Open main menu

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

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

Artist's impression of K2-18b orbiting red dwarf K2-18
Artist's impression of K2-18b orbiting red dwarf K2-18

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

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

Please do not...Edit

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

SuggestionsEdit

September 17Edit

International relations

Comet BorisovEdit

Article: C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers confirm the discovery of the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers confirm the comet Borisov as the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
News source(s): Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), The New York Times, arXiv

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The IAC, to my knowledge, is one of the first major astronomical institutions to explicitly state that this is a confirmed interstellar comet – I suspect most of us astronomy-minded editors were waiting for official confirmation of such, before nominating it for ITN. The New York Times source is to verify the 7 December perihelion date, and the arXiv source is the original paper of the comet's discovery from 12 September. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, significant science story, article in good shape. The previous interstellar object was not a comet. Brandmeistertalk 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Provided NYT source says the last interstellar comet was interstellar and probably a comet. It didn't change many lives at all. What's different now, especially to general audiences? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Bad argument. You do realise the "didn't change many lives at all" argument can literally be applied to the vast majority of ITN entries ever, yes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good, references look good, sources look good, and a neat discovery ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:33, 17 September 2019
  • Oppose/wait on two grounds: i) no peer-reviewed paper has been published and ii) we haven't learnt anything yet. 'Oumuamua was the first interstellar object; the second discovery of something is usually not an ITN story. Whether it shows a coma or not (comet vs asteroid) is not really that important. 'Confirmation' by the IAC does not make up for the lack of peer-review, which we usually require for science stories; in the case of 'Oumuamua we posted when the discovery paper came out in Nature. We could wait for one to come out on this object, or (my preference) not post at all unless & until something surprising is discovered. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: James RobertsonEdit

Article: James Robertson (judge) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

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.

 Neutralitytalk 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) Lotus TowerEdit

Closed per consensus for oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 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: Lotus Tower (talk, history)
Blurb: Lotus Tower becomes the tallest tower in South Asia with an height of 350m
Nominator's comments: The tower is also the 11th tallest in Asia and 19th tallest tower in the world Abishe (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No news sources have been provided to show that this is in the news. I also don't think the tallest structure in a particular region is notable enough, especially when it is the 19th tallest tower. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 19th tallest in the world is far too low on the notability scale to be ITN Worthy, this would be more fitting on The Current Events portal. 173.128.225.139 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. But this is clearly a potential DYK! MSN12102001 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am really sorry and I take the blame for my blunder. I knew this should have only be nominated to DYN instead of ITN. I also didn't get the support from foreign sources. Abishe (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

September 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Purdue PharmaEdit

Closed per consensus for oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Purdue Pharma (talk, history) and Opioid epidemic in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma files for bankruptcy following lawsuits around its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.
Alternative blurb: ​American pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of oxycodone, files for bankruptcy following lawsuits around its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.
News source(s): WaPo

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: Purdue Pharma is the multi-billion-dollar company best known as the manufacturer of OxyContin; this bankruptcy filing "is expected to trigger the ultimate demise of the company". Articles need updating. Davey2116 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The cases against Purdue Pharma and their involvement in the opiod crisis is significant to be ITN-worthy, but the situation makes it hard to find where the right point is for that ITN moment given there's multiple suits going on, that this bankruptcy falls after some of the states have reached a settlement with Purdue, and now there's the word about the company trying to shift $1B to international accounts. There could be a more "serious" point in the future, where there could be criminal charges or the like. But in lieu of knowing how those chips will lie, this seems like a significant moment for this story. Obviously, updates before posting need to be in place. --Masem (t) 04:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support original blurb pending updates and serious review. The above makes a very good case for posting. I suggest that Purdue be the only bold link in the blurb, considering that the impetus for posting is their bankruptcy. Purdue's page is very highly weighted towards their role in the opioid epidemic, and someone with more pharmaceutical knowledge than me should determine if that weight is due. The opioid epidemic page is not yet updated. Unlike J&J or Insys (other co's sued and fined for the epidemic), Purdue is at least pro forma bankrupt and was the original developer of the most damaging of the drugs of the epidemic.130.233.3.134 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chapter 11 provides protection from creditors and is the usual way that US companies survive such difficulties, rather than going out of business. What's happening here is corporate restructuring along with lots of lawsuits and the matter will be ongoing for years. If you look at a source like CDC, you can see that prescription opiods were a 1990s issue while, two waves later, the issue is now powerful synthetics like fentanyl. People have been using and abusing opiods for centuries and an ITN blurb is not a good place to summarise this complex topic. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Your description of Ch.11 is not correct. Ch.11 as a means to escape legal liabilities is a "contentious" thing, to put it lightly, and any bankruptcy judge who thought that the filing was motivated by such (as opposed to regular business losses) would not grant it, or would force a Ch.7 with assets going to a trust to pays out to petitioners. The precise substance that is en vouge at this exact moment doesn't change the fact that dozens of people are killed by this drugmaker's product every day, more than all gun deaths combined. The product and company in question were the market-makers of the opioid epidemic and, just because there are other players now doesn't decrease their significance; it increases it rather. Whether the updates are suitably thorough is a separate question, but to describe this bankruptcy as "usual" and the effects of the drug as not an "issue" is factually wrong.130.233.3.134 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do consider the concern that Chap 11 to avoid/reduce settlement costs is a key tactic here, but again, the whole mess on Purdue and opoids is ITN-worthy, but there's hard to say where there's a proper point to post it knowing the legal cases out there now. This is the one point that summarizes the results of several trials into one. --Masem (t) 14:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The part of this article on the bankruptcy of the company, which in my mind is the event being cited in this ITN nomination, is only a single sentence and needs major expansion ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This filing and settlement is going to be challenged by 26 states. There's a whole legal brouhaha that will take ages to get sorted out. Nothing is set in stone yet.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ch. 11, etc. Filing a civil suit is not proof of culpability. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Ric OcasekEdit

Article: Ric Ocasek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC New York

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: Lead singer of the Cars. Some referencing gaps, just needs a bit of work. Spengouli (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Ashes seriesEdit

Article: 2019 Ashes series (talk, history)
Blurb: Australia retains the Ashes after drawing the 2019 Ashes series with England
Alternative blurb: ​In Test cricket, the Ashes series is drawn, so Australia retain the trophy
Alternative blurb II: ​In Test cricket, the Ashes series concludes with Australia retaining the Ashes following a drawn series against England
News source(s): SMH

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: ITNR article about the recently concluded 2019 Ashes Series Chrisclear (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Article looks good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Target article is thoroughly sourced & doesn't have any noticeable problems.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose summary of the last two Tests, probably the most important two since the fourth resulted in Aus retaining the urn and the fifth resulted in the series being drawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man but this event should not be ITNR anyway. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present due to lack of prose summaries of last two tests. It is worthy of ITNR as one of the earliest international sports competitions on earth. The title dates back to 1882 so it is older than the modern Olympics and a very important sports event in both countries. At the moment, I am tired due to late nights watching the Ashes but that is another story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready per above. Should definitely go up once those two match summaries are in place. The nominated blurb is clunky, doesn't specify the sport, unnecessarily includes the year, and runs into the singular/plural ENGVAR issue we always try to avoid. Adding an altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready, but worthy of a blurb once it is, per Modest Genius. I've proposed a third possible blurb, and I think we should avoid the grammar used in the ALT0 version, because there is an ENGVAR mismatch - in the UK we'd say "Australia retain the Ashes", while in Australia (and in the US too) they would say "Australia retains the Ashes". Better to word it in such a way that this is not an issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I preferred my way around, because the result is a draw, which leads to a retention of the trophy. The retention is secondary to the draw. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Australian here, we also say "Australia retain the Ashes" - don't know why you'd think we use American grammar. But agree it should be reworded to avoid confusing US English speakers. -dmmaus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs prose summaries of the last 2 matches, tests, whatever they are. And I agree with Amakuru that altblurb is bad. Use the Australian form (since they won) or use Altblurb2. Rockphed (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Article is incomplete, needs prose summaries of the last two tests. Consider this full support once that is fixed without pinging me. --Jayron32 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly not a notable sporting event in terms of outcome. I think we all could have predicted this turnout. (SARCASM) Indeed, it would be far more notable and newsworthy if the Krikkiters appeared out of nowhere to steal the Ashes to rebuild the Wikkit-- What? That only happened in fiction? Now you're telling me! In all seriousness, as per the above, will support once updated to include prose summaries.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think we all could have predicted this turnout." Really? I'm an avid fan, and I certainly couldn't have. And you clearly don't appreciate the significance of The Ashes, even outside the countries directly participating but within the cricketing world. I don't find comments like yours helpful. (Even though you are right about the missing content. But others had already said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, HiLo. I was making a joke, as I thought my reference to a Douglas Adams book would have indicated. Calm down.--WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per others -- BoothSift 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rudi Gutendorf:Edit

Article: Rudi Gutendorf (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC,

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: Rudi Gutendorf,has coached 55 teams in 32 countries across five continents which is a record. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 FIBA Basketball World CupEdit

Article: 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The FIBA Basketball World Cup concludes with Spain defeating Argentina in the final.

Article updated

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: The article has been updated.

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

September 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

All-Ireland Senior Football ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2019 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Gaelic Football, Dublin beat Kerry 1-18 to 0-15 in the All Ireland Final replay to become the first male team in GAA history to win 5 All-Ireland titles in a row.
Alternative blurb: ​In Gaelic football, Dublin beat Kerry 1–18 to 0–15 in the All Ireland Final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Gaelic football, the All-Ireland Championship concludes with Dublin defeating Kerry in the final.
News source(s): RTE

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: Wait until if and when the article is properly updated - it has now at least arguably been technically updated, but it still has a very long way to go before reaching the standards expected for ITN. (Also my apologies for any arguably systemic sexism probably inevitably associated with all this - the assumption everywhere that the players are male, the fact that only the men's final is ITNR, and so on; if anybody wants to try to do anything about this, such as suitably rewording the blurb or altblurb, please feel free to try; meanwhile as a starter I've now added See Also links between 2019 men's and women's finals, citing WP:BIAS, the needs of this nom, and existing practice in the (GAA-related) Australian International Rules articles; I've now also amended the blurb as somebody at the article has pointed out that 5-in-a-row is only a record for male teams). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose no prose, plenty of tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Just like last year. Let's wait. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Per the nom-- BoothSift 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready. One sentence per game does not constitute a prose summary. I've also added a second altblurb in our standard phrasing (we never include scores). Modest Genius talk 10:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article prose is insufficient, per all of the above. Consider this a full support once that is fixed. --Jayron32 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb II. Prose added. Pictures added. Tags gone. --Gaois (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attackEdit

Article: 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Drone attacks have set alight two major oil facilities run by the state-owned company Aramco in Saudi Arabia, state media say.
Alternative blurb: Drone attacks on two major Saudi Arabia oil facilities by the Houthi lead the Saudis to halt half of their oil production.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP, Guardian, Reuters, Bloomberg

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article short but referenced. Impact on oil price will depend on just how extensive the damage is Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – Developing. Effects unclear. (Govt. sez fires controlled, Saudi TV sez no casualties.) – Sca (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait but added alt blurb that I think captures what is a bit larger picture here, given that there were no casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs)
Rather than "the Saudis," etc., how about "lead Saudi Arabia to cut half its oil production" – ?? (Keep in mind we don't know how long this will last.) – Sca (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The loss of 6 million barrels of oil production per day is of enormous significance. EternalNomad (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • (That's 5% of the daily production, which is not trivial, from what sources have said). --Masem (t) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's reduced its production by 50%. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per EternalNomad. | abequinnfourteen 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm afraid this will worsen the Iran-Saudis proxy war. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Posted. El_C 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Either before or while it was being posted, I had worked to expand bg + stuff. --Masem (t) 23:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • By all means, feel free to still do so. El_C 23:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh sure, I'm just noting - the article in the original state was not great in length, but by the time you posted, I believe I got the bulk of the changes I made in. --Masem (t) 00:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – Sunday's Guardian quotes several predicting "jolt" in prices. Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Not to take away from this article's ITN importance, but it's surprising to read that as the Saudis said they expect to have the fields back up by tomorrow, and will use reserve oil to minimize pipeline disruption. There is very valid cocner that if the Abquiq facility was shut down for a long time (and the Houthis seem intent on that), it would cause significant jolts, but not now. --Masem (t) 13:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Who knows? Saudi Arabia seems to be an opaque society politically. Sca (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the blurb should probably be changed to not mention Houthi responsibility, as there is some controversy as to the level of which the Houthi were responsible. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, blurb changed. For future reference, WP:ERRORS will probably get a faster response than here for blurb change requests. Best, SpencerT•C 00:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Bloomberg's "Oil Prices Jump Most on Record" added to sources above. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13Edit

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

(Ready) RD: Bavelile HlongwaEdit

Article: Bavelile Hlongwa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News24, IOL, EWN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. Deputy Minister Hlongwa died in a car accident, while trying to assist people that were involved in a previous accident. LefcentrerightTalk 13:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Paul CroninEdit

Article: Paul Cronin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. Sourcing needs some work. has been improved after a team effort by multiple editors. DBigXray 06:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! I know this isn't someone important in Wikipedia's biased world, like an American college basketball hero, but a whole bunch of people have worked hard on this article. Can someone who can do something about this PLEASE pay some attention, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And can we please do something long term about the fact that work like what has been done here gets ignored so easily by the mass of people running this area?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Woah, no need to WP:SHOUT. Your !vote is enough; RDs tend not to need more than a few supporting comments before they get posted.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No need to shout? Really? It's now almost a day since the item, IMHO, was ready to post. So how do we get it posted? (See earlier comment about an American college basketball hero.) This place does not work well at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, wow. Have you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Or that you should put "(Ready)" in the subject header line in front of "RD: Paul Cronin" to easily denote to admins scanning the table of contents that the article is ready? Your comments are wholly inappropriate and almost made me pass by without doing anything. I'll post it now because it is ready and I'm not trying to make a WP:POINT about your behavior. But don't ever pull something like this again. I won't be so nice the next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't follow perfectly correct procedure. I spend very little time here these days because of the arrogant attitude of too many of the owners (and I use that word deliberately) so I don't know all the rules. I only pop up when I know there's something genuinely worth following up, and always find it difficult to get those owners out of their little insular bubbles, and to actually look at items from cultures they know nothing about. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
HiLo48, wow, great apology. That and your below comment make me regret posting this. If you can't be WP:CIVIL on this part of Wikipedia, maybe don't be on this part of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
My approach got this posted, didn't it? Nothing else was working. Are you proud of the nomination process being as biased as it is? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and @HiLo48: Calm down, the admins have other things to do-- BoothSift 01:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
For twenty-two and a half hours? I really don't believe it would take that long for an American college basketball hero, completely unknown outside that country, to be posted. And nobody forces anyone to become an Admnin. I shall add this to my large list of examples of Wikipedia's inherent biases. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support And if Australian cinema wants the real world to start giving its most popular some good old-fashioned hero adulation, maybe start awarding something historically and universally better than silver? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • HiLo has a history of believing that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to him. This resulted in an RFC/U in the past and also led to his being topic-banned from ITN. I strongly advise that he tones down his rhetoric before this happens a second time. If this is how volunteer admins get treated around here, no wonder this project has such shoddy editor and admin retention. WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: György KonrádEdit

Article: György Konrád (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

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

 Gumruch (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie MoneyEdit

Article: Eddie Money (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.

 Masem (t) 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Closing per WP:SNOW. This has no chance of being posted. Politicans threaten each other every day, everywhere. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Beto O'Rourke 2020 presidential campaign (talk, history) and Briscoe Cain (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Texas Lawmaker Briscoe Cain issues death threat to Beto O’Rourke
News source(s): Slate

Second article updated, first needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? You can't be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope. --Masem (t) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for obvious reasons ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 September 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.

September 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Frederic PryorEdit

Article: Frederic Pryor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Died Sept. 2, but just reported recently. Neutralitytalk 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Pulled blurb) RD: ʻAkilisi PōhivaEdit

Article: ʻAkilisi Pōhiva (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Incumbent Tongan prime minister ʻAkilisi Pōhiva (pictured) dies aged 78.
News source(s): Radio New Zealand France 24 ABC.au

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: Tonga incumbent PM I'm not sure whether or not he deserves a blurb being an Incumbent PM, up to you Sirs/Ladies. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support blurb since he was the head of government. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb There is no need to treat Tonga differently than Zimbabwe or Tunisia. While it may be small and not as well known, Tonga is still a nation in its own right. Therefore, as an incumbent PM, he deserves the blurb. -- BoothSift 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Not only the incumbent PM but also a huge figure who brought democracy to the country. Ample global coverage, which is rare for the Pacific Islands region. EternalNomad (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support RD, oppose blurb Tonga has a population of only about 100,000, smaller than thousands of individual cities around the world and one of the smallest sovereign nations. That being said, an excellent RD candidate, as a well-covered prime minister death, even of a small country. 1779Days (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb - quality is up to par. Marked as ready, given no objections to RD for now --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - in this case a blurb is definitely called for.BabbaQ (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on the basis that this represents a change in the head of government for Tonga. Would suggest adding the new Prime Minister to the blurb once the new Prime Minister has been chosen. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb sitting PM dies, sure thing for a blurb, regardless of the population, that's pure bias. Article is good to go too. Let's GO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Image to follow. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I suggest using his photo at the front page. Mugabe has been there for a while.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Posting in a moment. Needed to wait for its protection. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above; death of a sitting prime minister is notable enough for a blurb. Also this is a change in head of government, which is (in all but name) ITN/R. Davey2116 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    It most assuredly is not ITN/R. This has been the subject of discussion and rejected. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's why I said "in all but name". There are very few (if any) cases where a change in head of government is not notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose blurb: the amount of prominence we devote to political leadership positions within a nation-state, itself based on an European invention of the 1800s, without any due regard for size, newsworthiness, and encyclopedic value, is completely perplexing to me. Of course I respect that other editors feel differently and I have no hope of pulling this back but I would like to just register my strong dissent on this issue. We use the modern state as an arbitrary measure of value, yet we do not hold other fields, such as science, business, music, technology, to the same standards, is neither doing our readers a service nor good for overall topical balance. Somehow we feel the need to obsess over presidents and prime ministers, many of whom are far less influential than even a second-rate Silicon valley executive, or any published scientist on Nature. Colipon+(Talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Relatively brief article makes no compelling case for broader regional importance that is needed for posting as a blurb. SpencerT•C 04:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb What Colipon said. Also, bias is about promoting "our" version of the world (US/UK/India are more important). Some nations/states are more important than others. It's disingenuous to suggest the goings-on in China and Haiti are equally important because they are both countries. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Tonga has a population of 100,000. It's all very well to be even-handed in such matters, but this really wasn't in the news much, for obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I don't think we have consensus that every leader who dies in office gets a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Yes, he was an incumbent, but Tonga is tiny, and his death wasn't untimely or anything. Mayors of most large cities have had more global influence than he has. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled Consensus to post no longer exists. I will add this to RD for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, oppose blurb. If we include minnows of the political world such as AP (rather than the big fish only), we would have to include every head of state or government who dies in office - & perhaps former heads as well. There are hundreds of politicians who are more important than him, including many countries' leaders of the opposition, cabinet ministers, mayors etc.

    Including Mugabe was likewise unjustified - he was ancient, no longer in power, died naturally & was only important in that he ruined the economy of a previously prosperous country. Jim Michael (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I bow to the changing consensus, but this man was important to his country and received outsized coverage for a typical leader of such a small nation. Mugabe was also extremely important to his country's history and world affairs, and not just for wrecking its economy. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Heads of state & government usually are very important to their own countries, but that doesn't make them important to the world. AP was of no major relevance even to the rest of Oceania, let alone the world; the vast majority of people haven't even heard of him. RM was a hate figure rather than an important world leader. Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"The vast majority of people haven't even heard of him" is not a reason to not post this. This isn't a popularity contest- and maybe people would learn something that they didn't know before. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The population of Zimbabwe is larger than that of Tonga by a factor of about 160; also, Mugabe was a figure in a broader regional conflict which had involvement from all the major powers; as such his influence extended beyond Zimbabwe, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's systemic bias is showing. We do a horrific disservice to our readers when we post a story that was notable within its own rights, then pull it down again two days later because of a sudden development of a micro-consensus. It is an extraordinarily bad precedence to set to decide on an ad hoc basis which deaths of sitting heads of state are "notable enough" based on the population and size of their country. That's not our job. Our established procedure is to post the death of a head of state as a blurb - period, end of story. Re-post blurb ASAP.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think that we have a policy of routinely posting blurbs for deaths of heads of state? We've not done so for the large majority of deaths of heads of state (& heads of government). Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure where you are getting the idea that there is "established procedure" on this issue, perhaps you could link me to this specific policy or procedure? Nothing in the "Recent deaths" policy states that we must post the death of every incumbent head of state or head of government - in fact it encourages discussion, and makes note that only "transformational world leaders" should get blurbs in their own right. Colipon+(Talk) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
His blurb had a picture for Christ's sakes. Why is ITN so bloody fickle to post a blurb with a picture and then pull it down days later because some people got mad?--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurb was posted too quickly; people objected, therefore there was no consensus and it was rightly pulled. That's how ITN works.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect: I originally posted it for RD only, other people suggested the blurb. But what I find a disaster is that Wikipedia approves of something at a moment and two days later backs up, it shouldn't happen whatever the news are about. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. I would definitely support reinstating the blurb. To save the reputation of Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurb was posted without a real consensus, for the natural death of an elderly, insufficiently notable person. The mistake was posting the blurb. Removing it was the correct action to remedy that. Reinstating it would be repeating the error. Many far more notable politicians' deaths weren't given blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael Before I posted it, there was only one oppose blurb comment, the rest were in favor, so I respectfully disagree that there was no "real consensus". Yes, the consensus changed, and that's okay with me, but to say there wasn't one initially is incorrect. This wasn't just the death of a "politician", but of a sitting head of state. If there have been other deaths of heads of state or politicians that you feel merit blurbs, please propose them; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I meant that the discussion was insufficient in length and time before it was posted, rather than that there were many objections (which I acknowledge there weren't). I know what position he was in, but it was of a very small country. The only way it would be justified in giving a blurb to him is if we were to give a blurb about the death of every (sitting) head of state or government, which we don't do. I'm not saying that other heads of state/government should have been given blurbs who weren't - I'm saying that there were others who were closer to being deserving of one than him. Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The I await your nomination of them. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion time for a nomination (which has been suggested and failed many times). 331dot (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there have often been complaints (usually from TRM) that we're not posting ready items fast enough. Stephen Hawking's death went up FIFTEEN MINUTES after being nominated.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
There are some people who are very clearly notable enough for a blurb, Hawking is a very good example of that. Jim Michael (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I suggest a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_with_100,000_or_more_inhabitants. All of these thousands cities have a population comparable to, and in most cases, greater than that of Tonga. If one of their mayors died in office, would it be blurb worthy? If it was one of those cities with a population of 100,000-200,000, 99%+ likelihood it would not. Could it be RD worthy? Potentially, indeed I've seen quite a few mayors over cities with populations in the 100,000+ range that have died that have made it into RD (and, IIRC, some with smaller cities). This is the kind of death that RD was made for. Tonga may be "a sovereign country", but it's just too small and insignificant to be treated as equally important as, say, Zimbabwe or Tunisia (whose leaders' deaths saw blurbs earlier this year), both of which had populations over 100 times that of Tonga; in addition, Mugabe was leader of Zimbabwe for 37 years and was a household name in the West, and Essebsi was the first democratically elected president of Tunisia following only a few short years after the end of decades of authoritarian rule. IMO, Essebsi would have been eligible for a blurb without the "first democratically elected president" factor, but only just. In my opinion, as a general rule, if a head of government of a country with over 10 million population dies in office, it would be blurb-eligible; 5-10 million, depends on country and circumstances; under 5 million, generally not blurb-eligible unless that leader had an unusually large influence on the world for their country's size and/or the circumstances were extremely dramatic and/or unusual. 1779Days (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries? It isn't Tonga's fault they have a small population(and not too many more could fit there anyway) and are not powerful. Once reason general elections are ITNR is it gives all nations big and small a shot at making it to the ITN box. What is the harm here in other people actually learning something that they might not have been aware of before, such as about this man? The argument seems to be that it is bad for people to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This, to me at least, is not about trivializing Tonga, or smaller states. Rather, I am really puzzled by why we, as an encyclopedia ascribe such topical obsession with contemporary political power, whether it is posting the results of the latest parliamentary elections, or blurb'ing deaths of heads of state or government. The notion that any sovereign state passes the test for notability in these types of ITN discussions do not pass the muster of fundamental adherence to consensus; therefore, I'm inclined to believe consensus does not actually exist in both areas. Editors who believe there is consensus on the "sovereign state standard" ought to provide proof that such a discussion took place and consensus has been established. Colipon+(Talk) 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: "So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries?" Being unbiased doesn't mean giving equal coverage. Some administrative units are larger than others; their leaders naturally have a larger impact, on the world as a whole, than others. We make an exception for elections in ITN/R, but it is an exception that proves the rule; virtually every sub-national event, or event based in a specific country, is from a handful of large countries. We can question which events we post, and we should, because we do have a problem with systemic bias, but the answer to that bias isn't numerical parity between countries. A perfect encyclopedia still isn't going to give Tongan topics as much space as, for instance, Indonesian topics; there's less to write about, and that's not a moral judgement, but a statistical one. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-pulling support blurb - All of the arguments whose basis is that "Tonga is tiny" (effectively saying that it's "too irrelevant" of a country for it to matter who leads it) should be ignored entirely per notvote & per idontlikeit. We post all national general elections (or other transfers of power) big and small, no matter what nation they take place in. I think we all know exactly what would happen on ITN if BoJo, Xi, Putin, Macron, or The Orange One™ suddenly dropped dead today. It wouldn't even be controversial. Why is it irrelevant when the incumbent leader dies in Tonga? Because Tonga itself doesn't matter to us? That's exactly the kind of geocentric bias that we all work so tirelessly to avoid on ITN.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not that much about Tonga but about the relative lack of information and depth of coverage in the subject's article, which is quite brief. It has just 13.2kb of material, compared to 171.49kb of Robert Mugabe's article or 85.1kb of Toni Morrison's article, both recently posted as blurbs. Trump: 403.8kb, BoJo 223.9kb, Xi 168.7kb, Macron 212.3kb, Putin 268.4kb. Per WP:ITNRD, "death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis", and the length of the article in itself - 13.2kb - clearly indicates that Pōhiva's article does not demonstrate how he was a "major transformative world leaders in [his] field." I would be happy to reconsider my position if there is commensurate expansion of the subject's article to demonstrate this standard. SpencerT•C 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see a single oppose !vote, except for yours, which focuses its rationale on the length or quality of the article itself (and the length & quality of the article are fine for posting). Some !votes focus on whether or not there exists a precedent for posting deaths of incumbents, but don't go into detail on whether or not there should be one. As for his merits as an individual, EternalNomad points out that Pōhiva was a key figure in Tonga's movement towards democracy, and I'd also note that he holds the country's record for the longest tenure as an MP. On the fact alone that he was the incumbent PM, I support a blurb (and quite a lot of the oppose !votes thoroughly exaggerate the frequency of leaders dying while still in office; such events are obviously rarer than general elections). Discounting the !votes whose only arguments boil down to "Tonga doesn't matter" (especially the !votes from Vanamonde, Jim Michael, and 1779Days) shows that there's far from a consensus for pulling the blurb, as Wikipedia is not a vote.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Vanilla Wizard: We post blurbs of deaths only when the person who died had a transformative impact on the world. We don't post all, or even most, national leaders as blurbs; that's what the RD section is for. For instance, Fernando de la Rua, the President of Argentina, was only posted to RD; Reynaldo Bignone didn't receive a blurb, to the best of my knowledge; some years ago, I. K. Gujral didn't either; we didn't post the Indonesian President, lower down this page; I could go on. We need a degree of consistency with blurbs; if we give person X a blurb, we need to give people of similar importance a blurb. The leader of Tonga doesn't have a large impact on the world. That isn't a moral judgement on Tonga; the same is true of Malta, or Andorra, or Mauritius, or Luxembourg. There are close to 200 countries in the world; most of them have a new head of state every few years, meaning that if we posted every head of state's death, we would be posting one such approximately every week. If you want to change our standard, go ahead and make a proposal on the talk page; but until you do so, the death, of natural causes, of a leader of a small country, is very unlikely to be posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
          • This comment only addresses individuals who died long after their tenure ended, which - at least by my judgment - is much less notable than individuals dying while in office, which is quite rare. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that a consensus would exist to post the deaths of every former leader of every country, but that's not what we're discussing at all. If it doesn't make a difference by your own judgment whether or not they're the sitting head of state, then that's an acceptable position, but it does strike me as being a little disingenuous to say that we'd be posting stories like this "every week" when that's nowhere near true. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
            • That's because "died in office" isn't something that automatically becomes terribly important. An untimely death in office, maybe. A suspicious death, even more so. But this man died of pneumonia-related "complications", typically a euphemism for age-related physical decline. He wasn't in Tonga; he was in a hospital in New Zealand for treatment. As such I see it as only marginally more significant than his dying after relinquishing office. My fundamental point remains, though; for any "type" of death, other things being equal the size of the country does matter, because it directly influences the impact the leader had on the world. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
              • The death of an individual who's been out of office for twenty or thirty years is not a news story which necessitates a change in the head of state, but the death of an incumbent is. That is the distinction that I make, and I continue to believe that the size of the country is not now nor should it become a factor. I don't intend to extend this lengthy thread any more than I already have, so this will be my last comment here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 11Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Daniel JohnstonEdit

Article: Daniel Johnston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT Rolling Stone

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: Cult US musician. Quite well sourced but has a few gaps. Well sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) K2-18bEdit

Article: K2-18b (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers detect water in the atmosphere of the exoplanet K2-18b (artist's impression pictured), the first such detection for a planet in the habitable zone around a star.
News source(s): BBC, Science, Nature Astronomy (peer reviewed paper)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'd be extremely surprised if more news coverage doesn't follow within hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article needs to have more content. The addition of a couple of sentences and some sources isn't enough for ITN in my opinion. NoahTalk 19:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article has since been improved greatly. NoahTalk 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If the article is expanded a bit. The discovery of the most habitable exoplanet yet found is clearly an event of note. Thue (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news. But the article needs to be expanded. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub of doubtful significance beyond niche audience. – Sca (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"Niche audience" is the worst argument you could use here. It could apply to many sporting events, or the politics of many countries, or many music genres. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh? Would you prefer a small, specialized audience? Or would that be second-worst? – Sca (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sca: Equally poor because you have not identified what you believe to be the only interested audience. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Been working to expand it to add about its discovery, etc. --Masem (t) 23:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good. This is clearly notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Definitely notable enough. Did some minor re-org; looks good to me now. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems obvious enough. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certainly a major scientific development worthy of an ITN. I was going to support, but one of the key references used in the article is an unpublished arXiv preprint posted there just a day ago. The source does not satisfy WP:RS, and should not be used as a reference for such an important scientific discovery, and cetainly not if the article is to go to the main page. Instead of this preprint, a news article would need to be cited talking about the same study. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The NatGeo source in the article [1] talks of both studies. There's a tad bit of confusion of the mainstream sources as both papers were published today, and some sources, like the above BBC, is missing one of the studies. But there's definitely no issue that event the pre-print is considered appropriate and scientifically sound - both ESA and NASA have presented news of both papers. --Masem (t) 02:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You can also rely on the published Nature Astronomy paper as the primary ref. With that existing reference, the claim in the ITN does not depend whatsoever on the arXiv preprint and the only claim in the article that depends on it is that two teams of researchers announced the result instead of one. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with using published references that discuss an unpublished study, but the unpublished study itself should not be used as a reference. I replaced the preprint citation by a reference to a published ScienceNews story that discusses both studies, and have moved the preprint itself to external links. Nsk92 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, the page looks in good shape now (I also added a ref to the NatGeo article mentioned by MarkH21 above). Nsk92 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Much improved. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Potentially of interest to any reader interested in such questions as how rare (or even unique) is life on Earth, questions whose interest stretches way beyond science, as they have significant implications in areas ranging from philosophy and religion to literature , art, and entertainment (science fiction, paranormal mysteries, and so on), which seems worth mentioning given that the only oppose so far implicitly doubts that it has much significance beyond some unspecified allegedly niche audience. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major advance in science. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The claim of first is in the lead but not the body, and does not explain the caveat; that there are other exoplanets with atmospheric water but not in the habitable zone? Stephen 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added a statement about this in the body of the article giving examples of non-HZ planets with water. Fdfexoex (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Also added the statement in the body w/ sourcing as well as some clarification of "bad science reporting" (that this is a life-supporting planet, for example) but why this is still important. --Masem (t) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me know when the next faster-than-the-speed-of-light spaceship leaves for K2-18b. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think they're rushing Area 51? --Masem (t) 14:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Cuz that's where the ultra-secret faster-than-the-speed-of-light spaceships blast off from? – Sca (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No, that's clearly just Fake News, and it's clearly also really disgraceful that we keep posting new discoveries about evolution when there's no proof that Area 51 has a time machine to enable us to travel back then to have a closer look at them. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Hurricane Dorian: removalEdit

Article: Hurricane Dorian (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Hurricane has dissipated as of 9/10/19. While cleanup is ongoing, the article is for the hurricane itself and since it has ended I think we should remove this article from ongoing ~mike_gigstalk 15:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) UK parliament prorogation ruled unlawfulEdit

Closed per consensus for wait/oppose. NoahTalk 19:19, 11 September 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: Prorogation in the United Kingdom (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Court of Session in Scotland rules that the prorogation of the UK parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson was unlawful
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Despite appearing to be legal arcana (which is why it is not appearing much in the news outside the UK), this is actually a highly significant event. The ultimate ruling will be made by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 17 September, and that decision may be the one that is more suited to ITN, but am nominating this article and news item now for two reasons: (1) It is significant in itself (see Why the Scottish court ruling on proroguing Parliament is significant); and (2) Boris Johnson may be forced to recall parliament anyway to avoid being forced to later, so the ruling next week may not be in the news as much as the one this week. There may be other Brexit-related events coming up, so it is worth considering what the bar should be for an item to get a blurb (Brexit is currently in ongoing), possibly only whatever happens (or doesn't happen) on 31 October. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. The important decision will be by the Supreme Court on the combined cases next week (English judges came to the opposite conclusion in a parallel case, whilst the equivalent case in Northern Ireland is ongoing). We didn't post the prorogation itself, and Brexit is already in the 'ongoing' section. Iff the Supreme Court rules that parliament must be recalled, this could be a significant constitutional event with long-term impact. But if they overrule the Scots court, it will just be a flash-in-the-pan news story. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think it's unlikely that parliament would be recalled without waiting for the appeals process to conclude. If that does happen, then we could reassess. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. This is not the final word on the matter; if Parliament is actually ordered to be recalled, that would likely merit posting as Modest Genius notes. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Brexit is already in the 'ongoing' section and every update/incident on brexit doesn't need a blurb, especially if the incident is not notable to have its own article. --DBigXray 12:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DBigXray. Banedon (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Strictly speaking, Brexit is only indirectly involved with this; this case is about the proroguing of Parliament. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    We all know why Boris did it though....-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The nearness and larger significance of the UK Supreme Court seems to suggest waiting for that decision next week will be the point to post. --Masem (t) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while technically not Brexit, I think all editors would agree that this event is very much related to Brexit - and considering the implications of this decision other events of similar or higher impact may follow. Juxlos (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have to stop investing every step in this very long process with the significance of Brexit itself. Brexit-adjacent events are not noteworthy because Brexit is noteworthy. Also, when was it decided that a blurb is more important than ongoing? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. I held off on nominating other events for that very reason. But where do you get the idea from that people are investing every step in this very long process with significance? Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, a court ordering the recall of UK Parliament would be, if not a first, very unusual, regardless of Brexit or any issue- for both the UK and in the world. In the US the US Supreme Court could not order the US Congress into session as that would violate the separation of powers. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • That raises an interesting point - I find it difficult to comprehend from RS what the practical implication of this is. It's basically being ignored by Boris&Co. If the higher court agrees with the Scots, will it really order Parliament to reconvene over a royal order? Will Boris have to accept that? Will the Queen? GreatCaesarsGhost 18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until Supreme Court decision.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No immediate change. Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC) →  
  • Wait per the others above. Keeping Brexit as ongoing for the time being is fine.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Already in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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 as RD) Blurb: B. J. HabibieEdit

Article: B. J. Habibie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Indonesian president B. J. Habibie dies at the age of 83.
News source(s): KOMPAS; The Straits Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Former President of Indonesia. Article isn't updated at the time of this nom as death was like 10 minutes ago - this is preemptive. Note that article is a bit down on sources - will be updated soon. Article updated and fixed up by now. Juxlos (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note: Blurb added, pending updates. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb Habibie was president of Indonesia for just over one year. While his time in power was very important for the country given that he instituted many reforms to move Indonesia towards democracy, one year is too short in my opinion to be considered regionally impactful. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD per NF. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - as nominator, agree wih NF - Habibie's certainly of significant importance, but in the end his presidency lasted a year and he would barely not warrant a blurb. In retrospect, the impact of the change in regulations under Habibie is very much visible in modern Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Habibie used his brief presidency to completely and unexpectedly transform the world's fourth most populous country from an autocratic, single-party state into a (mostly) functioning, multi-party democracy. In terms of difference between how things came out and how they likely would have come out without his influence, he ranks among the twentieth century's most pivotally influential figures. The impact in particular on the development of Islamic political culture is global, not just regional. Rotcaeroib (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was unexpected. The people (or at least the demonstrators) wanted a transformation. So, he was really expected to do something about it. Anyone on his position would have done the same thing. What was really unexpected for me was his giving East Timor independence referendum. sentausa (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text of the article seems to skip over his actually becoming president. It skips from "Habibie was elected as Vice President in March 1998." to "Habibie was opposed East Timorese Independence but did consider giving East Timor special autonomy." (albeit with a section break there). Otherwise the article seems to be in good shape. Rockphed (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a paragraph on it. Juxlos (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think I spent 10 minutes checking if that information had ended up somewhere else in the article. I can now support RD Rockphed (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb As Rotcaeroib points out, his presidency was very transformative in the history of Indonesia, the region, and Islam. Davey2116 (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support RD ONLY article isn't great but what's there is at least sourced. Not significant news item for blurb. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Per WP:ITNRD, I don't think he was a "major transformative world leader in his field". sentausa (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
What about the facts that he held dozens of patents in the aeronautics field and that he allowed the East Timorese to have their referendum? -Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Although his presidency was short, but have significant impact in modern Indonesia. Ezurasan (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb His presidency was transformative for Indonesia, the former Indonesian colony East Timor (see also 'Video of Xanana Gusmao embracing BJ Habibie in hospital bed shared after former Indonesian leader's death', ABC News [2]) and the region. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - leader of one of the most populous countries in the world and transformed it into a democracy; facilitated the independence of East Timor. If that's not enough for a blurb, I don't know what is. A far more transformative figure than the prime minister of Tonga, even if the latter was incumbent. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Surely there's enough support for an RD at this point; can we post as RD while the blurb discussion continues? NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD - Blurb discussion should continue. --Masem (t) 21:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So... continue? —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 06:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: T. Boone PickensEdit

Article: T. Boone Pickens (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNBC, NBC Dallas-Forth Worth, Yahoo

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: Extremely well-known figure in the oil industry and American economy as a whole. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thorium tetraoxide sodium-potassium euctectic alloy-cooled oxygen deuteride-moderated low thermal-signature triple loop plutonium-241 breeder nuclear fission reactors encased in a high megapascal reinforced ferroconcrete sarcophagus is the bridge, liquid helium cooled high tesla neodymium-copper boride superconducting magnetohydrodynamically confined low-irradiation low-muon high-omicron high-Rankine good-beta twice unity lithium-6 deuteride Z-pinch machine thermonuclear fusion reactors with massive disintegration-limited hyperflywheel arrays and gravitational pumping cache is the goal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
+1. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Environment and health

International relations

Politics and elections

Conte CabinetEdit

Article: Conte II Cabinet (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte's new government takes office.
Alternative blurb: ​Following Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte's resignation on 20 August, Conte forms a new government and is reappointed as Prime Minister.

Nominator's comments: We passed over all the other stuff about Conte being outed. I think we should at least put the end note of the current crisis in. I have no faith that this will last until Christmas, but that would be WP:CrystalRockphed (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I've gone back and forth on this...I'm leaning support because this is a significant change in the political direction of the country, right? That they kept the same PM is almost beside the point. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, they swapped a center/center right coalition for a center/center left/left wing coalition. I feel like some of that should be in the blurb, but I couldn't think of any way to elegantly state it. Rockphed (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – This is the moment we've been waiting for since last week. Note that BBC says "Italy's new populist-centre left government has been appointed."Sca (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Based on previous nom when this was getting into motion. Article is fine. Blurb could explain a bit more about why this came about as an out-of-process leadership change. --Masem (t) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the latter sections of the article are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Not so at this point, but I'd rather see Eng.-lang. references than Italian, this being the English-language Wiki. There are plenty of sources in English. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, too late now. But note that today is the day the government should be confirmed in the Parliament, so it could still count as recent. However thanks for your suggestions, I added more English-language sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I imagine parliamentary confirmation will be a procedural footnote. Too bad, as politically this coalition was quite significant. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It is more recent than Hurricane Dorian and the boat fire.Rockphed (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make it fresh. – Sca (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – But hey, maybe this does: "Italy's Conte pledges new start, wins confidence vote in parliament." Story quotes him promising "a new era of reforms" and to work constructively with the European Union. If we had a good update, I'd support. – Sca (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Tomorrow there is the final vote in the Senate (today it won the support of the lower house already), so that might be a good occasion because it will be officially in full power. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – In principle, when relevant section is updated with footnotes in English. (Moved up to 9/10, date of final confirmation.) – Sca (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's done. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been trying to follow the Italian politics - but, I have to say, Boris Johnson being taken to court for high treason has taken more of my focus - is it a fully new government? Because that's more or less ITN at this point. It doesn't appear there's been an election, though? (Or if there has, I was too busy watching worse governments to notice, apologies to Italy) Kingsif (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Was there an election before Boris Johnson formed a new British government? No. So I don't understand the objection. It's a new government because Italy is a parliamentary democracy, you don't need new elections to form a new government supported by a majority in the Parliament. Sorry to be blunt. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Conte is still the Prime Minister, this is just local politics. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it's a huge deal in politics, also at a European level. But now it's anyway too late, I would close this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karbala stampedeEdit

Article: Karbala stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 31 people are killed and more than 100 injured from a stampede during the celebration of Ashura at Karbala, Iraq.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Way too short right now, but will be trying to expand. Masem (t) 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

ReferencesEdit

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

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