Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2019

November 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Danuvius guggenmosiEdit

Article: Danuvius guggenmosi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists describe a new species of ancient great ape, Danuvius guggenmosi.
Alternative blurb: ​A 11.6 million year old fossil found in Germany is a described as a new great ape species, Danuvius guggenmosi, which was walking upright at least 6 million years earlier than human ancestors did.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists describe a new species of ancient great ape, Danuvius guggenmosi, capable of upright walking.
News source(s): Nature, Newsweek, Der Speigel, NY Times, CBC, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Described as capable of upright bipedal walking, challenging "the accepted idea that bipedal walking evolved much later in the ancestors of modern humans". The paper in Nature appeared yesterday. Currently tagged for further development, however. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

November 5Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Impeachment inquiry against Donald TrumpEdit

No consensus for removal --LaserLegs (talk) 19:50, 5 November 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: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: No mayor events here since last week. I suggest removal at this moment and a potential renomination later. --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal so long as we're willing to revisit this when the public testimony starts (subject to quality article updates) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm a little confused. Did the impeachment inquiry end and I just missed it? WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose removal updated now --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this remains in the news, although major events seem slow. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove and add blurb when impeachment happens. Nothing in the interim will be all that important. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal And I suggest that we simply blurb major events if/when they happen. After the Nth "Trump is finished" moment since November 2016, I think we should treat future such moments a little more critically and even-handedly. See: Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory vs. Trump–Ukraine scandal130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Removal per others ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal nothing to see here at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Again weekends! Just yesterday there was a major development with the release of deposition transcripts. I was just considering how to incorporate that into the article. I object to this repeated attempts to remove this item while U.S. is asleep. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs:, @Banedon: if you want this to stay in the box, just update the article. I agree the release of transcripts (and the looming start of public hearings) are noteworthy events -- just update the article and it'll stay in. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Will do.   Working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      •   Done. Two more transcripts are expected to drop today; two of the "three amigos". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal There is extensive text in the article covering events of last Wednesday and Thursday, as well as Monday of this week (yesterday). The requirement for keeping something on ongoing is regular updates, which needn't be every single day; given that the news cycle often slows down on weekends (non-working days in the US), it is understandable that there will be a lull on those days. We have extensive, multiple paragraph updates about events of three of the last four weekdays. That's certainly often enough. --Jayron32 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32 and Coffeeandcrumbs. We need to take a breath and stop with these regular attempts to remove this from ongoing when it's pretty clear this is a major event that will continue to generate news. Short lulls over weekends are to be expected. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that "ongoing" was intended for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it may ebb and flow a bit, it is clearly a major recurring news topic, and I don't see any likelihood that this is really going away soon. Seems silly to remove it now only to put it back in a week when open hearings make another burst of news. Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. I do not understand the obsession with trying to remove events that are clearly still ongoing, and getting regular updates. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - per Jayron32, Coffeeandcrumbs and Ad Orientem. Since a consensus to remove is unlikely, I suggest closing this. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone else. The impeachment will likely reach a head around Thanksgiving, and by the end of December, it'll be time to remove it barring something extraordinary. No reason to remove it now. I don't really understand the rush to remove this. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:37, 5 November 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.

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

Nominator's comments: Only small changes to the article in the last 5 days. I suggest removal at this moment and a potential renomination later. --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support removal per nom --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Banedon (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Always felt more like a blurb to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Although the article has been updated somewhat, the details are very mundane for such an event, and if nominated as stand-alone blurbs, they would surely SNOW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal again per others... lots of clean up today! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Bye Bye Bye. --Jayron32 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Article was a suitable candidate for removal when nominated, and has since been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:49, 5 November 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 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Oldest blurb is from 30 October. Since 31 October (5 days), two pieces of trivial information have been added: a man's ear was bitten off (who is the nihilist here?) and a statement that HK in now in recession. Updates to daughter article indicate that someone has fallen down some stairs fleeing tear gas, 6 (six!) journalists had a sit-in, in addition to other routine protest antics. No one is nominating this for AfD, but can we agree that this event can leave Ongoing? 130.233.3.131 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in the first weekend of November we already have [1] fights between police and protesters in malls leading to over 70 injuries, and [2] 325 arrests (just added to article). Sources describe [3] a chaotic weekend of protests, and that the protests [4] show no sign of abating. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Content for November in main article expanded to around 200 words. [5] Jayron32 - you requested an expansion. starship.paint (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Per WP:ITN "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". A few lines of prose about a "chaotic weekend" added at the last minute to stave off removal without details about what actually made the weekend chaotic does not make an update. The protests may be "ongoing" but the only time the article gets an update is when someone nominates it for removal. Get it out of the box already. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Let’s be reasonable, LaserLegs. This time, List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests has been continually updated, and it has around 1000 words of content. Editors could easily have put that in the parent article, but possibly refrained from doing so to prevent undue weight on the most recent events. starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose that article too then "Six reporters staged a silent protest at a routine press conference held by the police force." yeah that's not ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal unless a more detailed update is made to the above article. The current article has only a sentence or two update about recent events. If and when the article is updated to a more substantial description of recent events, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Keep. Article expansions are sufficient, article is up to date with regular events related to just about every day of the past several weeks. Checks off all of the ongoing boxes. --Jayron32 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove All of life is "ongoing." The continuation of repetitive and predictable events are not even blurbable. Protesters will protest, the "police" will police them. When and if things escalate, we can bring it back. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support removal as it is being updated a bit, but as we move on this ongoing event seems to be becoming the norm for how people spend their weekends in HK ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – (keep) – This persistent political phenomenon remains the No. 1 problem for the world's most populous country, a single-party state – with no end in sight. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Yes, the event continues to happen, but it is no longer a major story drawing headlines every day, which is what Ongoing is meant for. Long-winded, simmering stories are not good for Ongoing. Should the situation change, we can re-add it, but right now, its like Brexit and Trump Impeachment - we know these are still happening, but not at the top of the news coverage anymore. --Masem (t) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - The anti-government movement maybe ongoing but the current event is not. Just incidents of thuggery and vandalism at weekends would not make the current event as "ongoing", as far as ITN is concerned. STSC (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (keep) There is indeed much to add as there are planned future protests, and just a few days ago one protester fell off a buidling and got critically injured. The daughter artice of the page is getting constantly edited as well, with more and more content being added to it. It can be seen that the protest might escalate again. There is always something new to add. For yout information, Hong Kong protests still manage to stay in the news. Therefore, I strongly believe that this article can stay in ITN. Asd34567 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: Constantly being updated, still being one of the biggest crisis ever to have happened in Hong Kong and China. Development of the protests have been extremely volatile and will likely escalate once again if the student falling "some stairs fleeing tear gas" didn't get better from his severe brain injuries. OceanHok (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the third time that this story has been a candidate for removal and only saved when someone updated it after being nominated here -- "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated" this feels like "punctuated updates" I'm not sure it really qualifies for continued inclusion --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dude, again with the "gotcha" comment: Who cares that someone made the article better after it was brought up for removal. We aren't trying to "catch" people doing anything nefarious here. We're trying to make articles better. No one loses because the article was improved when someone brought up the issue here. Maybe you should back off on these objections, and instead congratulate all of the editors who worked diligently to get the article up to standard. What's it to you if the article got better? Isn't that the entire point of this discussion? --Jayron32 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal again, per above. The article is still being adequately updated. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal -- it's still an ongoing event. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this is very much still in the news, with new events occurring regularly. This continues to make headlines around the world, so I don't see why we should remove it when people are likely going to be coming here looking for answers about it. --PlasmaTwa2 19:01, 5 November 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.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Chilean protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Chilean protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Oldest blurb is from 30 October. Since 31 October (5 days), no new information has been added to this article. Some amount of NPOV tag warring. 130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support removal article is stale and not very detailed to begin with --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removale Even the stuff from last week is miniscule, the most recent substantive information is almost 2 weeks old. It's stale. --Jayron32 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as few meaningful updates have been made lately ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 4Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • The Niagara Parks Commission says the wreckage of the Niagara Scow, stuck in the rapids above Niagara Falls since 1918 before being moved downstream about 164 feet due to a strong storm, is being monitored as it moves closer to the edge of the falls, but that the scow could be stuck in its new position for "days or years." (Sky News) (CTV News)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Al Ahed FCEdit

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 05:42, 6 November 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: Al Ahed FC (talk, history)
Blurb: In football, Al-Ahed win the AFC Cup
Alternative blurb: In football, Al-Ahed defeat April 25 to win the AFC Cup
Alternative blurb II: ​In football, Al-Ahed become the first Lebanese side to win an international competition
Alternative blurb III: ​In football, by winning the AFC Cup, Al-Ahed become the first Lebanese side to win an international competition
News source(s): The AFC.com, Fox Sports Asia, FaLebanon

Article updated
Nominator's comments: a current event Nehme1499 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose secondary to the top-tier AFC Champions League Stephen 00:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't typically post this. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a second-tier competition in one of the weakest confederations. Football already gets plenty of coverage in ITN (see WP:ITNR); the Copa Libertadores and UEFA Champions League are the only continental club competitions that are worth posting. Modest Genius talk 12:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I won't argue with this, I wasn't aware of WP:ITNR when posting the nomination. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Note, that not being on the ITNR list does not preclude this from being posted - it just means that the nomination should illustrate the impact/importance of the event explicitly. Notable firsts, broken records, etc. can all be used to get a non-ITNR event posted. I don't see any for this particular nomination, but don't let that discourage you from making non-ITNR nominations in the future.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added a couple of alternative phrases. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont see the article supporting either blurb II and III, or should it read "the international competition" instead of "an international competition". That aside, I need evidence of coverage from non-sports publications to justify a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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: Gay ByrneEdit

Article: Gay Byrne (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50289744

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Enormously important broadcaster in Ireland Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Would be better if a few more refs were added to some sentences, but there seems to be at least one ref per paragraph and 64 overall. Good enough. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think you've misread WP:BLP or WP:V. It's not about how many refs there are per para or how many refs there are in total. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think that if you are trying to apply BLP to RD then you have missed the point of at least one of those abbreviations.
    What is the material challenged or likely to be challenged that lacks a reliable, published source? Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Please read WP:BLP again before trying to be so clever. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think if you fix the [citation needed] issues then you'll stand a chance of the article being posted. Otherwise, you'll see this fail. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support come on guys, it's Gaybo. --Lottolads (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Lottolads: - if you want the article passed - know that the article won't fix itself. starship.paint (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, the CN tags are justified. The very first one I tried to tackle exposed wrong information in the article.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much of the article is uncited. It's already heavily tagged; someone needs to do some research and start placing citations where the cn tags are in order to see this posted. --Jayron32 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still some citation needed tags that need to be sorted before Gay can appear on the front page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LeBarón family massacreEdit

Article: LeBarón family massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine American Mexicans were killed and six were injured after gunmen opened fire on a three cars convoy near the US border.
News source(s): The New York Times The Washington Post CNN

Nominator's comments: Also known a the Sonora massacre, significant coverage. While murders in the Mexican Drug War are common, deaths of American citizens aren't. Victims were members of the LeBarón family and some were burned alive. Impact in the US-Mexico diplomatic relations. Jamez42 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

November 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Yvette LundyEdit

Article: Yvette Lundy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian [6], Le Monde [7], France Bleu [8]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Member of French resistance, concentration camp survivor and testifier, recipient of the Legion of Honour, died aged 103. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 New York City MarathonEdit

Articles: Geoffrey Kamworor (talk, history) and Joyciline Jepkosgei (talk, history)
Blurb: Geoffrey Kamworor and Joyciline Jepkosgei, both of Kenya, win the men's and women's races of the 2019 New York City Marathon, respectively.
Alternative blurb: ​At the New York City Marathon, Kenyans Geoffrey Kamworor and Joyciline Jepkosgei (pictured) win the men's and women's foot races, respectively.
News source(s): NY Times

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

Nominator's comments: Both winners articles look alright. Topic is ITN/R ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment The 2019 race should be the bold link, not the winners. Added alt blurb patterned after 2019 Boston Marathon.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until the 2019 race article has some prose, regardless of what article(s) get bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor urban event. ——SN54129 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    We'll disregard this WP:POINTY oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Muboshgu: Please do not be rude. York is a beautiful city, and of regional importance, but its marathon is no way suitable for ITN. London, yes, but because it's national: all others are merely provincial. ——SN54129 16:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      So you're either making a POINT or exhibiting a legitimate CIR issue? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      @Serial Number 54129: this race is one of 6 World Marathon Majors. starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint:, thanks! Yes, as it turns out I obviously misread the nomination; but so-called editors who do nothing but cast aspersions and bad faith (see above) deserve neither my time nor an apology. Thanks for the heads up though. ——SN54129 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Item is ITN/R and if other major city marathons get posted, so should this one. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Trans-Neptunian Object and Serial Number 54129:. This event is listed at WP:ITN/R so there is already consensus that it is significant enough to post, meaning both your comments are irrelevant. The only items for discussion are whether the articles are of sufficient quality and what the blurb should be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Trans-Neptunian object, this one will be posted if the article quality is of a certain standard. This one is a microstub with a couple small tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf my comment was a reply to the one above it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, at least to some. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose worst article I've seen nominated at ITN for a loooonnnngg time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose That article needs a lot of work. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wow that article is awful. It's not even a stub, more like a placeholder. Modest Genius talk 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Honestly, I don't think it's that bad. It has the core bits of information that 90% of readers will be looking for: who won, where they're from, what times. Let's be realistic about how people use Wikipedia. Unless something truly unusual happened, most people aren't going to sit down for an extended reading session. (I assume we're talking about 2019 New York City Marathon.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That defeats the whole purpose of ITN.  Nixinova T  C  04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose alt. Article contains a total of three sentences giving no more information than in this blurb, has formatting issues, and only 1 RS. It is in no state to go on to the main page. Neutral on blurb1.  Nixinova T  C  04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Main article's permalink). There's really an attempt at article there and now we have skeletal tables to help in writing the article proper. I will review it again when it reaches stub level. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 37 words of prose in three sentences is not an article. This needs a massive expansion if anyone wants to see it on the main page. --Jayron32 11:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment For reference, the 2019 Boston Marathon got posted and didn't need an overwhelming amount of prose, for any who might want to expand. I'm guessing that the 1500 min prose size that DYK uses would suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Formula One World ChampionshipEdit

No consensus to post at this time. Stephen 22:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2019 Formula One World Championship (talk, history) and Lewis Hamilton (talk, history)
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton wins the 2019 Formula One World Championship at the 2019 United States Grand Prix.
Alternative blurb: ​In Formula One, Lewis Hamilton wins the World Championship while Mercedes wins the Constructors' Championship.
News source(s): Official website Autosport

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: Pretty noteworthy since this is Lewis's 6th title, which puts him one title behind Schumacher's record. jaclar0529 (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't read all of Lewis Hamilton but the 2019 season has a one sentence update. 2019 Formula One World Championship tagged and missing refs. 2019 United States Grand Prix no prose. Needs work. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    The ITNR instructions say we should be featuring the winner of the Championship (Hamilton) and the winner of the Constructors' (Mercedes), so the altblurb is what should be given your consideration. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Shouldn't Mercedes's WCC win have been a separate INT post since they won it at the previous race? jaclar0529 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. There are still two more races left in the season, and ITNR is for the conclusion of the series. Although Hamilton and Mercedes now have unassailable leads, the other positions have not yet been settled. We should wait for the final race; that time could also be used to improve the articles. Modest Genius talk 15:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Modest Genius. We don't know what (if anything) significant will happen in the last two races - it's not impossible that Hamilton or Mercedes will be disqualified from the championship, someone suffer a career-ending injury (or worse), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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: Ren XuefengEdit

Article: Ren Xuefeng (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Radio Free Asia

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced this day. The actual date of death has not been disclosed yet. Zanhe (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gert BoyleEdit

Article: Gert Boyle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): oregonlive.com

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: She led Columbia Sportswear, article looks decent to me. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

November 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Marie LaforêtEdit

Article: Marie Laforêt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RFI, Swiss Info

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

Nominator's comments: French actress and singer. --SirEdimon (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter MercadoEdit

Article: Walter Mercado (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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

Nominator's comments: Astrologer and TV personality. Very famous in Latin America specially in the 1980s and 1990s. --SirEdimon (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Rudy BoeschEdit

Article: Rudy Boesch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People, [10]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Survivor contestant, former Navy SEAL. Spengouli (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Thuliswa Nkabinde-KhaweEdit

Article: Thuliswa Nkabinde-Khawe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News24, TimesLIVE, SABC NEWS

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Start class article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 Rugby World CupEdit

Articles: 2019 Rugby World Cup (talk, history) and 2019 Rugby World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: South Africa win the Rugby World Cup, defeating England in the final.
Alternative blurb: South Africa defeat England to win the Rugby World Cup Final (Man of the Match Duane Vermeulen pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​In rugby union, the World Cup ends with South Africa defeating England in the final.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

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

 – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Obviously as a South African. The article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It's highly notable and should be included in the ITN news section. Well I also included 2019 Rugby World Cup Final as second article which was not originally nominated. Abishe (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see a final match summary anywhere. We usually bold link the final so it might be easier to focus on 2019 Rugby World Cup Final. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – Ready to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose final needs prose. Support when this is done. Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am extremely sorry and I removed the link 2019 Rugby World Cup Final and you can proceed with 2019 Rugby World Cup instead. Abishe (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • You did nothing wrong. I and Kingsif would have brought up the Final match summary issue anyway. It does not matter which article we use. We still need a final match summary in prose in order to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Question why post the wall of tables minimal prose tournament article instead of the "Final" article? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't know - I've added a blurb pointing to Final article instead, but it has even less on the match than the one line of prose the main article does. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What in the world is Pen, Con and Try? Rugby union is played in less than half of the world's countries don't assume everybody knows what those are. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Martinevans123... This world is so Americentric and Wikipedia is no exception. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted using a combination of Alt2 (per ENGVAR) and Alt1. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Question could you put the Strasburg image back in till tomorrow morning since it was bumped for 2 days ... or head over to WT:ITN and lets get this image swapping habit either codified or killed?
    Really no need. MVP Strasburg had two shots at the main page, that's more than enough for local sports competition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Fine, not a hill to die on. I do wish we would just leave the images alone from now on. Cheers TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Well FWIW I agree, it all started with the Nobel Prize bonkers behaviour where it was virtually impossible to say who was going to feature next. But someone knew I suppose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Kincade Fire, 2019 California power shutoffsEdit

Consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Kincade Fire (talk, history) and 2019 California power shutoffs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Caused by a PG&E transmission line failure and fueled by strong Diablo winds, the Kincade Fire spreads rapidly throughout Sonoma County, forcing the largest evacuation in Sonoma County history of 200,000 people and destroying the historic Soda Rock Winery.
Alternative blurb: ​Threat of large wildfires caused by power lines and fueled by strong winds prompts the electric utility PG&E to shut off power to thousands of customers in fire-prone areas in Northern California.

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

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.