion, this context was only recently added, so good job all around!130.233.3.203 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Test cricket returns to Pakistan after ten yearsEdit

Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 01:29, 18 December 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: Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan in 2019–20 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Pakistan hosts first international Test cricket match after 2009 since the terror attack on Sri Lankan cricket team.
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, Pakistan hosts first international Test cricket match in a decade, after the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team.
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First of all the article is well updated and well sourced. Usually bilateral cricket series are not recommended to nominate here. But this is quite significant as the test series is hosted by the war torn nation after 10 years since the attack on Sri Lankan team. This is the major terror attack being trageted on any particular sports team. Previously Pakistan hosted test matches in the United Arab Emirates. Pakistan has also hosted ODI and T20I games in their home soil but test cricket is a five day format which was not played there over 10 years. The series is also significantly covered as a part of the inaugural edition of the ICC World Test ChampionshipAbishe (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support My summary of the above would be that Pakistan has not been able to play a Test Cricket Match in its own country for ten years, obviously a major disadvantage. This is now changing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously my support has a massive bias! I've put a fair bit of work into this since the tour was announced, and hopefully the start of returning to some sort of normality in Pakistan with hosting top-level teams and matches. And thanks Abishe for the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Supporting in general but with emphasis on the fact this is a major event following the terror attack on the team. (It would be akin to putting the completion of One World Trade Center in ITNR) As such, I think the terror attack article should be the target, or a co-target article with the 2019-20 team. Fortunately, that attack article is close - it needs to be updated with this fact, and a couple para without refs (but like 4-5 at most). Note that the current blurb does not link to the suggested target article, so this also needs to be fixed. --Masem (t) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just sorted out the issue regarding the blurb. The prime focus is about the 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team, which caused major concern that no international teams wanted to play in Pakistan. I can't remember any other major terror attack targeting particular sports team. Abishe (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is good news, it does not rise to the level of international news, especially the continuation of something that had previously happened. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Just as a note, international news is not now, nor has ever been, a requirement for ITN. --Jayron32 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This Australian finds this event newsworthy, as I'm sure Test Cricket fans all over the world do. Test Match Cricket, by definition, is international. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good news. Not ITN worthy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Building off what Masem said: >2600 people were killed at the WTC & the new one is the largest building in the Western Hemisphere. Those are BIG things. The attack here was rather modest, and the tour routine. The context certainly gives it greater weight, but not nearly so much to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion has moved in the wrong direction. The news here is not about a terrorist attack ten years ago. That IS old news, and we're not discussing that attack. The news here is about sport. It's about the fact that an international Test Cricket team, a country, is finally, after ten years, being allowed to play its "home" games on home grounds. I wonder if the same negativity would be appearing if the team involved was England, or the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose any and all, regardless of origin, parochial news of this sort. I think there is an inherent cricket bias on ITN, and I for one would do my utmost to combat it.--WaltCip (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Parochial? It's about international sport at the highest level! If we used "too parochial" as a guideline, hardly any American sporting event would ever be posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
We posted Sachin Tendulkar's 100 centuries, we posted Pakistan cricket spot-fixing scandal, we had the world cricket whatever in Ongoing for weeks.... --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
And I find American Football as boring as batshit. Seriously, these Oppose arguments are all of the form "I have no interest in cricket". Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
If we only posted the "highest level" of each sport, that would be fine, but that's not what happens. Even if we just count ITNR events, there's considerable inequity in favor of rugby, soccer, and cricket. But then these three get ad-hoc noms all the time, and we dumb yanks are told how important these three are. We cannot get even a second American Football event posted, but the big Sri Lanka-Pakistan tilt just has to get posted. RIGHT. It's a blind spot in our processes here, plain and simple. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So this nomination must miss out because there have been some bad ones in the past? Please think about that logic. This is about a lot more than a Sri Lanka-Pakistan contest. I'll stop now, before I express any more of my frustration at the high number of stupid comments being made here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support + altblurb - A sporting event that is In The News with coverage from ESPN, NYT, BBC & The Telegraph. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the nominated article is about a sport season. Write one about the aftermath of the terrorist attack, where the games were played instead, what steps led to reconciliation and I'll consider it. The target article doesn't explain the significance well enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the first time after the attack that an international cricket team has played international cricket in Pakistan. See Zimbabwean cricket team in Pakistan in 2015, West Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2017–18. --NSharma21 (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    NSharma21: You have not read the blurb properly. Yes I agree that Pakistan has hosted international matches after 2009 but the series were hosted only in two formats One Day International and T20 International. It's the longest format of the game Test cricket which has not been played in Pakistan over a decade. Test cricket has its own pride as it has been played in international level since 1877. I speculate based on your username you should be an Indian and this is not the place for your biased opinions. Please maintain WP:NPOV. If you oppose a thing please follow the way like the fellow editors do. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the reason for not visiting Pakistan was security concerns, the notable event would be the first time an international cricket team visited Pakistan. Whether they visited to play Test cricket or ODI cricket is irrelevant --NSharma21 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to make sure I read that post correctly, are you seriously making a prejudgment about someone's motivations (much less nationality) based on their name?--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
More to the point is that NSharma21's only edits thus far are to this page and to blue-link their user page. Not exactly newbie behavior.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 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.

December 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Yury LuzhkovEdit

Article: Yury Luzhkov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Mayor of Moscow in 1992–2010. Currently tagged for refs, but size-wise good. Brandmeistertalk 21:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sourcing issues, as noted. Please ping me if things change! mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but ping me once the referencing issues are all sorted out. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many referencing issues.  Nixinova TC   06:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim SmithEdit

Article: Jim Smith (footballer, born 1940) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Almost 40 years in football management. P-K3 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Sourced well enough mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 disappearanceEdit

Article: 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Chilean military plane (pictured) with 38 people on board has disappeared en route to Antarctica.
Alternative blurb: ​After a three-day search, the crash of a Chilean military plane (pictured) with 38 people on board was located with no survivors
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: High number of casualties. Unfortunately article is a stub for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment We generally do not report on air accidents involving military vehicles carrying primarily active military personal ("line of duty" and all that). The article needs a lot more details to be able to justify this. --Masem (t) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – True re first point, but 38 is a significantly large (presumed) toll, and the apparent crash of this plane has been widely carried by RS media. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. There seems to be an assumption on this point that is not settled consensus (not addressing that at anyone specific). The point conveyed at AIRCRASH and elsewhere is military craft have more accidents because of the way they are used, & commonality of events is directly linked to diminished significance. But this does not mean that military crashes can never be significant. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the sources are unclear on this point but if the PAX were largely civilian then I think we could IAR this to the MP since it'd effectively be a civilian flight operated by the military. The death toll is completely and totally irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because the article is a stub. I don't see an issue with the military personnel aspect. People are people and this does not appear to be a war-time operation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline here --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
      I have no idea what you are talking about. That essay has no bearing on ITN discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I mean ... that essay is used by the Wikiproject Aviation as a guideline for when an air disaster should have an article but you're right, I'll just fuck off and mind my own business thanks C&C --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
        • LaserLegs Could we please be civil here? Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
        • It is accurate to say that AIRCRASH is not a guideline; you can certainly abide by what it says, but it isn't a guideline. Coffeandcrumbs typically the viewpoint on military crashes is that military personnel have assumed a greater risk than civilians by joining the military, regardless of it being wartime or not. It's part of their duties to engage in risky missions and other actions. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
          Except for the fact that the flight was towards Antarctica, I see no indication that this flight was any riskier than any other flight. AFAIK, it was not shot down. If half a dozen people disappeared on the way to Antarctica, I would say that is unfortunate but not ITN-worthy. But a large aircraft carrying 38 people, I personally believe that is ITN worthy. Anyway, this discussion is academic until the article becomes something post-able. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article is too short. I could be persuaded on significance if it is expanded.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality (size). If it's expanded I'd lean towards supporting. Wholly agree with C&C here. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not formally opposing, but agree that existing article is too thin for Main Page promotion. If more information became available it could be upgraded, in view of likely death tally. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Has undergone some additional expansion and meets minimum ITN standards, although more expansion would be welcome. SpencerT•C 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The crash has been located, the deaths have been confirmed and the article has been expanded. Thirty eight is a significant death toll, and there has been important coverage outside Chile. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Comment I have added an alternative blurb as a suggestion to show that the crash has been located. As far as I know, this was on 12 December, meaning that the only item happening after this proposal is the UK general election, so this one won't be getting stale for the time being. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs, Mike gigs, and Pawnkingthree: have your concerns been resolved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's sufficient now.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. I think the blurb may need improvement but can't think how at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

December 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: George LaurerEdit

Article: George Laurer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Inventor of the barcode scannerAndrew🐉(talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Perhaps one or two more refs needed. But easily fixed--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Update – I have done some cleanup of the article. He died on 5 Dec but the funeral was on 9 Dec and that seems to be when the story first reached the news media. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems presentable now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Article could use more expansion but is OK to post. I want to be on the record for saying support blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is good enough, but I don't think it's blurb-worthy. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Posted. --Jayron32 14:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marie FredrikssonEdit

Article: Marie Fredriksson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [25],[26],[27], [28],[29]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: World famous singer known for her career in Roxette.

  • Support - Robust article and well sourced mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support One fine-looking article Teemu08 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced, looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (with "Goodbye to You" playing in the background...) As a musician she was so important to more than one generation. --WiseWoman (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kim Woo-jungEdit

Article: Kim Woo-jung (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [30]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: He is a South Korean businessman and founder and chairman of the Daewoo Group. ChongDae (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck HeberlingEdit

Article: Chuck Heberling (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Post-Gazette
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurice MounsdonEdit

Article: Maurice Mounsdon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ITV, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Battle of Britain pilot, dies at the age of 101. Note: died 6 December. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • One of the two paragraphs in Biography section has no reference. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Text expanded and sources added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Any more issues to address here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Not that I can see! Marked as ready mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Short but sufficient.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ... + "is-this-thing-on?"-type comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Lacks information on what he did since WWII, but since it's not what makes him notable, went ahead and posted. SpencerT•C 05:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sanna Marin becomes prime ministerEdit

Articles: Sanna Marin (talk, history) and Prime Minister of Finland (talk, history)
Blurb: Sanna Marin is sworn in as Prime Minister of Finland, making her the world's youngest serving prime minister.
Alternative blurb: ​Sanna Marin is the first world leader to be raised by a same -sex couple
Alternative blurb II: Sanna Marin becomes Prime Minister of Finland after Antti Rinne resigns over his handling of a postal strike.
News source(s): The Guardian,