Open main menu

October 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Andrés GimenoEdit

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

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: Tennis player, won the French Open (grand slam tournament) in 1972. Article is not ready for publication yet, but seems to be one that with relatively minimal effort would be a good addition to our RD section. Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2019 Halle attackEdit

While very sad, consensus is against posting this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 11 October 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 Halle attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two people are killed and two others are injured in attacks by a man wearing military camouflage near a synagogue and at a kebab shop in Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Alternative blurb: ​Two people are killed and two others are injured after attacks in Halle, Sasony-Anhalt, Germany
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, AFP, dpa
 – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sad but relatively trivial. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedure. Neither of the blurbs incorporates the updated article. The first blurb is far too verbose. The second might be suitable. This is a case where the word "terrorism" can use used, as that was the official finding by the authorities.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had this confused with the recent truck attack, also in Germany130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Sadly plenty of worse crimes occur daily. Also oppose on procedure. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only major thing that seems to be sticking from this is the fact it was live-streamed to only some-thousand of people on Twitch, otherwise a small event. --Masem (t) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Coverage is very widespread, though – due to Germany's history in the first half of the 20th century and to xenophobic fringers in today's eastern Germany. (Here's an interesting sidebar about the Halle shooter.) – Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh its clearly widespread, no question it meets that part of ITN. But it was only two deaths, which we (at ITNC) would not normally blink at, and the live-streaming part is only highlighted since that brings comparisons to Christchurch. --Masem (t) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yup, only two random victims, but the underlying issues are current and very serious. And as various observers (including Merkel) have noted, the death toll could have been much higher. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: One of Spiegel's stories is headlined, "The lone perpetrator, who wasn't alone" ("Der Einzeltäter, der nicht allein war"). – Sca (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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) Operation Peace SpringEdit

Article: Operation Peace Spring (talk, history)
Blurb: Turkey begins a military offensive into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region
Alternative blurb: Turkey launches Operation Peace Spring into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region
News source(s): CNN, AP, BBC, AFP, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Notable development in Syrian Civil War. Would also suggest adding to ongoing if not blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

(Posted) Nobel Prize for ChemistryEdit

Articles: John B. Goodenough (talk, history) and M. Stanley Whittingham (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough (pictured), M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries.
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries.
News source(s): BBC

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: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 "goodenough". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Ecuadorian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During a week of protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno the government is relocated to Guayaquil from Quito, where a state of emergency is declared.
Alternative blurb: Protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno cause the government to relocate from Quito to Guayaquil.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Deutsche Welle Voice of America CNN Bloomberg

Nominator's comments: Extensive coverage. At least six days of protests in Ecuador. The unrest has been so intense that a state of emergency was declared, the government palace was taken by protesters and the government was relocated from the capital Quito to the city of Guayaquil. If suitable, a blurb could be considered. Jamez42 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Blurb first per Coffeeandcrumbs. Article is much improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Alt-blurb concise. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb first – No longer a stub. There is no good reason not to put a blurb up first. Nominator's comment includes several blurb-able events including a state of emergency, take over of govenment buildings and temporary relocation of the capital.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb, per Coffeeandcrumbs ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination changed to blurb. @Jamez42: please propose a blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Added blurb Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. Did some copyediting in the altblurb - how does this look? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. The effective date is October 8 when the government announced the capital being relocated. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Alt looks good. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems pretty obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

October 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Thirteen men are arrested in the United Kingdom for drug smuggling. The authorities believe that over several years, the suspects imported approximately 50 tonnes of illegal drugs from the Netherlands, valued at several tens of millions of pounds. The National Crime Agency called it “the biggest ever [drug] conspiracy that we've seen in the UK”. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD Francis S. CurreyEdit

Article: Francis S. Currey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]

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: WWII Medal of Honor recipient. Not in horrible shape but needs a couple cites. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Serafim Fernandes de AraújoEdit

Article: Serafim Fernandes de Araújo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): G1 Globo, Vatican 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: Brazilian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Article fairly short, but well-referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Nobel Prize for PhysicsEdit

Articles: Jim Peebles (talk, history) and Michel Mayor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz. (Queloz and Mayor pictured)
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz.
News source(s): BBC

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: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 stub The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Not unlike good ol' days when you had only one recipient to improve.... Brandmeistertalk 11:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are not up to standards, especially Mayor's, which is riddled with [citation needed]s. Perhaps we could try and predict who will win the Nobel prize tomorrow and try to get a head start on updating their article... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment indeed, the proposed targets are junk. The article on the prize itself is a GA and the list of winners is an FL. But apparently that's "cheating". Perhaps we won't be featuring the most important awards of the year at all this year. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change the target to the prize article I understand that that's the "easy way out", but none of the prize-winners' articles are Main Page-worthy, and it'd be a disservice not to include this when it's specifically a routine item; I'm sure IAR will allow it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • No, this is not good. I am going to use the fact that we got an article on Shuping Wang from nothing to RD posting in around 24hr. It should not be hard for existing articles on these three researchers, particularly with the Nobel coverage, to get tidied up to post. They are close BLP violations as they stand, and this is burying the problem by moving the target to the list. I know the Nobels are important, and those that feel that they are should be working to improve the article. --Masem (t) 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • No, what is "not good" is not posting the Nobel Prize winners. See below, your claim has fallen on deaf ears, those articles have just been destroyed and still not good enough, 36 hours later. My point, then, as now, remains. Do we want to just not post these events at all because of some absurd non-rule? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I am of the opinion that not posting is preferable to linking (not bold) to three/six seriously BLP-compromised articles. Hopefully, that will light a fire under the right user with the skills and ability to fix the articles. If not there is always next year. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment what about featuring 51 Pegasi b, discovered by two of the laureates? --Mjoppien (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm constantly impressed by the creativity of people trying to bypass the quality criterion. Next we'll feature Enrico Fermi because 1) it's a featured article (!!!) 2) he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938, so it's related to this event 3) it's preferable to say something other than nothing for the most important awards of the year. Sorry, but no. I oppose featuring any article aside from the three winners. If the articles aren't "good enough", either lower standards or improve them. If neither of those can be done, then just don't post. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Impromptu RFC Articles for the researchers are a must for Nobels, et al. These are prizes awarded to people. Contrary to popular belief, the Nobel Prize is not actually awarded for specific work, but rather for an overall body of work that may not neatly fit in a Wikipedia article; so, linking to articles about the work is not suitable either. Biographies for these people should be easy, because they all have a long and accomplished history already before winning the Nobel.130.233.2.235 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Moot Your RFC should be inverted, as ITN/R already says we post the winner, not the list. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that not publishing the blurb with a different target is tantamount to dooming the articles to remain less than mediocre. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support the alt blurb. The extra prominence given to these articles may lead to further improvement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. TRM's arguments make the most sense to me in all three of these debates (it'll be 4 by tomorrow). Kenmelken (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I respect TRM's point, but oppose the workaround in all cases. His voice is usually the loudest against the "damn the quality, we must post!" crowd. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not saying "damn" the quality, I'm saying target either the Good Article about the prize, or the Featured List about the prize winners. Their quality is more than sufficient for this purpose. So hopefully I've clarified your misunderstanding of my position here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Consensus here is sufficient now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment [4] "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.". Is this no longer the case? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And bold or not, we can't post orange tagged BLP articles to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you see the word "normally"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes this case an exception? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are currently bad. Do not link to either the list of winners or the prize itself. Rockphed (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Let’s not waste time arguing here. Please just g fix the four articles. Once they are okay, they can be posted. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Peebles has a {{dubious}} tag in the last sentence that needs to be fixed. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The personal articles need to be good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Peebles has been fixed up. Tackling the other two now. --Masem (t) 21:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Mayor done. One more. --Masem (t) 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Queloz done. Ready. --Masem (t) 23:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

October 7Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) New Saturn moonsEdit

Article: Moons of Saturn (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover twenty new moons of Saturn.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover twenty new moons of Saturn, making it the planet with most moons in the Solar System.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists announce the discovery of twenty additional moons of Saturn.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Article is featured and looks updated, with each moon having its own article. Brandmeistertalk 21:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • SupportScott S. Sheppard strikes again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is up to quality standards (featured), article has been updated (see Moons of Saturn#Outer moons), discovery is notable and in the news. Prefer alt1 over main blurb, since it gives a bit more context; Saturn is now the planet with the most moons, overtaking Jupiter. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. I am a little uneasy with the construction "making it the planet with most moons". It always was the planet with the most moons in the solar system; the discovery didn't make it so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    I added the word "known" which I think is better — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just adding Support in that this was confirmed by the IAU [5] - next best thing to a peer-reviewed paper for something like this. (I feared it was just a press release in searching for the academic basis) --Masem (t) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose the moons are so small they stretch the line between what's a moon and what isn't one. At some point we just have to draw the line, or one could've said Saturn has the most moons in the Solar System since the time Christiaan Huygens discovered the rings of Saturn. Banedon (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - quality standard met. BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting blurb comment Shouldn't they be called natural satellites instead of "moons"? Or is this some anti-scientific populist convention?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Warren William EgintonEdit

Article: Warren William Eginton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hartford Courant

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: Short but acceptable article. Adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Nobel Prize for MedicineEdit

Articles: William Kaelin Jr. (talk, history) and Peter J. Ratcliffe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for cell research
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for research on cell adaptability to changing oxygen levels
News source(s): NYTimes

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: note 3 target articles Masem (t) 13:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose not one of the three target articles is suitable for main page inclusion, let alone all of them. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, but I do want to stress, we should not "fall back" to making the prize list the target as we have done in the past when the winners are not at quality. That's lazy. It should not be hard with this news to get those three up a bit in the next 12-24hrs. --Masem (t) 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Well that's a matter of taste, I suppose it depends if you want to either not post it at all, or post it with a different target. Worst case would be someone just deleting all the unreferenced material to leave a couple of crap stubs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • While it is a matter of taste, the primary purpose is to redirect readers to quality content (and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). If we don't have that, failing to post is nothing to cry about. We routinely post borderline notability cases to the RDs while omitting household names because of quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
          • And with these, none of them are so far off the mark as to not likely be fixed in a short amount of time given the added coverage that should come as papers assemble some additional biographical stuff. (The hardest will likely be the awards list on each to source each one). But that has to be done, there's no excuse for not doing it on Nobel prize winners, or cheating that by using the list as the target. We expect it for other academic ITNRs, no reason to weaken that here. --Masem (t) 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I think it's somewhat disingenuous and misleading to insinuate that the associated featured list is not of quality content. Nor is it "cheating". ITNR just makes a recommendation. And as I said, if those three articles aren't rescued then is it better to not feature the prize at all or to feature it using the FL? I wonder. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
              • I know the Nobels are easily much more significant than the Grammys or Emmys, but quality is still a top priority for ITN over significance. And while there's nothing wrong with the list necessarily, it does not given the actual winners respect to simply call their articles a wash and not worth posting. (I would understand using the if these were non-existent articles to start and making a new article would be difficult, but we proved last year (or the year before?) that it was possible to make a quality article of a Nobel winner in <48hr.) --Masem (t) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I didn't actually say that. I said would we rather post the prize at all, focused on the featured list, or just let it pass away just because the scientist articles are garbage? I look forward to someone with the knowledge fixing up the three articles without removing all the information! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
                • Nearly 24 hours have passed now, and no sign of any tangible improvements. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
                • As suspected, the information missing references has now just been removed.... Way to go everyone. We could have been featuring this and getting 16 to 20 million people looking at and potentially improving those articles, but instead we just have a couple of people, mainly just removing things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
                • Masem: you seem to be saying that if we didn't have articles on the three scientists, you would be fine with running the blurb "The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for cell research)". I don't understand why you would consider a non-existent article preferable to a lower quality article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Putting aside my opinion on whether or not this event should be even considered for ITN (as well as my thoughts on the principle of ITN/R), the articles for the three winners are indeed lacking in both sourcing and content - specifically content related to their work that won them the Nobel Prize. Ratcliffe would be the best article of the three, but still I think it would be questionable for even a RD nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable enough to ITN. Very interesting news. Articles well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As long as the articles are not good, we cannot post. I have now removed the awards without sources and renamed the sections as "Selected awards", which is a quick fix. But all three bios still need some more references to be ok. --Tone 10:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Except for one section on Ratcliffe's, these are nearly there. --Masem (t) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • What's there is mostly covered/implied in the refs, but the language strays into WP:SYNTH territory. Someone who understands the subject may be able to rework the wording a bit. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, blurbing Morrison's death was absurd and violated even the stated RD criteria for blurbs.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We improve articles and then post them, not the other way around... RD criteria allows for the blurbing of "major transformative world leaders" as determined "on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC," which is precisely what happened with Morrison. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that the alt blurb provides a perfect vehicle to be the best of both worlds, getting the news that people are looking for (and expecting from an encyclopedia) onto the main page, and enabling a vast audience to help improve the articles. But it seems that lawyering around the wording of ITNR is the theme of the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
But at the same time, for any other topic that is a blurb, we expect more than a simple update. Adding three rows to a table (even if it is featured) is not a significant update. We criticize sport events for lacking blurbs, awards shows for lacking prose, etc. Additionally, with the amount of coverage of the Nobels, it should not be that hard to at least get any of the Laureates articles to reasonably quality to post. They don't have to be perfect, but should identify minimally their career, their research (particularly that they got the Nobel for) and notable recognition. People fix these things, so we should not be expecting any less now. Otherwise, we're playing favorites with certain topics which we should not be. --Masem (t) 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Shall we make a case study? If we post the award article bolded and the laureates' articles get updated, this is good. Otherwise, we stick to posting only if the articles are in a good shape? A one-off case study. I was considering to feature Nobels as ongoing, but there is no 2019 all-inclusive article, just the template. --Tone 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing how hard some people are working here to prevent these being posted in any shape. After all, who would expect the biggest encyclopedia in the world to feature the Nobel prizes on their main page? We're stopping them through our own lawyering and bureaucracy. Damaging. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I would love to have something posted, just trying to find the best way. I'd fix the articles myself but I simply have too many other things going on. --Tone 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Tone, I get it. I know you're trying, I most definitely wasn't including in that group of people working hard to prevent it being posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Question - RamblingMan/Tone, can you evaluate what more Semenza and Kaelin's articles need now? If you say what the BLP violations are I will know what to work on - thank you very much. Also, someone added a birthdate for Semenza and did not reply to my request for a source for it. Should the birthdate be removed? I have not found a source mentioning his birthdate. Thank you for your help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, moot now thanks to Masem's great work, and Masem thank you also for answering the birthdate question (birthdate has been removed pending a source).70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I have done the last bit of work to get Ratcliffe's up to speed. There's more I will add to the other two (same sources support information on research), but these are ready to post. --Masem (t) 15:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And done with the other two (basically a short section on their research that led to the Nobel (as well as the prior Lasker Award). --Masem (t) 16:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: can you clarify your position because you are opposing above, but it seems that your view has changed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to post these because it looks like the oppose concerns were addressed. The articles appear to be updated and have no warning templates or serious defects. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think they are in a good shape now. Ha, some teamwork can get us far. Now, physics and chemistry ;) --Tone 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

October 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Yevgeny BushminEdit

Article: Yevgeny Bushmin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TASS

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: New article on a recent death, senior Russian politician Spokoyni (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Everything looks sourced. Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rip TaylorEdit

Article: Rip Taylor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Sourcing problems, and no -ography as would be expected for such a person. Masem (t) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Athletics ChampionshipsEdit

Article: 2019 World Athletics Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Athletics Championships in Doha concludes with the United States winning fourteen gold medals.
Alternative blurb: ​The World Athletics Championships concludes in Doha.
News source(s): [6][7]

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: Second-most golds was five for Kenya. United States is piped to United States at the 2019 World Athletics Championships which has no prose. Dalilah Muhammad improved her own two months old world record in women's 400 metres hurdles by 0.04s. The most golds seems more significant. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe make it explicit that the US won the most golds, as opposed to the blurb being all about 'Murica. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb reads like a headline I'd expect to see on an American newspaper. Athletics is about a lot of individual performances. It's not even really a team sport. Let's just drop the bit about which country won the most medals. Were there some great individual performances? They are more important. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Altblurb added. It's ITNR; the blurb doesn't have to justify significance. It came, it went, that's enough. Rather curious that editors are loathe to mention medal counts, when that is the typical way that these sorts of events are reported. After all, that's exactly how the IAAF itself reported the events at the closing.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Medal counts almost always favour the highest population/richest nations. They really tell us little about the event. Some smaller nations with one or two brilliant athletes will never top the medal count. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Possibly support the Altblurb, but definitely not the first blurb suggested. The event was in the news for the lack of spectators and questionable decision-making in having it in Doha in the first place. No doubt the IAAF would focus on the medal counts - it was athletes and media focusing on the other aspects. The article covers all the controversies well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - And ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks substantially updated and well referenced. Neutral on which blurb we use ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The article seems to be in reasonable enough shape. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb only. The United States fielded 159 athletes compared to the next highest country, Kenya, at 54, out of a field of 1,972 final entries. The U.S. won 29 medals, which would comprise about 1/6th of its athletes, while Kenya won 11. Regardless of whether the medals were gold, silver, or bronze, it would have been a far more notable outcome if any country other than the United States won more medals given their massive presence at the IAAF.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Comment ...event concludes. Sooo - what's the news peg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.215.211 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As ITNR, none is needed, but neither is one prevented from being appended. Medal counts are obviously going nowhere. I think it would be a disservice to the participating athletes to highlight only the controversial parts. Notable records are a possibility but we would need to have target articles suitable for the main page.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of En EsurEdit

Article: En Esur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Archaeologists announce the discovery of En Esur, the largest known Bronze Age settlement from the Southern Levant.
Alternative blurb: ​Archaeologists announce the discovery of En Esur.
News source(s): [8][9][10][11]

Nominator's comments: This is the largest Bronze age settlement by far in a region that gets a lot of attention for its archaeology, history, and the development of early human civilization. There's been a great deal of news coverage in many languages from around the world. I apologize for any deficiencies in the nomination template: I'm not quite sure how to do this. Darouet (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Portuguese legislative electionEdit

Articles: 2019 Portuguese legislative election (talk, history) and António Costa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Portuguese legislative election, Prime Minister António Costa's Socialist Party emerges with the most seats.
Alternative blurb: ​Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa's Socialist Party wins the most seats in the legislative election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The ruling coalition of António Costa is re-elected in Portugal's legislative election.
News source(s): [12][13][14]

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: EU country, international coverage of results. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

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

October 5Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
  • In Lower Manhattan, New York City, four homeless men are beaten to death and a fifth severely injured while sleeping. A 24-year-old man, also believed homeless, is in custody. (CNN)
  • After acquitting five Muslim men of murder, Thai judge Kanakorn Pianchana gives a speech complaining of corrupt pressure upon the judiciary, including in this case, to convict without sufficient evidence. He then shoots himself in the chest in court in Yala, but survives. Criticism from judges of the Thai legal system is rare, but rights groups claim Muslims often face trumped-up charges in the region, which is Muslim-majority and suffers from insurgency. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sports

October 4Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ginger BakerEdit

Article: Ginger Baker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times,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: Legendary rock drummer. Discography and various other bits need work. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Diahann CarrollEdit

Article: Diahann Carroll (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP Fox News KTRK-TV

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: Significant access, singer, Oscar nominee, and "the first black woman to star in a non-servant role in a TV series" ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Iraqi economic protestsEdit

Article: 2018–19 Iraqi protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least seventy people are killed in protests over poor living conditions and state corruption in Iraq.
News source(s): CNN; BBC; Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to CNN, "The nationwide protests are among the largest the country has seen in decades". STSC (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose The section of this article that pertains to the protests that took place in 2019 is only a single paragraph long. If it is expanded then maybe, but in the current state I'd say not yet ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Basically the protests have been ongoing since 2018, I just updated it with the 2019 protests. I've edited the blurb to reflect that. STSC (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have also expanded the content. STSC (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@STSC: you assert that the the protests have been ongoing since 2018 but there is nothing from January 2019 to September 2019. starship.paint (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing written in the article for that period; I updated it with the latest protests happened in October. STSC (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The article infobox claims that protests have been going on for a year. I will remove that then. starship.paint (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The infobox only indicates the current status that is 'ongoing'. Besides, nothing written doesn't mean nothing happened actually. I've read the news about the Iraq protests in June this year. STSC (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now added the June protest to the content. STSC (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, on notability. The death toll for this week's protests is already at 46[15], and the protests are having significant political repercussions. The article could use some extra work but the section dealing with the current protests seems sufficiently updated. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ok for posting. Also on notability.BabbaQ (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - article is good enough for posting, though it still can be improved. Significant death toll. starship.paint (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose prosline, needs copyedit for grammar, some CNs. Infobox says 47 killed -- in this "new wave" or since 2018 (where the proseline lists several deaths)? Nolo on "significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have fixed them; the prosline in 2018 section is not ideal but I would try to edit to minimise it. STSC (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks much better now, nice work. It still reads like a list of stuff that happened without a lot of context - "sacked the airport" I mean damn that could be a paragraph in itself. This will probably end up posted, please keep expanding. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, but article is written chronologically, starting with July 2018. Note that today's BBC story says "at least" 70 killed in "the past five days." But readers of our target article must wade through more than 500 words to get to the news that makes this topic potential ITN material. Needs rewrite. – Sca (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    WP:SOFIXIT? Chronological order seems a logical choice, but feel free to improve further — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
In expository writing, one usually introduces or summarizes the most salient points in the beginning, then proceeds to a more detailed narrative. Since I lack expertise on Iraq and the Middle East generally, I left it to others to revise the article to correspond more closely to the blurb, which properly begins, "At least seventy people are killed...." (Suggest change seventy to 70.)Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • At least 70 people ... since when? Lets be accurate and include "since May 2018" in the blurb please" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
BBC: "The death toll in anti-government protests that have swept Iraq the past five days has soared to at least 70, security and medical sources say." – Sca (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Now almost 100 deaths which are solely related to the October protests. [16] - STSC (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
STSC, please update the article first and then report updates at WP:ERRORS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

October 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Paris police headquarters stabbing
    • A man stabs five people at the central police headquarters in the French capital of Paris, killing three officers and an administrative worker. The attacker, who was shot dead by other officers, was an admin worker at the station. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Wen ChuanyuanEdit

Article: Wen Chuanyuan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CGTN

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: Died on Oct. 1, death announced on Oct. 3. Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Miguel León-PortillaEdit

Article: Miguel León-Portilla (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eng Spa

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: Very significant figure in his field, but his death is lacking Eng-lang coverage. Some referencing gaps in the early biography section, perhaps. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

October 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The World Trade Organization authorizes the United States to impose about US$7.5 billion in tariffs on goods from the European Union every year. The WTO started the probe in 2005 after the United States complained that European subsidies to Airbus damage Boeing airplane sales. (NPR)
    • The United States announces a tariff of 10% on European-made Airbus planes and 25% on a range of goods, set to take effect on 18 October. (Reuters)
  • American retailer Bed Bath & Beyond announces it will close 60 stores by the end of the year due to declining profits. (USA Today)
  • A foreign exchange trader, Rohan Ramchandani, has filed a lawsuit against Citigroup. Ramchandani won acquittal last year after criminal charges of market manipulation. He claims that the charges were instigated by his former employer in order to mitigate the regulatory consequences for its own misbehavior. (Reuters).

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: John KirbyEdit

Article: John Kirby (attorney) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USGamer

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: Lawyer known best for defending Nintendo over the character of Donkey Kong from Universal, and from which Nintendo named their character Kirby after. Article is a tad short but it is sourced (I'm seeing about further updates) Masem (t) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

RD: Kim ShattuckEdit

Article: Kim Shattuck (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Independent

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: Needs expanding. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) B-17 crashEdit

Article: October 2019 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A privately-owned Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crashes in Connecticut, United States, killing seven of thirteen people on board and injuring the rest.
News source(s): BBC, The Boston Globe

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

  • Weak Oppose I know this occurred the news pages, but it is smaller aircraft, not commercial, and we generally do not post non-commercial crashes. --Masem (t) 00:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • An aircraft with a wingspan of nearly 110 feet (34 m) and length of nearly 75 feet (23 m) is not, by any definition of the word, "small". Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Wingspan: 103 ft, 9 in. (31.5 m.). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not "small small" like a private prop plane, but I meant more that this was a private, non-commercial passenger plane, and we have typically shied from posting private and military plane crashes unless there are more factors at plane. The fact this was an historical plane involved (And thus part of the coverage) is why I'm only weakly opposing. If it was a modern private plane with the same causalities we likely wouldn't be posting it. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Extremely sad, but I'm not seeing the long term significance of the event. Also the casualty level is below what we typically look for in disasters. Frankly I think the claim to WP:N is kinda weak. My guess is this will drop from the news cycle within a day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I make no claim to long-term significance; it was submitted in consideration of the "entries of timely interest" guidance. Not clear that both earthquakes currently featured from last week are still in the news cycle either. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the best thing to do here is to keep expanding the article and submit it to DYK. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand that the whole "send it to DYK" schtick is a bit overdone at this point, but this article, while not ITN-worthy, is actually DYK eligible when I checked it with the tool. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Other than the fatalities, this is a tragic historical loss of an airworthy B-17 (big chunk of the fuselage is totally destroyed, while it remains to be seen if the other surviving sections can be salvaged). Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's in the news, and there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS rule. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good shape article. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem - no long term significance. Banedon (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Losing an airworthy version of a historical aircraft is certainly of long term significance(it is said only 10 or so are airworthy). 331dot (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per AO and Banedon. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support there's no need for something to have "long term significance" (sic), that's not a criterion of ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose While I appreciate the historical significance as described above, I'm just not seeing the volume of news coverage that ITN entries typically have. Sam Walton (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's got news coverage across the globe, including at CNN, BBC, CBS, USA Today, Time, New Zealand Herald, The Guardian, The Independent, RT, Yahoo, MSN, Bangkok Post, Reuters, Hindustan Times, Stuff.co.nz..... I think that's sufficient!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Rambling Man. This was the lead story on the NBC evening news. What’s driving it is the significance of the B-17 and there is a newsworthy angle about extreme heroism of several rescuers. This and the historic nature of the plane is giving the story much greater prominence than the typical airplane crash with 14 casualties. Jehochman Talk 11:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per others. I personally saw it in the news a lot ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Banedon. Significance lacking, as crashes of 75-year-old preserved/restored WWII airplanes have become fairly frequent. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Do we have a list? That sounds like it would be useful so we should make one if we don't have it already. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, Sca, please cite that statement. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm just drawing on general memory. FWIW, I have longstanding interests in aviation and in WWII, and take note of such crashes. Every once in a while you read about one. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been looking for a list. We have an awful lot of lists of aviation accidents, starting from Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents, but we don't seem to have a list of historical aircraft that have crashed. Maybe we should make, Category:List of aviation accidents and incidents involving historical aircraft, and find out how common this type of crash is. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    There are several crashes at airshow listed within List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) - about 30 or so, from what I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    And List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    This wasn't a military aircraft (privately owned and flown) and wasn't an air show. It was a vintage aircraft that was offering the public a 30-40 minute flight for $450 per ticket. It's a highly unusual set of circumstances for a crash. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Too much splitting of hairs in that. If you take time to note, I already pointed out that not every one of them is automatically an example, just that there examples within those lists. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, earthquakes are more frequent than plane crashes, and ITN is currently featuring two of those, from 26 September and 24 September, which isn't exactly timely either. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    It is an interesting coincidence that the two deadliest earthquakes of 2019 happened within days of each other. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in consideration of the totality of factors (death toll, the loss of a rare aircraft, and quality of the article). However, comments that the opposition is using "invalid rationale" are unseemly, as there is a conventionally respected understanding that the crash of a military aircraft is less noteworthy absent long term impacts. I disagree that this should be considered a military aircraft, but the argument is valid. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The invalid rationale arguement is not unseemly. It says nothing a WP:ITN about an article needing to have historical significance. The event is in the news, there is consensus to post and the article is in good shape. It should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't a military aircraft, as it was privately owned and not operated by the government. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussions here involve (mostly) a clash of opinions, not facts. For example, there is an argument to consider this a military craft (it is a B-17, after all), or not (based on its absence of commission). I feel it is not, but those who have a different opinion are not wrong, and I don't think it's civil to call other people's opinions invalid. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose We posted the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash, but that did have far more sustained coverage than this incident, which has mostly dropped out of the international news after the inital reports. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting story, decent article. Maybe "ongoing" if not a full blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @LaserLegs: Less that two days ago you were reminded of the purpose and requirements for ongoing. Would you mind then explaining how this story meets either of those? Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. Also the article is well developed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment still ready 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. There is some debate as to the significance of this event for ITN, but overall there is more support, and many opposes were "weak" in nature, and citing criteria such as "long-term significance", which don't usually play a part in ITN discussions.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Image is good to go now too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting new details have emerged. I'm posting sources to the talk page for others to use. Blumenthal said there have been 21 crashes of so-called vintage planes since 1982 where 22 people have died — not including Wednesday’s crash at Bradley Airport. [17] This crash accounts for 24% of vintage airplane crash fatalities over the last 37 years. That's pretty significant. Also interesting, the pilot was the most experienced B-17 pilot alive with 7,000+ hours of flight hours. The co-pilot was a retired 747 pilot. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just goes to show we should summarily reject false anecdotal claims! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    "False" – WP:AGF. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's all quite fine. What we see is that having the statistics really helps. These stats were not easy to find. Senator Blumenthal was useful in providing this information. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    No bad faith, just we should work (like the encyclopedia) on reliable and verifiable sources, not "fake news"! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Well that should be interesting in future events like this, a plane crash with no continuing international coverage being posted ... 86.159.194.89 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    There’s no requirement for continuing coverage. If there is wide coverage that can be sufficient. The point of this page is to display a variety of quality work that was in the news. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hargovind Laxmishanker TrivediEdit

Article: Hargovind Laxmishanker Trivedi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News18

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: Article needs some copyediting. Nizil (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter SissonsEdit

Article: Peter Sissons (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Channel 4 News, BBC News

Article needs updating

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.

 The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Karel GottEdit

Article: Karel Gott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Lidovky Novinky.cz

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.

 – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Peru constitutional crisisEdit

Article: 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: President of Peru Martín Vizcarra dissolves the Congress of Peru, resulting in a constitutional crisis.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC News

A country going through a political crisis against corruption for years has its president dissolve congress. This is notable.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

October 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Russell BucklewEdit

Article: Bucklew v. Precythe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBS 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: Obviously this is not a standalone article about the person but he was a criminal at the center of a major US Supreme Court case and per BLPCRIME would not have a standalone article. However, his life is documented sufficiently in this , as well as his long legal challenge. (He was executed today after failing to get SCOTUS to hold it). As this is for RD only it is on the borderline from that standpoint, but the article is up to quality for front page (I had worked on it previously, hence ...) Masem (t) 03:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. The quality is up there, and there's a very good reason why the individual should not have a standalone article. feminist (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Nice article. No significant issues. Good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure the death of someone notable for murder is notable enough for the main page in the news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    He's also the appellant to a Supreme Court case. feminist (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we extracted his biographical details from the article, it would amount to less then a stub that we would never post as a standalone. Stephen 05:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • His biographical details would include his criminal case history and the various court challenges. If BLPCRIME did not exist, it would be fully possible to have a reasonably length article that gets into a bit more about his pre-prison life and the legal battles he fought. But, at the same time, this isn't like a John Hinckley Jr. where the crime itself was the subject of much attention. So because we are respecting BLPCRIME here, it is reasonable to use the article about his last legal defense as his bio, since that covers his entire life. --Masem (t) 05:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. This can be argued the other way, but I don't see any significant issue in the article to bar posting now. Maybe we should amend ITNRD to prohibit posting "criminals" or people with repulsive history? because it currently does not prevent so. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The RD criteria has already been expanded to include non-humans. Expanding it to include court cases by way of the deaths of the people involved it too far. There was a similar nomination a few weeks back concerning the one of the Jonesboro murderers, in which the page for the court case was apparently re-named for the person and then nominated for RD. It was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea. The nominator's beef is with BLPCRIME, not RD.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, the basis of your oppose is factually incorrect. No one is expanding it to include court cases. Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage in another article are already eligible for RD, though it's determined on a case-by-case basis. And that's what we're doing here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is completely legit to consider this on a case-by-case basis for inclusion but the nominated article lacks real biographical information. The background section is full of information about state-level legislation and the poorly covered biographical information is put in function of invoking the Baze v. Rees decision for such cases in general. The article needs to undergo complete restructuring so that a biographical section with real biographical information, such like early life, education, career and other important life events, in function of the person's life is added (irrespective of whether the current background section will be cleansed or not). And yes, there might be cases where people without stand-alone articles qualify for RD but this is definitely not one of them considering the coverage of person's life in the nominated article. The article in its current shape seems to be ready for posting a blurb on the court case as the main news but it is very unlikely to receive sufficient support for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's the case that's notable, not the individual involved. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Stephen, TRM. Being momentarily famous for being dead isn't ITN-worthy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Technically, that's not the case. He was a criminal who's legal battle to avoid the death penalty was notable. There's not that much coverage (but enough) of noting his lethal injection yesterday, its the battles before he was known for, of which this SCOTUS case was his last chance. --Masem (t) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Then it seems to me he was notable for the trial & the death sentence, which was carried out. – Sca (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Ammarpad - a standalone article is not necessary for RD if there is sufficient coverage in another article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:ITN, RD postings can be of "an individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article." The target article is for a case not the individual in question. Thereby this does not qualify for RD. Those evaluating the nomination should comment if the target article and story (the case) is notable for a blurb. Otherwise to qualify for RD the person in question needs a standalone Wikipedia article. SpencerT•C 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not what that says: it says that an individual with a standalone articles is presumed notable for an RD and discussion should only focus on quality. This does not say that an individual that is discussed in RSes in the context of another article is ineligible for RD, but the automatic nature is not there. I fully expected the discussion here to consider if a person notable but limited by BLPCRIME should still be noted for RD. --Masem (t) 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. SpencerT•C 02:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd also note we made an exception for Ian Brady who due to BLPCRIME did not get an article of his own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric PleskowEdit

Article: Eric Pleskow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CNN Guardian Nikkei, BBC

Nominator's comments: Protests are continuing on China's National Day. Someone has been shot by a live round, the first time since protests started (this will likely lead to even more protests). Police say protesters used "corrosive fluid". I have updated it but protests are still ongoing right now, so more may happen. starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Support per nom. I was just about to nominate it myself. This shouldn't have been removed from ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN is not meant for sensationalised breaking news. STSC (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    A hardly unexpected vote, given this extremely recent finding that STSC fell short of WP:NPOV in China/Hong Kong-related edits, as well as their support for the China airport blurb. starship.paint (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm entitled to my opinion to vote just like anyone else and I've given my reason for that. I remind you just take part in the debate without any personal attack on others per WP:CIVILITY - STSC (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
China airport blurb Tells one all they need to know about this editor. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Jumping to conclusions, dear patriot? starship.paint (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I am a U.S. citizen, that hardly makes myself a "patriot", so do better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, American and patriot aren't mutually exclusive. starship.paint (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a load of gibberish. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"Corrosive fluid" and "Sprite" aren't mutually exclusive, either. One just sounds worse. Lemon juice, white vinegar and seawater can also bring a tear to a grizzled cop's eye, as well as season a trout. Everything is a weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. Go sulfuric or go home, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
A hardly unexpected behaviour from Starship.paint, given this[18] blocking him indefinitely for harassment. STSC (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment and wait This was removed from Ongoing because it went nearly a week without significant updates. If editor interest is more sustained, it would be suitable to add it again. But, I would like to see it for a few days before supporting. "Protestors/police harmed during protest" is not terribly notable.130.233.2.252 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Made the headlines internationally today, and the article has been updated. feminist (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and wait to see what, if anything else, happens. Per the IP, protestors hurt during a protest is hardly news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - I supported taking down the article the first time as I though that there were no meaningful updates being made to it. But now, it seems like the protests are back in the news and the article is being regularly updated again. If this is not a one day thing (I know the protests are heating up because of China's National Day today) and the protests continue, then we should re-add. If the protests (and updating of the article) cool down after today, perhaps we could blurb it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I know, the major protests are mostly conducted on weekends. Today was an exception. As such, we would expect most updates to come during or right after the weekends. starship.paint (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Today (1 October) is public holiday in Hong Kong if you still don't know. STSC (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – as they're still going on – and seem likely to continue (sporadically?) for quite some time. A glaring embarrassment for China. (Reminds me a little of the pre-Wallfall demos in E. Germany – during which the regime realized it couldn't start shooting its own people inside the country.)Sca (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait but generally Support - Today is special because of the HK holiday, and there are a lot more protesters out there which are raising the level of violence out of that. Let's see if that's sustained into tomorrow, but I also don't see a problem adding it back (I was weakly opposed to the remove only that events had slowed down but the protests were still ongoing). --Masem (t) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is ongoing and major world news. I am surprised to find that it has even been removed... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Offensichtlich, some people just don't like Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. And, having read The Guardian update above, hysterical news reports seem to be unclear whether the protestor rioter was armed/charging at police, whether a sole officer overstepped protocol, or whether this actually reflects a broader policy shift on the part of HKPF. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The rioter kept charging at the officer with a metal tube; the officer just shot him in self defence. STSC (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing but I'd support a blurb. Seriously what is the rush to put things in ongoing? Blurb it, if it's still ongoing when the blurb is about to expire off, put it in the OG box. Seriously.... --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
One person shot "by a live round" but not killed is not a blurb. (PS: "Shot by a live round" (BBC) doesn't make sense. 'Rounds' don't shoot, guns do.)Sca (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The (at least) weekly protests/demonstrations/riot/fight for freedom/terrorist attacks (pick your favourite) have been ongoing since June. How much "still ongoing" do you want it to be? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hold up Police seem to have a hunch some Molotovs are scheduled to fly today. Zero shot to one shot is not a dramatic eruption nor chaotic escalation. A bunch of people or government buildings literally catching fire would be both. Wait till midnight. If nothing beats a rowdy shot teen by then, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
    Given the history of Hong Kong, a protestor getting shot by the police is a signficant escalation. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Viewing him as a protestor, it stands out. But as a guy attacking armed cops, it can't be that weird locally, can it? It's not like shooting protestors for the sake of quashing protest, which should always be remarkable and shameful. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This was posted to ongoing until only four days ago. My question to those voting, if that hadn't happen and this was a proposal to remove, would your vote still be the same (support<->opp rmv, oppose<->supp rmv)? If not, why not? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Just to clarify things: ITN is not meant to be a newsticker. The only reason ITN exists is to highlight quality Wikipedia writing about current events. At the time the Hong Kong Protests article was removed from ongoing, it was no longer current. It did not, still does not, and never will have anything to do with whether or not other sources, such as news organizations, are reporting on this. It only has to do with whether or not the Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with that information. If you all had wanted to keep this in ongoing, you all would have been updating it along the way. At this point, I'm fine with returning it there, but is everyone going to just abandon it again and let it go out-of-date? Because if so, what's the point? --Jayron32 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed there will be lack of interest in the article in a few days time, believe me. That's why it was taken off 'ongoing' in the first place. STSC (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If and when the article no longer meets the criteria to be listed as ongoing, it can and will be removed. That's not a reason to decide not to list it as such when it does meet the criteria, and it's quite fallacious to think it is. The "why bother" mentality with that comment is just as lethargic as the editors you suspect will fail to keep the article updated for very long.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey and per Sca. The article is updated, the topic is in the news, the situation has re-intensified, and ongoing is more appropriate than a blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm looking at the Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section instructions and I'm not seeing where it says "Stories which would not qualify for a blurb can be stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" -- lets keep that in mind when evaluating consensus on this item. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  Sca (talk)
LaserLegs, The purpose of ongoing (according to Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section) is "to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news" and the criteria is that it the article is being continuously updated with new information. More relevant here is that "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." When assessing whether or not this proposal meets the criteria, rather than keeping in mind what WP:ITN does not say, let's keep in mind what it does say.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So it does say that. I would appreciate being corrected without the snark, but I thank you nonetheless. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I've no intention of being snarky here, but perhaps it came off that way because the original post of our back-and-forth here (the suggestion that we believe that stories which don't qualify ought to be "stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" and that this is somehow a rebuttal to the rationale of the support !votes) struck me as being a less-than-respectable comment. If I'm not mistaken (and I sincerely apologize in advance if I'm having a false memory), you've in the past suggested that it should be a requirement that editors know how long any story will stay in ongoing before putting it there, and you seem to be reiterating that belief here. Nobody has a crystal ball. We don't know when the article will or will not go out of shape, we don't know when the story will or will not cease to be in the news. Of course the amount of time that this story will remain on ITN is indeterminate, and there's no problem with that. We'll cross the bridge of removal when we get to it.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is definitely for Ongoing now. Situation has intesified etc.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I !voted to remove and I stand by that but we should not hesitate to add it back. It appears this is not over and is certainly in the news. The first injury from a live round may not warrant a blurb but certainly establishes the situation is ongoing. Sometimes we do not wait long enough before removing an item. That is a fact of life. News is unpredictable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Supports outweigh opposes 3:2. Timely. – Sca (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add this because we have a rough consensus. Should the balance of opinion shift substantially against this, it can be removed. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Jehochman, please remove the "2019". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Jehochman, sorry but can you revert your most recent edit. Stephen had already fixed the issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Someone has been shot for the first time. Definitely noteworthy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)