Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Se'are Mekonnen
Se'are Mekonnen

How to nominate an item[edit]

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.

Headers[edit]

  • 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 item[edit]

  • 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)

Suggestions[edit]

June 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

June 26[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and Economics
  • The US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Tennessee law that required a person applying for a license to run a liquor store in that state to have been a resident for at least two years. This is part of a line of cases that protects the economic interests of out-of-staters through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. (National Law Journal)
International relations
Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) 2008 Universal fire[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post the start of a legal case 11 years after an event. Stephen 01:03, 27 June 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.

Proposed image
Article: 2008 Universal fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A large group of musicians sue Universal Music Group over the loss of master copies and back-ups in the 2008 Universal fire (pictured).
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Losses in fire much worse that UMG originally admitted. Compounded by storing masters and safeties in same location. $100m lawsuit. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Local news.BabbaQ (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So local that the BBC are reporting it in UK. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wonder if there is some way to clarify that this loss was only largely discovered recently. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Covered in article, initially stated 40-50k items lost, now estimated up to 500k items lost. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Local and industry-specific news. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    It's not remotely "local" - it covers many of the most notable musicians in the world. And most articles posted to ITN will be industry-specific or sport-specific or country-specific. No news is all-encompassing. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not in love with sport-specific news either, but they receive significant support from others and I find them acceptable. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the time to post would have been when UMG acknowledged the loss, which was at least a week ago. But even that would not be stale now. This is much bigger news than the Grammys, which are ITN/R. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on timing and scale. We would post the result of the lawsuit, but definitely not the start of one. And today $100m is tiny relative to sized of other fines or businesses news. --Masem (t)
  • Oppose – The filing of a lawsuit is the beginning of a civil case, analogous to the filing of a charge in a criminal case. For ITN, the news will be the awarding of damages, if any. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Sca that we should wait until the conclusion of the case to post it on ITN. At such time, I would certainly be willing to consider posting. Cwilson97 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral, Leaning Oppose I'm involved with updating this page, but I don't really think this is ITN-worthy at the moment. For one, the blurb here is wrong: It's not "a large group of musicians" suing Universal, it's just five (at least right now). Also the article's list of artists needs to be updated to include the 700 affected acts that were listed by the Times yesterday. The other editors working on this page were actually working towards getting a DYK blurb, and I think that might be a better main page home for this at the moment. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for the end of the case, even if it's in three years. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality (I had to scroll down to see what date the fire happened), no deaths, and 11 years ago. Maybe support if this spreads to other news sites when the case closes. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:25, 26 June 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.

June 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Disasters and accidents

(Posted) RD: Etika/Daniel Amofah[edit]

Article: Etika (streamer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, NYPost

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: Yes, this article just got created today, but it's been one of those people that we likely could have had an article before on GNG notability (eg using pre-April 2019 news searching), and while it is presently at "Death of..." we're talking about getting it moved to either his online name or his proper name. He likely died on the 19th or 20th (apparent suicide, still investigating) but body was only found this morning. Masem (t) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose on procedural grounds. I agree with the current notability tag, so this is doubtful both as an RD and a blurb. We should be careful about picking a YouTuber or similar internet personality. Brandmeistertalk 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Not even suggesting a blurb here, but I disagree with the notability issue. If you ignore the coverage of his death, he's still notable as a YouTuber before that point. We're just getting more sources now with his death to fill in the rest. --Masem (t) 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It's definitely a notable event, but the article’s quality is lacking for now. Once it improves, I will support posting the RD. INeedSupport :3 17:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Death creates the article. Not notable individually.--WaltCip (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, if you ignore his death and events of the last week (since his disappearance) I will argue he was still notable via the GNG, we just didn't have the article created for him. It is unfortunately that we can now fill in more details with his death but that's the same for nearly any RD case we have. --Masem (t) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral because I imagine we can buff up the page, but right now, it's not quite ready. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I would agree that he passed GNG before the incident - just nobody got around to it yet. Juxlos (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Juxlos. wumbolo ^^^ 21:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, page has improved. Spengouli (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Policy and elections

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Iván Erőd[edit]

Article: Iván Erőd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Presse

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: Composer who grew up and was trained in Budapest, emigrated to Vienna, where he became a pianist and professor at the Academy. - I worked on his article in 2011, others before and after. I updated the existing refs, and will add more from obituaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 Winter Olympics[edit]

Articles: 2026 Winter Olympics (talk, history) and 2026 Winter Paralympics (talk, history)
Blurb: Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo are elected by the International Olympic Committee as host city of the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games.
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.

 Yogwi21 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The article is ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow support Article looks good to me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu I have no idea why this would be ITNR. I find it quite uninteresting where the winter Olympics will be held in seven years time. Get back to me when it starts. Oppose in principle, but if it's ITNR then not much I can do about it, eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talkcontribs)
  • Support but wait The 2026 Winter Paralympics article has not been written yet. I added it to the blurb. It's possible I broke protocol on that, but I do think inclusion of the Paralympics is important here. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Normally it looks like info about the bidding goes into a separate article from the actually games and paraolympic games - but as with the games otherwise so many years down the road, it makes sense at the present time that the current Olympic games article otherwise covers the bidding facet. Since the Paraolympics automatically happen at the same city, I don't think its necessary to include that or worry about its article at this time. --Masem (t) 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support One CN in a sea of references. Should be fine to go. --Masem (t) 19:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go. Davey2116 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The announcement of the host city is listed at ITN/R & the article is in good shape. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    Request, Perhaps the created 2026 Winter Paralympics article can be added to the blurb insted of the general Winter Paralympics article. Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    Updated. Stephen 00:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2019 Amhara Region coup d'état attempt[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Amhara Region coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During a coup attempt in the Amhara Region in Ethiopia, President of the Amhara Region Ambachew Mekonnen and Chief of Staff of the Ethiopian National Defense Force, Gen. Se'are Mekonnen are assassinated.
News source(s): Ethiopia Observer, AP, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think two major political figures of Ethiopia have been assassinated --LLcentury (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support once articles are finished restructuring. Even though this is a regional coup attempt, the incident is significant. We do post assassinations of politicians even at a mayoral level, and this is ITNR. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:CC55:1114:DEC:EE5F (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought ITNR meant "Current Events" section, I didn't find in ITNR plus deleted that it was. --LLcentury (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per quality improvements. Please disregard the rest of my comments in this thread. Oppose on quality, support on notability Article tagged as being in the process of restructuring. The infobox says that the event took place on "15-16 July 2016" even though the article is obviously from 2019, so it's clearly not ready to be posted. News coverage shows that the event is notable, but the quality concerns are overwhelming right now. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I don't understand, the coup was foiled yesterday but it apparently took place 15-16 --LLcentury (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
My best guess is that the infobox was made by copying and pasting a different infobox from a different event? I would assume that means that the rest of the information in it is questionable, too. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Suspicions confirmed: they literally took the infobox from the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (which took place on 15-16 July 2016) and just pasted it into this article without bothering to replace all of the information. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I was using that infobox as a template. If you read the content, it will be immediately apparent that all the information has been replaced.--Varavour (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't the case at the time when I left those comments, but I appreciate the work you're doing to update the article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - The articles still aren't ready, but it definitely seems notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - what exactly does the article need in order to be ready? Information remains murky and there's not much more confirm-able than what what has been added. --Varavour (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Great work developing the article! It's much better than it was before the restructure. The only thing I'd recommend is copyediting to make the article easier to understand. I'll work on it for a while, and then it should be ready to post. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think it should be ready now. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is ready now, great work! Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support big story, significant assassinations, potentially ongoing coup. Gruesome enough for ITN, it seems. Kingsif (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Notable event which will redefines the region's politics and the article looks okay. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article shape decent. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - in the news, decent article. starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I took a crack at a better blurb: "General Se'are Mekonnen (pictured), Chief of General Staff of Ethiopia, and Ambachew Mekonnen, President of the Amhara Region, are assassinated." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Add Attorney General Migbaru Kebede also killed Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
So was Major General Gizae Aberra. We have to draw the line somewhere. Migbaru Kebede was attorney general of Amhara not all of Ethiopia. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Same goes for the president, though. Not arguing for inclusion, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, June 24, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the blurb should mention the Chief of General Staff first. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The military has 162,000 or so active members. The region has about 31 million. One leader is clearly going to be more widely mourned, or at least better recognized. I endorse the dead president for top billing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Istanbul Election[edit]

No consensus to post a local election, where the wider implications are purely speculative and will not manifest until the national election in 2023. Stephen 01:07, 27 June 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: June 2019 Istanbul mayoral election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a rerun of the Istanbul mayoral election, Ekrem İmamoğlu is again elected mayor.
Alternative blurb: ​After the March 2019 Istanbul mayoral election was controversially overturned with the support of the President of Turkey, whose party lost, Ekrem İmamoğlu is again elected mayor in the re-run, and by a greater margin.
Alternative blurb II: ​In a defeat for the leading AK Party, Ekrem İmamoğlu increases his winning vote count in the rerun of the Istanbul mayoral election, a key decider in the direction of Turkish national politics.
Alternative blurb III: ​Opposition candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu soundly defeats ruling AKP Party candidate Binali Yıldırım in a rerun of Istanbul's mayoral election.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: I think this is notable because of the controversy around the initial election. I think that with >99% of the vote counted, it is safe to put on the main page. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Oppose Good faith nomination, but ITN doesn't usually post municipal elections unless the circumstances are exceptional. It does appear to be a unique election due to the fact that this is a repeat of the March 2019 mayoral election, but if there's not more to the story than the June 2019 election taking place to legitimize the results of the much narrower March election, I doubt it will be posted. If there's more details that I'm ignorant of, please let me know and I'll reconsider my !vote. Struck initial !vote due to the details described below Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Something about Erdogan wanting the re-run because he said there were irregularities, hoping his party would be elected instead, but instead he lost even more votes. More Turks are losing favor for Erdogan, and it's particularly funny that he said "whoever wins Istanbul wins the country" - if he's right, the party he helped found could be kicked out of power after 18 years of authoritarianism. There's been a lot of protests, and it's actually quite a big step, but that needs to be clear. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd post in a heartbeat Erdogan's reign finally coming to an end, but if this is just a step towards that, I'm not sure. I'm still open to changing my !vote, I just need to get more educated on the important details of the story. If I'm not mistaken, this is the situation: Erdogan (as president of the nation) decided that the first election was illegitimate after his party lost, then another election was held, and his party lost even more than it did the first time. I can definitely see that being more than just local politics, but I think we need a better blurb first. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • BrendonTheWizard. No international observers substantiated the concerns regarding the March election and it was overturned for purely political reasons. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's going onto MP, the blurb should give some context to the controversy and the opposition win, otherwise it seems insignificant (when did we last post the election of a mayor?!) Otherwise, oppose Added alt2 Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man. Given the context, it is at least a national-level story. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, mayor of anywhere is local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, when the leader of a country intervenes to get an election result overturned, it becomes national politics. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    But the result of the mayoral election is the same, no? Local politics, no long-term impact, barely in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. I guess the situation would be the story and this is the most complete point at which to post it. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    I would add that this is the only election since 1999 where a party other than Erdogan's won the city, with the first mayor of his party being Erdogan himself. Definitely historic for Turkey itself, not just Istanbul. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, still local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The Istanbul election has been making international headlines for months now. Sometimes, local politics do affect national or international affairs. Supertanno (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Istanbul is re-conquered against quarter century Erdoğan rule. OnurT 21:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a historical result. In my opinion ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support historical moment. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every election that tosses out the ruling party is "historic". This is still a local election. If it leads to more, then we can see what happens. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3 – İmamoğlu increased his margin over Erdoğan protegé Yildirim from a scant 13,000 in March to 775,000. Sure, it's local, but it's significant in a country dominated by Erdoğan's ruling AKP party. Keep in mind that Istanbul is a city of 15 million in a pivotal country of 82 million (about the same as Germany). – Sca (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This mas major repercussions for Turkish politics, and, in a city more populous than most (38/50) European countries, is more than ITN worthy. --Varavour (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. By this logic, we should have posted the 2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama because it was a "defeat" for Donald Trump. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Quite a different scale and situation. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, but in the opposite way; a state/provincial level election, especially to a national legislative body, is more influential than an election to a city/municipal office. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    331dot, there are way more people in Istanbul than in Alabama. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of that, it doesn't change what I said. If the Mayor of Istanbul serves in Turkey's national legislature, that would be different. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should really be careful to elevate major city mayoral elections as having national importance. I recognize the importance here but it's still speculation that it will have an impact in the future. Same can be said about may city elections. --Masem (t) 00:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that, it's reflected in my comment above, but it has definitely already had an impact in the fact that Erdogan had the election recalled and then lost nearly a million extra votes. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as pleasing, ironic, and funny the results may be to me (us?), this does not rise in "importance" to the level we expect for ITN. It is a sign but not necessarily definite proof of changing times. The article easily qualifies for DYK (expanded 5x since yesterday) and would make an awesome hook. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose whatever else it might be, it's still a local-level elections and those aren't usually featured on ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A story of national-level significance per above, definitely in the news, and the article is in good shape. I believe it fits the ITN criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Domestic politics irrespective of the media hype. Unnecessarily periphrastic alt-blurbs. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - significant city, in the news. starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Suggested second-day reading: "For Turkey’s Erdogan, a challenge in his former stronghold" [1], "Erdogan's party suffers blow after Istanbul re-run poll defeat" [2], "The unexpected new hope for Turkish democracy" [3]. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Which still remains speculation about Erdogan's chances in the next national election. We shouldn't be running local-level elections without a clear directive on how the national politics will change. --Masem (t) 13:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: definitely in every news outlet.--MaoGo (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Simply not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Istanbul is a city that has population more than 38 European countries, it would have been 13th biggest country in Europe. Also, the outcome of this election along with 2019 Turkish local elections, make a great effect in future Turkish politics.--Joseph (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Big cities have mayors. Small cities have mayors. It's still local politics. And not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local election, not significant enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Local politics Sherenk1 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We opposed a blurb the first time round because it's a local election only. The fact it's an undoubtedly significant local election, even more so with the re-run, still doesn't alter it's only a local election. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, I do have to point out there's a certain bias in reporting this local election. As mentioned by other users at the time of the first nomination, there's something off about reporting a single anti-AKP victory, when the Turkish local elections as a whole were an AKP victory. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 3. This isn't just a story about who's going to be a city mayor. The story here is the biggest rebuff to the dominant AKP in its eighteen-year history, and a severing of much of its local patronage network. That has significance well outside Turkey. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Notable and relevant; based on Erdognan's own words. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that this is notable, but there's no blurb I can support. The alts are clumsy and perhaps a bit editorial, and the original makes it seem that the winner was the incumbent. This ordeal would have been an excellent candidate for an on-going item when Ergodan originally called for a new vote, but this particular twist of the story doesn't seem suitable as a stand alone.91.153.84.73 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as local politics...with a transnational geopolitical impact. ——SerialNumber54129 05:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2. International impact. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 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: Dave Bartholomew[edit]

Article: Dave Bartholomew (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nola

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: Centenarian Hall of Fame musician who created Rock 'n' Roll in Louisiana and recent death --LLcentury (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have requested a couple of sources and would like someone to confirm that the present ref 6 to "Black Cat Rockabilly" is reliable; it looks to me to be a fansite and is being used to support at least one contentious claim. Also, there's little/no information on his personal life beyond WW2. His wife is briefly mentioned (sourced to a deadlink) but there is little else. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added sources where requested. What is the "contentious" claim? My experience of the Black Cat Rockabilly site (over at least the last decade) is that it is very accurate and reliable (far more so than, for example, Allmusic). It is written by acknowledged experts in what is a relatively specialized field (R&B and early rock and roll). However, other sources do exist for much of the material and can be used if preferred. If there is little about Bartholomew's personal life, it is because little has been published, though more details may emerge in obituaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) PS: Now further updated, expanded, etc., and no "Black Cat Rockabilly" citations remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: per @Ghmyrtle: FYC. --LLcentury (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Žarko Varajić[edit]

Article: Žarko Varajić (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurohoops

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: Yugoslavian/Serbian basketball player and executive, record holder for most points in a Euroleague final game --Tdunsky (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems bad referenced, but good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Largely unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppse - not ready. More referencing needed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Roger Béteille[edit]

Article: Roger Béteille (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Le Figaro

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 sourced. Death was announced today --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 European Games[edit]

Clearly no consensus to post. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 23 June 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.

 --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no blurb offered. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if the nominator provides a blurb, they should probably do one or both of the following: 1) wait until the European Games have concluded and nominate a blurb mentioning which country ultimately wins the games 2) re-nominate as ongoing for the time being. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say something something about how we've even got cricket in ongoing so surely this should be, but people would take me seriously. —Cryptic 10:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing 50 nations participating in a multi-day multi-sport event. Maybe the medals table is better, whatever we do for the olympics. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not in the news, this is a minor event compared to the ITN/R ones. Just do a Google News search for "2019 European Games Minsk" and see the, er, complete lack of mainstream coverage. The article has 151 references, but 95% of them are either (a) the games' own website or associated ones (b) from Belarus, where it's being held, or (c) from sports bodies. And most of the ones that don't fall into those three categories (refs 6-14) aren't actually about the games, but the fact that the Netherlands bid for it and then pulled out. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That is, the 2019 Cricket World Cup is a more important sporting event? LOL --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, given the mainstream news coverage of it (Google News is your friend here), yes, by at least two orders of magnitude. Erm, LOL. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say there's a "complete lack of mainstream coverage." I did a quick search and found BBC, ABC, USA Today, etcetera covering the games. It certainly doesn't get the same kind of coverage that other games would (though this is only the second time that the European Games have ever taken place) but I wouldn't say that coverage is too scarce to make a blurb out of after the games are over. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That's the thing, though. Take the BBC. If you look - for example - at the BBC sports page at the moment, there are 39 stories and this isn't one of them. It's even sixth on the athletics page. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to a real lack of coverage. I bet most people didn't even know such a thing existed, let alone was taking place. And it looks like one of the many qualification routes for the Olympics. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Most people do not know what cricket is... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's five days of sandwiches, tea breaks and rain. Amazing entertainment. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing You posted the first games in 2015. These should be blurbed too 5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as a European who was aware that the games were underway, the coverage is too minimal, and the event itself lacking in significance, to justify posting. Precedent of previous listings is not especially applicable, and the fact that cricket exists is also a moot point (though arguments that it isn't either in the news or of interest to our readers remain ridiculous). Stormy clouds (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Most of the views of these articles through a link on the Main Page. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
And ... completely untrue, again. You're making a habit of this. The Women's World Cup got 200,000 views on 7 June, but wasn't added to the Main Page until late on the 8th June. The Cricket World Cup got between 70,000 and 140,000 views every day from the start of June to the 13th ... when it wasn't on the Main Page (it was added on the 14th). The European games has managed 19,000 views maximum on any one day. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў - as someone who authors the Top 25 Report, I can assure you that a ITN listing will not drive anywhere near the volume of traffic required to get onto the report, as Black Kite demonstrated. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Marginally known competition. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 23 June 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.

June 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Health and environment

RD: Demetris Christofias[edit]

Article: Demetris Christofias (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Cyprus Mail, Reuters

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: Most of the claims on the article are sourced. Fairly recent president. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose insufficient referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Referencing needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Hong Kong Protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [4], [5]

Nominator's comments: In my opinion, this should have been made an ongoing item when it was originally posted earlier this June. Keep in mind that the criterion of being "regularly updated" does not mean every single day must contain a significant update. Just "regular" updates are sufficient. The article has described significant demonstrations on: June 6, June 9, June 12, June 14, June 16, June 21. That seems pretty "regular" to me. And with the government's continual refusal to retract the bill, there is no apparent end in sight. Merlinsorca 19:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. I'm convinced this meets the criteria for Ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "there is no apparent end in sight" well that's part of the problem isn't it? Ongoing items without a definite end seem very hard to pry out of the box. A million people protested June 9, how many on June 21 (the tiny update for that day doesn't say)? The article is quite good, and I thank Merlinsorca for evaluating the update frequency before nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
"Because it might go on too long" shouldn't be a deciding factor for consideration, though. If the event happens to last a long time (and continues to be updated), I don't see a problem there. Merlinsorca 23:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The phony Venezuelan crisis was in the box for three months -- it's reasonable to discuss exit criteria for an Ongoing item before it goes in. So how many people showed up on June 21? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Which crisis/article are you referring to? I think it's perfectly fine to discuss it each time we want to remove it, but if you want my opinion for removal criteria, then it'd be after they reach some agreement that decisively ends the protests. All the sources I've found say it's "thousands" on June 21: [6] [7] Merlinsorca 01:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article. There's not a concrete number on the protesters on June 21 as protesters are decentrailized to different government buildings. But like Merlinsorca mentioned, the article only includes notable protests and demostrations. I believe big protests will end when the government decides to retract the "riot" characterization / release the protesters. Maybe that's the time when we could remove the article. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. As for when we remove it, we remove it when there's a consensus that it no longer meets the criteria. It's simple; there shouldn't be a criteria that we predict when/how it'll stop being ongoing before marking it as ongoing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 02:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this is classic ongoing. Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics
  • The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department files a lawsuit against two large printing companies contemplating a merger. If the deal is allowed to proceed, the filings claim, the combined company would dominate the market for printing magazines, catalogs and books. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Arts and culture

Sports

U.S. drone shot down[edit]

Article: 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iran shoots down an American surveillance drone in the Strait of Hormuz, continuing to escalate tensions
Alternative blurb: ​Amid escalating tensions, an American surveillance drone is shot down by Iran

Nominator's comments: I'm surprised there's nothing on the main page re biggest intl story of the moment. It appears that the shoot down is better covered on WP than the reported aborted US strike today, so makes a better ITN candidate. Optophone (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks good, and covers a notable news story that will be relevant to many readers. Merlinsorca 18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Trump reportedly canceled the military response, so this could be a fuss in the long-term. Brandmeistertalk 19:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral Yes, its causing major worldwide political strife particularly between US and Iran, and all the comments around possible counterstirke are furthering this. BUT it is a flash in the pan to speak. Assuming all it is doing is escalating tensions but no further attacks come out of it, it really amounts to nothing in the long term. Hence I would fight against posting this but think its not required. --Masem (t) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I will state I'm opposed to ongoing for this. Yes, the story will be in the news for a while but it's already in the downward spiral - it created a brief jump in tensions but both US and Iran are backing off further hostilities. If that changes, then we can reconsider. --Masem (t) 04:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this incident in particular actually does spark a US-Iranian war (which doesn’t seem to be case according to Trump), this is rather a just update to the ongoing tensions between the hostilities of the two nations. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:5963:8D8D:9F60:E8E9 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing the drama has been building for some time, Iran–United States relations is a good target, gets regular, high quality updates. Two tanker attacks and this inside of a few months is highly consequential. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing I agree with LaserLegs. I think that ongoing better captures the context for this event. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Can we accuse Iran of defending its airspace instead of continuing to escalate tensions? The news is mostly to blame for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • Propose a more neutral blurb. It should include the escalation of tensions, without assigning blame. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
"Amidst escalating tensions, yadda yadda, defending its airspace." Allegedly or reportedly, if you want. Even just the first tweak wouldn't hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe Alt 1 Lesser of two evils. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing seems like the more appropriate route to me. Teemu08 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing – A major news story that continues to develop by the day. Kurtis (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral per Masem. The drone itself isn't particularly important; what made it so notable was that this briefly put the US and Iran on the brink of war with one another, but that crisis was thankfully averted rather quickly. Does that make the event any less notable? I don't know. Is ongoing appropriate here? I don't know either; the drone situation is already over. What would we post to ongoing? Iran–United States relations? That would be odd, because the target article wouldn't really be an event. If we have a viable target article for an ongoing event, then I'll easily support ongoing, but it doesn't seem right to post that the relations are ongoing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 02:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The relations article is getting regular updates, including the drone incident, both tankers and the rhetoric. There is a subsection for the 2019 escalations which is getting regular, quality updates. Seems like an adequate target to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The relations article notes they've been ongoing since the Crimean War ended and RMS Persia was cool. I think the wizard's onto something here. Why start now, of all points in time? Because it's trending? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
Well it's "In the news" isn't it? Which is sort of the point of the box .... --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
They'll be ongoing after leaving the news, too. Would we pull it when one country is no more, or sooner? At least the standalone shootdown has a contemporary beginning and end. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to WP:CFORK for ongoing but not a blurb? What is the value in duplicating the content? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I was not suggesting forking right now. I only pointed out that the current target article suggested is not suitable for ongoing. We should post a blurb now and by the time it rolls off we will have a clearer idea of whether it is ongoing. Notice the Iran–U.S. relations article now has three events we posted as blurb. A fourth event will surely require a content fork. Iran–United States relations has many sourcing issues. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's why I think it should be a blurb and not ongoing:
  1. There's precedent. The Gulf of Oman incident was posted as a blurb yet only a few non-military ships were damaged and there were 0 deaths.
  2. I'd argue this is more notable because here Iran is deliberately shooting down a U.S. military asset and not denying it.
  3. Trump was going to strike Iran, possibly killing 150 and starting a war, but apparently backed off in the last 10 minutes.
I think this event stands well enough alone. Many readers are going to be interested in this specific event (where a war almost happened), rather than a sprawling article on the general relationship between two countries. Merlinsorca 05:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose many things in life "escalate tensions", this is just one example. And now nothing has come of it, time to move on and wait for the next "escalating" moment in this decades-old conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous sources confirm Iran possesses short-range Caspian tigers and Saudi Arabia commands a traveling Tiger Squad. Could get interesting. Remember the outrage when Copenhagen dismembered just one common giraffe? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
No doubt it could get interesting, but this sort of thing happens all the time, and unless it actually does escalate, it's just business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite so, old chap. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the weather gets hot, and cold, and windy, and rainy ... balls are kicked, prime ministers replaced, old men die. Seems just about everything in the box has happened before, and yet, it is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The first blurb somewhat gives the impression that this is a major escalation and it was caused by Iran shooting down the drone, while the escalation may have been caused by the alledged airspace violation. --Z 08:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and consider ongoing when the blurb drops off the main page. This is an obvious case of serious international business that should be top priority for the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Much rhetoric & media babble, no casualties. (Regarding the abortive U.S. retaliatory strike, one might even suspect elaborate political/military theater for the domestic and global opinion markets.) – Sca (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Trump orders military strike then calls it off" is not exactly a page-turner of a story. Ongoing isn't suitable either because we are currently in status quo. No serious escalation or ongoing activity is occurring to warrant a posting. Only if action significantly ramps up will this be noteworthy. Right now, it's just mutual Saber-rattling. WaltCip (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either blurb or ongoing. This is a highly significant story. Davey2116 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Four supports, four opposes and four votes for ongoing isn't consensus any way you look at it. Deleted "ready." – Sca (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 'piece of machinery destroyed with no casualties' isn't MP-worthy. The tensions may boil over into something, but I'm with WaltCip: it's just mutual sabre-rattling. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment retaliatory cyber attacks - the first since cyber command gained combat status - it seems like the situation with Iran is "ongoing"? --LaserLegs (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is seeing plenty of coverage in mainstream media, and is likely to keep seeing coverage. Why wouldn't we feature this? Banedon (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready five supports for a blurb and four for ongoing (which is a support in principle for posting this story to the box) does indeed consensus make. No need to remove it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
More hype. Unconfirmed cyber attacks outlined by unidentified U.S. "officials" pose little additional significance three days after the event.
Sca (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. A US drone was shot down by Iran is the only factual element of this story. Everything else is a massive amount of rumormongering, conjecture, sabre-rattling, and other facets that WP and particularly ITN should not be playing wag the dog with. Should some military event emerge from all that that can be factually shown true, then we can talk a story. --Masem (t) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Your "not ready" is really "I'm still opposed to this". Sorry boys, you had your oppose already, lots of comments, time for someone uninvolved to decide. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
"five supports for a blurb and four for ongoing": please don't forget there are also six opposes that need to be taken into account. That's not a strong consensus for anything at all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Even my Maybe leans slightly toward opposition, if it has to count for something. Just kinda neat to learn a machine specially designed to avoid exactly this didn't. Certainly against ongoing, pending indication of when or how relations might hypothetically conclude. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Others may disagree, but in my opinion I don't see a consensus for any course of action at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a strong view on this either way, but I've removed the "Ready" because it's clear there isn't any consensus at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
As explained previously, in the world of news it means what Franklin ostensibly said about fish and house guests (although that may be an apocryphal quote). — A three-day-old news story without further developments is getting stale, any Wiki rulebook assertions notwithstanding.
  • Comment Although we're divided on blurb vs. ongoing, there's a clear consensus that this event is significant enough to be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree at all: there seems to be considerable opposition to this - and on valid grounds too. (That's not to belittle the support votes or their rationale, but an acknowledgement that over a third of the !votes are opposing this, and no agreement between the other 2/3rds on what should happen. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Considerable, yes; but exactly how many !votes are needed for consensus? 2/3 seems pretty good. That that 2/3 is split on blurb vs. ongoing should not favor posting nothing. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
While the news is covering all the saber-rattling on this between US and Iran, it is still saber-rattling. Outside of the drone being shot down, no other events have occurred, and we should not be posting any posturing between two countries. --Masem (t) 16:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic[edit]

Article: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: No evidence this is actually "in the news" and more importantly, not being continuously updated. LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you'll see changes every day but that isn't the same as updates every day. There are fixing refs, content reorgs, clarifications, but no substantial updates beyond death toll counter. This event has been "ongoing" since 2018 -- over a year. Are we really going to have it in the box until some period when no one is diagnosed as having contracted Ebola? This was a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS posting that should never have been ongoing, is not being continuously updated and needs to come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for now at least. The revision history shows at least four dozen new revisions in the last few days, and those revisions do include non-minor substantial changes (such as introducing new paragraphs). I certainly don't agree with the assessment that it never should've been posted to begin with. As for whether or not it's still "in the news," I did a quick search and found several headlines from today alone that could be used to further update the article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I saw moved paragraphs, not new ones. Did I miss a substantial update newer than the oldest blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose it is an important article with good quality. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, "important" has nothing to do with the WP:ITN#Purpose so that justification basically has no value. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove there looks like there's been about one sentence of prose added relating to events over the last week, this isn't enough as noted in the nom. And it's certainly no longer headline news. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – Per previous. Sca (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. More days have passed since this nomination, still no substantive update. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 00:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup[edit]

Closing per discussion. Can certainly be renominated later. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 20 June 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 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator's comments: Though this isn't a WP:ITNR sports event, the AFC, CONMEBOL, CAF and UEFA are in it, so why not CONCACAF? See comment below. BenevolentBeast (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • BenevolentBeast You have this as an Ongoing nomination, not ITNR. Is that your intention? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, suggest close and re-nominate when it's done. The Copa America isn't recurring either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, my bad, I wasn't thinking; sorry for the inconvenience. BenevolentBeast (talk) 18:01, 20 June 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: Eddie Garcia[edit]

Article: Eddie Garcia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, GMA 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: He is one of the prominent role in the Filipino industry BSrap (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I'd like to see a ref for the show being cancelled because of his death, but it's not a deal breaker for me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still some work needed - I see at least two paragraphs with no references at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not referenced sufficiently and I'm unclear how there can be any justification for the use of a non-free image of him when two free images co-exist in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: the non-free image has been removed. Can you be more specific about the lack sufficient references? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Nevermind. I see the issue now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article has been improved in comparison when I first started working on it. It's good enough for sustain. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: