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.


Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson

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.


  • 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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


December 15[edit]

December 14[edit]

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

Omar al-Bashir convicted of corruption[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

  • Support posting about a former head of state convicted of a crime related to their role. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nitpick? Financial irregularity isn't illegal; he was pinched for money laundering. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposupport Agree with InedibleHulk. Also this is a BLP and there are several uncited claims in the article. The article body has also not been updated to indicate the recent news. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely significant. But "corruption and financial irregularity" is just verbose. Added alt blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel that if this were truly notable, wouldn't there be a separate article covering this conviction/sentencing? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no rule that says something is only notable if it has a separate article. Splitting is done based on whether the main article becomes too long to handle it, not based on whether some incident is notable or not. At almost 100 kB of length, the article might indeed need a split (WP:SPLIT) but probably more for the ICC trial than this one. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

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

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Sheila Mercier[edit]

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

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

RD: Danny Aiello[edit]

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

Article updated

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

Remove Samoa Measles Outbreak from Ongoing[edit]

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

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

  • Remove addition was good at the time, but the news about this seems to have died down to just statistics updates. --Jayron32 15:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. It does seem like the only recent large updates have been the addition of citations, but little to no prose. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Any analysis of whether the article has been updated needs a time frame. The time frame of consideration is since 9 December (the date of the oldest current blurb). Since 9 December, there have been significant updates to the article. Maybe it should have been a blurb, but that is spilled milk. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Brexit[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 04:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator's comments: Hot important ongoing event that keep appearing in the news on a daily basis. News regarding this issue are fundamental and important on the international level. Main article and sub articles are getting updates on daily basis. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, with the election done, the UK gov't will turn back to Brexit, but let's wait until we know what the next steps are. --Masem (t) 06:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Masem How does the next steps matter now that Brexit is officially back on the agenda? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32 provides a good rationale. We know Brexit will be on the table soon enough, but unlikely before end of the year. When they reconvene next year, I fully expect Brexit to be the big point, at which point we can judge better about an ongoing news item. --Masem (t) 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Boris Johnson has just won with the slogan “Get Brexit done” and so it’s back on the agenda again, with the clock ticking for a deadline of end-Jan. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is in much better shape than when it was last removed. I would be very willing to support, but there are (rather curiously) CN tags. Most of them are for historical things which should be easy to resolve (and by my recollection, those lines DID have sources in the earlier version). However, one is for a direct quote, which is a showstopper for the Main Page. (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that the Tories have won the election, Brexit will get through much easier. I'm wondering if we should just wait to post passage of the withdrawal bill and/or something on January 31 when the UK actually leaves. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I fully expect some miraculous and totally unforeseen thing to occur before Jan. 31, which results in X more months of delays, which results in some other confounding thing, and so on. How many deadlines has this already blown through? In short and contra CRYSTAL, I think this is going to be ongoing for well more than 7 weeks. I'd prefer blurbs, too, in any other case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
If the Tories have that large a majority, the opposition won't be able to stop Brexit. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than 1-2 lines about the general election, there's not much written in that article from recent weeks. Not enough updates to justify posting to the ongoing link, and we're already covering the election in a blurb. When something worth writing about happens, we can do another blurb. --Jayron32 13:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's extremely easy to say that Brexit is a foregone conclusion now that the conservatives have a majority, but we should still avoid massaging crystal balls whenever possible. Let's wait for the actual politics to start.--WaltCip (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Boris says by Jan. 31. Mutti says unlikely even by the end of 2020. Whose vision is ... 20/20? – Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think a blurb when the next substantial event happens would be better.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm taking a "wait and see" stance on this, as the article currently is not being updated much. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The article suggested is a listicle of events and way below the standards of a good encyclopedic article. The timeline section should be converted to prose. Let's not make the same mistake twice. This sub-par article does not deserve to be linked from the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

December 12[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Scheer announces pending resignation[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Andrew Scheer (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On December 12, 2019, Scheer announced he would be resigning as the leader of the Conservative Party effective upon the election of a new one.
News source(s): [1], [2]

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

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

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

2019 Winter Deaflympics[edit]

Article: 2019 Winter Deaflympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 19th Winter Deaflympics officially opens in Italy on 12 December
News source(s): insidethegames

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the Olympics for the deaf. I prefer posting to ongoing event but I just mentioned a blurb as a remedy. I just wanted to make awareness about this event. The article is developing. File:2019 Winter Deaflympics.png Abishe (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Abishe Thanks for the nomination. ITN is not for merely spreading awareness about things; we feature articles that get coverage in the news. Do you have news stories about this event? 331dot (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually I am unable to find sources in English and are mostly available in Italian language. I just added a source in English language in the template. I am sorry for the errors and I have nominated articles like this before. Abishe (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Abishe Sources for article content do not need to be in English, but what ITN is looking for is evidence that this is getting coverage in the news- and to a certain degree English language news, since that's what most readers here get for news. The chances of this being successful are low without such news sources. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, however I'm not seeing widespread news coverage of the events which would indicate the level of significance necessary for ITN requirements. I see lots of little local papers writing about local athletes who plan to compete in the games, as in here but nothing that indicates that this has the sort of widespread coverage in major news sources that put this over the threshold for me. --Jayron32 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You could try DYK or perhaps OTD for 21 Dec? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Appears to be very a niche sports that struggles to get mentions in mainstream media. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

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

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

  • No need for ongoing, the results will be in soon enough, and we will post that. --Tone 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, this will be over in a day, too short a timeframe for ongoing postings, and we'll have results shortly to post anyways. --Jayron32 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32, A new blurb can come up when we have the winner. DBigXray 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. XAnio I think you misunderstand the purpose of Ongoing- which does not have blurbs; it is not meant to feature any event in progress, but to feature an article that has incremental, continuous updates over a long period of time. General elections are on the ITNR list(recurring events list) so notability is not at issue, this will be posted as a blurb when the result is clear and the article has a decent update. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Tone. ——SN54129 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I decided to go ahead and just convert this to an ITNR listing, though it's certainly early. I've used the Tories as a placeholder since the general consensus seems to be that they will have the most seats and the chance of a Labour majority seems remote- but again, it's just a placeholder. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    In that case Oppose for now as the article has not, as yet, been updated with results. When I have something to judge the quality of, I will return to do so. --Jayron32 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the placeholder blurb and replaced it with a true placeholder. It is not appropriate to 'predict' the result of the election here (it is entirely possible no party will have an overall majority), certainly not while voting is still in progress. Can we please not do that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth Fair enough, but I was not predicting anything, simply posting the general consensus of reliable sources, which is something that is not uncommon here. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the placeholder based on exit polls, but the results still need to come in. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose for now as the results are pending and no need to mention under ongoing events. When a clear winner is announced I will support it and the blurb is yet to be updated. Abishe (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - obviously don't post this right now, as the result is only based on an exit poll. But assuming it's confirmed, and the article has no issues, this will go straight up when the result's confirmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because by the time somebody decides this is "ready" and then it's finally posted, the results will be confirmed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, there is NO prose in results section but it was still posted? The section is not even filled. Is it because it is a UK election? Too much bias! Only 1 support? - Sherenk1 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, thats a major oversight. This really should be pulled until the results get prose with it, but I don't feel we also need the disruption over pulling it. --Masem (t) 06:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sherenk1 I took the wait opposes as delayed supports, given this is an ITN/R item. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled pending consensus to post. While posted in good faith, that was clearly premature given the state of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment This is an ITN/R item. When I posted it, the result of a Conservative majority had been confirmed, the image had been protected and I checked that there were no {{cn}} tags. I felt that this was one of those cases where the article was one that would be rapidly edited and improved and posting was justifiable. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • ITN/R means a consensus has already been obtained as far as notability is concerned. It does not mean we post a shit-quality article to the main page, even if there is the expectation that it may be fixed later. WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @WaltCip: it was a solid B class article, with no {{cn}} tags. I stand by my decision to post. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
          • I'd agree with your decision to post. Now we're just slowing down the process to post for no good reason. How long until another editor decides this is worth posting again? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No idea what shape it was in when pulled, but the article has several paragraphs of prose describing the results; everything is in the right tense. Looks fine for the main page right now. --Jayron32 13:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - obviously I can't post this again, so I'm supporting it now. Should be posted ASAP. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ready to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Re-posted  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is still no prose discussion of the full results. We expect this for sports and other elections, UK elections get no special pass here. --Masem (t) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    There was scant prose on the results at the time of the original posting, but some had been added to to the lead at the time of the re-post.[3] There is still no prose in the "Full results" section. (Merely observations, meant neither as a support or oppose)Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    I see three full paragraphs of the results, as of when I supported, which are still there. Of course, improvements are welcome, but that should be sufficient for posting on the main page. I would not, despite your insinuation, opposed posting any other article on the main page with a similar amount of text, and I did not give this a pass because it was the UK. Your accusations against me are entirely unfounded, and quite insulting. --Jayron32 15:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still see no prose in the results section! Sherenk1 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Comment Then you have no one to blame except yourself. You should get on that! Remember, Wikipedia articles only get better because people who want them fixed up do it themselves. If you want it fixed, and don't do it, it's only your own fault and no one else's. --Jayron32 15:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    It's in the intro. The article has been updated with prose, that's all that matters.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, that was my observation when I re-posted, noting the support !votes above. Yes, it would definitely be preferable to have a full write-up in the body too, but it's not a requirement for ITN as long as there's something written, and it's sufficiently well-sourced etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    I have to disagree. We have rejected posting dozens of elections for exactly this reason. We have undone years of consensus and accepted practice at ITN/C. This is really a disappointing IAR. By posting this, you have disrupted the normal operations of this project. You have put us in an impossible and unsolvable situation. You have made us all hypocrites. If you were desperate to post you could have written 4-5 sentences in the Full results section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps if we feel this strongly about the presence of prose in the results section of an election article, we should put it in writing. There are multiple project pages dedicated to both general criteria and criteria for recurring items when it comes to posting - neither currently state that prose is required for election results. The situation is not unsolvable. If we want hard rules, we can hold and RFC and change the elections section of the ITN/R criteria page. I'm not defending the posting of this blurb, just pointing out something that may need to be done to prevent a similar issue in the future. It's not hard to put precedent into writing. mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    We do not need written rules about every criterion for what we believe is a quality article. We have a general quality standard. Years of discussion and failed nominations have established precedent for what is a quality article for ITN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate change[edit]

SNOW close. (No pun intended.) SpencerT•C 16:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Oppose' – Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Greta Thunberg addresses COP25[edit]

No consensus to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

2019 Inates attack[edit]

Article: 2019 Inates attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 71 people were killed after terrorists stormed a military base in Inates, Niger.
News source(s): (BBC) (Reuters) (Al Jazeera)

Nominator's comments: Numerous deaths. ArionEstar (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose orphaned disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. While the stub is cited well, it is unfortunately too short to be featured on ITN. mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Very light on text. Would need to see a big expansion before I could support. --Jayron32 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Greta Thunberg Time Person of the Year[edit]

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Greta Thunberg (talk, history)
Blurb: Time names Greta Thunberg the 2019 Time Person of the Year.
News source(s): Time, NBC

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

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

RD: David Bellamy[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

(Closed) Attack on Bagram Air Base[edit]

No consensus to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Attack on Bagram Air Base (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Taliban launched an attack on a US controlled air base in Afghanistan.
Alternative blurb: Taliban forces assaulted an United States air base in Afganistan amidst peace talks between the two parties. The attackers used a car bomb and armed personnel, but were successfully repelled by a NATO mission present at the base.
News source(s): (New York Times)
Nominator's comments: Taliban Attack on US military Base forces NATO to repel an attack. This is already in the "Current Events" section on Wikipedia, so it needs to be in the "In the News" section. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A couple of things - 1) This should be nominated under In the News - it's an attack, not some specific person dying. 2) Current Events doesn't necessarily correlate to on the ITN page. 3) The first blurb is a bit too short, but the second is too long. Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is too short, just at the stub level. --Jayron32 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub. Two fatalities. Significance marginal. – Sca (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Calling this a skirmish would be hugely inflating its importance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Saudi Aramco largest ever IPO and largest public traded company by market capitalisation[edit]

Article: Saudi Aramco (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi Aramco commences trading on the Tadawul stock exchange, following the largest ever initial public offering, and becomes the largest publicly traded company by market capitalisation
Alternative blurb: Saudi Aramco becomes the largest traded company after a record-breaking US$25.6 billion initial public offering.
Alternative blurb II: Saudi Aramco becomes the largest traded company after a record-breaking US$25.6 billion initial public offering for 1.5% of the state-owned business.
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: Largest IPO ever; largest publicly traded company by market capitalisation Chrisclear (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019[edit]

rough consensus seems to be to wait until the act actually passes and survives constitutional challenges before considering posting. --Jayron32 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants from six religious communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan eligible for citizenship.
Alternative blurb: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants, who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan eligible for citizenship.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Indian parliament amends the citizenship act to make illegal migrants from six religious communities from three neighbouring nations eligible for citizenship.
News source(s): [4]

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

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

(Posted) Autonomous Province of Bougainville independence referendum[edit]

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

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

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

Test cricket returns to Pakistan after ten years[edit]

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First of all the article is well updated and well sourced. Usually bilateral cricket series are not recommended to nominate here. But this is quite significant as the test series is hosted by the war torn nation after 10 years since the attack on Sri Lankan team. This is the major terror attack being trageted on any particular sports team. Previously Pakistan hosted test matches in the United Arab Emirates. Pakistan has also hosted ODI and T20I games in their home soil but test cricket is a five day format which was not played there over 10 years. The series is also significantly covered as a part of the inaugural edition of the ICC World Test ChampionshipAbishe (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

December 10[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Yury Luzhkov[edit]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Jim Smith[edit]

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

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

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

(Attention needed) 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 disappearance[edit]

Article: 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 disappearance (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Chilean military plane with 38 people on board has disappeared en route to Antarctica.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Reuters, AP

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

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

December 9[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: George Laurer[edit]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Marie Fredriksson[edit]

Article: Marie Fredriksson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5],[6],[7], [8],[9]

Article updated

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

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

RD: Kim Woo-jung[edit]

Article: Kim Woo-jung (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]

Article updated

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

(Posted) RD: Chuck Heberling[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

(Posted) RD: Maurice Mounsdon[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

Sanna Marin becomes prime minister[edit]

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This will be happening tomorrow (Dec 10). I hope posting here now is OK as it will encourage improvements and expansion to the rather short article before posting to ITN. Funcrunch (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait The nomination will have to be put on hold until tomorrow. If the news is further verified I will support. The subject is in work in progress. Abishe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose I don't remember Oleksiy Honcharuk getting a blurb for the same, but could be wrong. The alt blurb is a bit neater, first being first, but in a more trivial way. Her parents aren't the stars here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Independent of her age or parents, wouldn't she be posted to ITN as a new head of state regardless? Funcrunch (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I see the President of Finland is the actual head of state, so nevermind. Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Finnish PM is appointed, so not the result of an election, and (per Funcrunch) they are not the head of government state either. I feel like we may be grasping at straws here, as evident by the two completely different blurbs. mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Is head of government, not head of state. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, meant to say head of state. Thanks for the correction InedibleHulk mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I could tell it was just your fingers talking. But other people? Not so sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose She is set to become prime minister after the previous one from the same political party resigned, which implies there is no governmental change. As for her age, she is definitely not the youngest prime minister ever and there are even younger politicians who have recently won parliamentary elections to assume the office (Sebastian Kurz, who is younger and already served as prime minister from 2017 to 2019, is in the process of government formation following this year's snap election.). As for the same-sex parentage, it's unclear for me why this is important for a country with highly progressive LGBT rights.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – High-ranking politician but second after the Finnish president if I'm reading correctly, so notability for ITN is diminished. The first blurb is perfect WP:DYK material (evidenced by the existence of Lists of state leaders by age) while the second is purely trivia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: I admit that I am unfamiliar with Finnish government, but it is unclear to me from the Wikipedia page whether or not the president's powers are in actuality greater than that of the prime minister's. If the PM has greater authority, it seems she should be listed at ITN even though she isn't head of state. Funcrunch (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Support based on recent comments by Smurrayinchester clarifying the difference between the Finnish President and Prime Minister. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems in order to me. Both draw power from the constitution, and the PM (featuring MPs) dishes out the legislative and executive duty. Kind of like Canada, except our head of state is the world's oldest female. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – For the record, the alt blurb about Marin's same-sex parents was added by another editor, not me. Funcrunch (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not impressed with either blurb, they look more DYK-ish to me. I certainly don't see why the supposed fact in them is of any importance either. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Certainly a young age to lead a country, but whilst she's the youngest serving right now, there are have been plenty of younger leaders in the past, including recent examples: Kim Jong-un was 28 when he took power, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was 33, if we stick to elected leaders then Mario Frick was 28 and there have been several recent under-30 Captains Regent. Marin's mother's sexuality does not appear relevant and would be misleading anyway (Marin was born to a heterosexual couple who later split up). A change in government might be a worthwhile blurb regardless of the records, but this was a rearrangement of coalition partners, not the result of an election. Modest Genius talk 14:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A lot of confusion here about the roles of President and Prime Minster. The President of Finland is a bit more powerful than, say, the President of Ireland or Germany, but unlike France or Russia it's mostly a figurehead role now. The fact that the President technically appoints a Prime Minister is no more relevant than the fact the Queen technically appoints the Prime Minister of the UK - power is ultimately in the hands of the Parliament and the PM. We posted Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister of the UK, I see no reason not to post this. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Smurrayinchester our repeated failure to correct this obvious deficiency at WP:ITNR has become laughable. We post utterly powerless figure heads to the main page "because ITNR" and it's way past time to fix that. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the two supports above. The Finnish president is clearly mostly ceremonial and it's the Prime Minister who holds real power. This is no different than when we posted Boris Johnson or Bill English becoming PM despite there not being an election or change of governing party. This change in leadership has been widely covered by news sources around the world, so there's no principled reason to oppose on that basis (as opposed to say similar changes in much smaller nations). The focus of the blurb should just be on the change in prime ministership and maybe a mention of the postal strike instead of trying to squeeze in some heavily qualified special reasons (e.g. youngest currently serving Prime MInister, first child of LGBT parents). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb II – the appointment or election of a head of government is as important or more important than the head of state. The article quality looks good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurbs are trying to get around the non-ITNR aspect of this event by incorporating her age, parentage or recent strikes. Made clear, this was not a change in PM due to elections. Further, the government did not change. This is an intra-party reorganization in between elections. I consider highlighting someone's personal characteristics (age, parentage) to be incredibly degrading, because it insinuates that her major accomplishment has nothing to do with her actual work. The recent strikes, which I got to experience first-hand, were very tame compared to what we usually post. The impact just doesn't rise to the level that I would support. (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the change of a prime minister without a general election is blurb worthy. (I don't think I supported the Boris posting either).-- P-K3 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's still in the news; I was just reminded by coverage on the BBC. What we think of this personally is irrelevant per WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Paul Volcker[edit]

Article: Paul Volcker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American economist, chairman of the Federal Reserve (1979–87), dies at age 92. Davey2116 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support conditionally But there are parts that need to be referenced (mostly 1 sentence segments at the end of paragraphs or so). Taewangkorea (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Taewangkorea: would you mind to take another look and add {{cn}} to any sentences that need citations? The sourcing doesn't look bad to me, generally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    MSGJ, I have added around 6 citation needed templates to the gaps that I found. Overall, it is not bad, but the gaps are too big to ignore (For example, in the "Post-Federal Reserve" section there is an entire paragraph without inline citations.) Taewangkorea (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not in horrible shape but a few too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Russia banned from global sports for four years[edit]

Articles: Doping in Russia (talk, history) and Russia at the 2020 Summer Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia is banned from international sporting events for four years, including from the 2020 Olympics, due to doping violations.
Alternative blurb: ​The World Anti-Doping Agency bans Russia from participating in international sporting events for four years due to doping violations.
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

 Davey2116 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Not an accurate blurb. The source above includes the words "if upheld" in describing the decision very early in the piece. The referenced article says "recommended that Russia be...banned..." This is significantly different from actually being banned at this moment in time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Guardian is reporting that this is a ban that Russia has 21 days to appeal. They also report that drug-free individuals will be permitted (as they were in PyoengChang). 331dot (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question where are the updates? The massive Doping in Russia article makes no mention of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial Support This is being covered by reliable sources, but I would suggest debolding the Russia at the 2020 Summer Olympics, we should NOT highlight that article, it is decidedly NOT main-page ready. It consists mostly of empty placeholder tables and has very little prose. The other bolded article is in good shape, and can be a highlighted article. --Jayron32 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed blurb is a bit problematic as the ban was imposed for "major" international sporting events, including the 2020 Summer Olympics and the 2022 World Cup, but not for European championships or events hosted in Russia. For now, it's hard to define what "major" means in this context unless there is an exact list of events or, at least, a set of criteria that events must meet so that the ban gets invoked. Otherwise, this is newsworthy and it merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support Delink the 2020 Olympics per Jayron32's excellent point. That article is nowhere near ready for the main page. The other, is generally in decent shape and well referenced though some expansion regards the most recent events may be desirable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Adding alt blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Important, article looks good to go. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted altblurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 White Island eruption[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Whakaari / White Island volcano (pictured) in New Zealand erupts, killing at least five people and injuring many others.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Developing event.  Nixinova TC   06:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article developing nicely. Just need to keep on top of the referencing (currently one unreferenced fact) and it'll be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, from List of volcanic eruptions by death toll, and if all the missing people are dead, the death toll would the 50th worse in all recorded history. The high number events typically involve more non-direct fatalities. Abductive (reasoning) 08:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not sure how reliable that list is. It seems to suggest that only 60 eruptions have caused fatalities. Not to mention the sourcing is disparate.AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer this list, which indicates that this is the sixth-deadliest volcanic eruption of the 21st century. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - however blurb needs editing. One of the deceased was a local NZer, a tour guide, so not "five tourists". MurielMary (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You could have done that, MurielMary. Blurb tweaked to say "people". Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, quite able to, Mjroots, but at almost midnight on a work night I prioritised getting some sleep! This is why WP is a band of volunteers, so no one has to do everything themselves. MurielMary (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the cfork is pointless and leaves this as another disaster stub. Merge it back into the island article and you have something decent for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is small but seems just long enough, though I'm sure it will continue to expand. Sourcing looks good. Sizable volcanic eruptions such as this one are certainly rare, so I think this is ITN-worthy, regardless of death toll mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Article says 20 missing, Reuters says "more than two dozen" missing. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. This is a highly active volcano that erupts frequently. The only people affected seem to be those who were stood on the volcano when it exploded (currently the death toll is five; although that may rise later that is WP:CRYSTAL), with no broader impact. Tragic for those involved, but this event seems unlikely to have a long-term encyclopaedic value. I agree with LaserLegs that the current eruption article could have been one section in the volcano article; unless there's substantial expansion a separate article seems unnecessary. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is short but sufficient, story is appearing in major news outlets. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely in the news, article is not too bad and will undoubtedly be expanded.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Police believe there are no survivors: [11]. 27 were left stranded on the island. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. "Death toll expected to rise from five," says Guardian. I get Modest Genius 's opsn, but the sudden, violent deaths of two dozen or more would be worth ITN. Five isn't. Wait. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
PS: Having seen some of the effects of one eruption, I'll never get why people want to get close to an active volcano. – Sca (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support At this point we can be reasonably certain that the death toll is going to be high. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Old saying in the news biz: "Never assume anything." – Sca (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Old saying in the encyclopedia biz: "To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea." - Henry David Thoreau. Good old ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting SupportBBC says "eight others are feared to have died." Enough. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: René Auberjonois[edit]

Article: René Auberjonois (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Seattle Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Well-known actor on Benson and ST: DS9. Unfortunately, sourcing is way off. Masem (t) 22:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Orange tagged sections and sourcing is indeed subpar mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Father Mulcahy and Odo were played by the same actor!? Ah, I find that it was just the movie for the former role. He and William Christopher did look similar though. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sections almost entirely devoid of sourcing. Kees08 (Talk) 15:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as more references are needed. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Samoan measles outbreak[edit]

Article: 2019 Samoa measles outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [12] [13]

Nominator's comments: Was going to nominate this a while ago, but got caught up in off wiki activities. Massive death toll considering the size of the nation (post article puts it into perspective). It is ongoing, but if accepted maybe a blurb would be better. Article alright. AIRcorn (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Large death toll and ongoing crisis. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Plenty of international coverage and the article looks good. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing only – This has been going on for quite some time and looks to continue, so it should go into Ongoing. It's not spot news. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing - Sourcing is there and seems notable enough. Oppose a blurb mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing It appears to have been going on for some time so I think ongoing is better. The article seems fine. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing Article not undergoing continuing ITN-level updates; should be posted as an individual blurb. SpencerT•C 05:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Caroll Spinney[edit]

Article: Caroll Spinney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, WaPo, NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American puppeteer, most famous for playing Big Bird and Oscar on Sesame Street for half a century, dies at age 86. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sourcing is a bit poor and needs to be improved before posting. --Masem (t) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a notable person. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Scs: notable goes without saying because he has a Wikipedia article. The only thing that needs to be assessed here is whether the article is of sufficient quality to be featured on the main page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand. But I don't see anything wrong with the article, and I support linking it from the main page. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Once sourcing is determined to be fixed, I support putting him up. That said, I added/fixed some of the sources and wording, although I left unsourced one bit that I don't know whether it should be there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb and photo of Big Bird pbp 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the farthest case I would even begin considering for a blurb. May be a fond childhood memory but we're not going to post a blurb based on that. --Masem (t) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd support adding a picture of Big Bird, as it is globally recognizable. Davey2116 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Big Bird is still alive (or "alive") and working, though. Only Spinney died. He's not such a familiar face. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, filmography needs some work. Spengouli (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, I see the same referencing issues as others mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; In addition to the filmography, the early life section needs other sources. Once that's taken care of, it's an obvious support. I actually think the suggestion of a blurb and photo might not be a bad idea, considering the global reach and popularity of Sesame Street and his longevity in the show's lead role. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as more citations are needed. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Still working on adding citations; what else needs to be cited before we put up Spinney? Also, do we have a standard for splitting off death sections for cases like this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Brainulator9: Still a couple more needed. Unless there is a lot to writer about the death, it usually goes in personal life section. But there's no hard and fast rule. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juice Wrld[edit]

Article: Juice Wrld (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, NYTimes

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Young rapper that died from a seizure. Article is not quite there but its within range in terms of sourcing. Masem (t) 16:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Pretty significant death. –MJLTalk 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'll added a bit to the sections and merged what remained. Article quality is pretty decent enough. –MJLTalk 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Some small sections need to be worked on some in terms of sourcing, but beyond that, I have no issues with the article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Sourcing is passable and the death is getting a lot of social media attention. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sourcing is adequate. Shocking death at such a young age. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, article is in good shape. Sad. Spengouli (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing issues I saw when I nominated this appear to have been dealt with. --Masem (t) 04:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of several uncited claims about the subject and other living people. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I came close to posting this, but on closer look there are a few too many gaps in referencing. It's not a lot, but too many to ignore for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Surprised this hasn't been posted yet considering Juice Wrld's notability. The referencing is passable, but I'll go in and try to fill in what's still missing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Filled in all missing citations. Should be good to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    For what it is worth, notability does not play into how fast or if RD's get posted, only article quality (unless you meant you were surprised the article was not cleaned up yet). Thanks for filling in the gaps. Kees08 (Talk) 15:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I cleaned up any CN's that I saw, I see no issues with posting this now. It's not going to be nominated for a FA, but it's certainly good enough as a RD mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as sourcing concerns appear to have been addressed.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Maurizio Cattelan's $120,000 banana eaten by David Datuna[edit]

WP:SNOW. Mindless drivel. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Maurizio Cattelan (talk, history) and David Datuna (talk, history)
Blurb: Maurizio Cattelan's $120,000 banana eaten by David Datuna
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wonder the significance of this. Even though I am glad that someone made good use of it before it got spoiled, by the looks of it, it was half rotten already. --DBigXray 12:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DBXr. Not april Fools yet, and a fella noshing on a moody banana is not a newsworthy event, whatever spin be put upon it. In any case, Datuna's article devotes a single sentence to the "event", and Cattelan's nothing at all. ——SN54129 12:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Call this art?! Didn't even need a can opener. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Although if Datuna has his thinking cap on, he would approximate Manzoni's work with the banana, a valued recycling of semi-epic proportions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a sarcastic and humorous blurb which do not meet with ITN news section guidelines. It doesn't have any meaning and readers would be in disarray in case if it gets nominated. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Thousands of Wikipedia readers in disarray after a hungry artist eats a US$120,000 banana seems like a good headline though. --DBigXray 13:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
...Or a devious publicity stunt.--DBigXray 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
And (not 'Or') a publicity stunt. It was also part of the Performance art. Man eats $120,000 piece of art taped to wall AFP December 8, 2019 7&6=thirteen () 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
naah, I'd not call this as fake news, the man did eat the banana after all. The fact that the museum added another banana there within 15 mins, is a different story. --DBigXray 15:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"Fake news" doesn't apply to this, events which actually occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it occurred, and that is a fact. So it isn't worthwhile "news" even if it isn't fake. But it is a manufactured event that isn't worth mentioning on the main page. 7&6=thirteen () 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
yeah, to that I would agree. It is just that calling an event that "actually" happened as fake news will itself be a fake news. With all these fake news floating around, why add another ? DBigXray 15:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. And of course, there are persons in power that use the "fake news" label as an epithet, even when it shouldn't apply. 7&6=thirteen () 15:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose It would be one thing if we were talking about a multi-million dollar piece of art of significance being destroyed, but this is definitely not that. More a funny curiosity than ITN. --Masem (t) 15:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fake fruit?? All sounds a bit trippy to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Delhi factory fire[edit]

Article: 2019 Delhi factory fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least forty three people dead and more than fifty injured in fire at a factory in Delhi
News source(s): Reuters, NDTV, BBC, CNN, AP, Guardian

Nominator's comments: stub class, being expanded. Now start class after I expanded. Well sourced. DBigXray 09:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as updater of article. Article is long enough, notable to have place on front page of Wikipedia.-- Harshil want to talk? 11:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per DBXr (who has added >46% of the artcle), not per Harshil169 (who has added <12%). ([14]) ——SN54129 12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is not similar to the 2019 London Bridge stabbing where two casualties were reported. This fire incident is very much notable because 43 casualties have been reported so far and has coverages even from CNN, BBC.My concern is just to add more sources for this article. Abishe (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs a copy edit for grammar (or you can accuse me of "a bicker", whichever). As an aside, we posted the 2019 Surat fire it almost seems as if civil disasters in India are as common place as other causes of large scale civilian deaths in other countries. Either way fix the article before posting please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, Today's fire is the worst Delhi has seen since 1997, Surat is a separate city and it happened in May. LaserLegs it would be helpful if you could point the improvements on the talk page, thanks. --DBigXray 15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Needs copy-editing for Eng. style, syn. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Valereee has helped to copy edit the article. --DBigXray 06:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major disaster with high fatality, widely reported (I saw reports on BBC, NYT, CNN, etc.) -Zanhe (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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 [] 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: