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.

Climate change protesters in Sydney, Australia
Climate change protesters in Sydney, Australia

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Suggestions[edit]

September 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

September 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
  • A woman who previously accused late United States financier Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager says she was "trafficked" to Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom and was abused by him at a house in London. She calls him "an abuser" and "a participant". Prince Andrew denies the allegations. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Tropical Storm Imelda[edit]

Article: Tropical Storm Imelda (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Storm Imelda causes flooding and at least 2 4 deaths in southeast Texas.
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times

Nominator's comments: Wait and see. Final death toll likely higher. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait per nom at this time, support once more information on the death toll is available due to the extreme flooding caused by Imelda. Quality is sufficient, too.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks fine. Death toll can be updated on main page. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Kingsif, we can update the death toll as time progresses as opposed to trying to make this an Ongoing nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait I know there's been comparisons to Harvey, but so far we don't have that level of damage, deaths or disruption. Let's wait until we have a better idea. --Masem (t) 01:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Antonio Brown released[edit]

Consensus to post unlikely to develop. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Articles: Antonio Brown (talk, history) and New England Patriots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a recent release from the Oakland Raiders stemming from professional misconduct, American football player Antonio Brown (pictured) is released from the New England Patriots following sexual assault allegations, having played only one game with the franchise.
News source(s): Fox News, CNBC, ESPN

Article updated
 DrewieStewie (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a good faith nomination, but sports transactions are not what we post here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Muboshgu: You're probably right, I just nominated it owing to the unique circumstances regarding this certain player who has received significant news coverage for his misconduct. It isn't just any sports release, its a release based on many high profile incidents with different franchises and possible legal consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
      DrewieStewie, I understand that, as I've seen the Brown saga in the news. But, we are a global encyclopedia, American football is barely played outside of the U.S. at all, and this is really only significant to Brown, not the league as a whole. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a little piece of advice. If you're going to talk about a sport, at least please tell us all what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Good points from you two. At the very least, I have explicitly added american football to the blurb per suggestion. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, and I welcome you to make more, but if we post this sports transaction it becomes harder to say no to the next one. In addition, there is a difference between something being news in a niche field(like sports) and something being news generally. I don't think this is appearing as general news on say the front page of a website/newspaper, just under a sports section. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) September 2019 climate strike[edit]

Article: September 2019 climate strike (talk, history)
Blurb: Global climate change strikes inspired by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg take place in 150 countries as part of the Fridays for Future protests.
Alternative blurb: Global climate change strikes take place in 150 countries as part of the Fridays for Future protests.
News source(s): Reuters, Guardian, Vox, Nature, AP, BBC, dpa, AFP

Nominator's comments: Could instead be listed as "ongoing", as the strikes take place primarily today but will continue up to and including 27 September. — Bilorv (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support alt blurb I don't think we need to call Greta out specifically in the blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Many "strikes" occurred across Australia today (it's already Friday night here), and it's definitely high in the news coverage across the country. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation currently has this as its lead item - [1] The "anti-" reaction is also getting a lot of coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm completely happy with the alt blurb. There's huge news coverage in the UK already; the strikes dominate the homepage of The Guardian today and are also big headlines in The Times, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror etc. I chose four sources out of dozens in the nomination above, aiming to provide a variety to show how widespread coverage is. — Bilorv (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt, but further expansion by country is desirable, this looks huge. Brandmeistertalk 11:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Just have something green for a change. STSC (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Such global strikes are not very common. It also appears to be the main news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait I think we should wait until the day is over so that we can get some more details about the event itself and not just the planning of it. If some prose about what happens/happened today is added and is of the same quality as the rest of the article is right now, I'd definitely support alt blurb as I don't think we should just make it about Greta ~mike_gigs talkcontribs —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    The day is over in plenty of countries. "The event itself" is >4,500 events, of which thousands have begun and have details already reported for. If you think we need more details then help to expand September 2019 climate strike! Pick one of the 146(-ish) countries not listed yet and write about it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - No need to wait. This is a major story, and we should be giving it more coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting alt. --Tone 13:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting concern I saw this before I could comment, at a state where only 4 countries were listed with a BIG OLD HUGE United States section. We're at 6 with still that huge section. This is not really at a quality I would support posting, but I would not ask for it to be taken down, but instead balance this better, get more countries (particularly those where the event should be completely or half-way through) and trim down the US one. The topic is otherwise fine for ITN, just the quality is showing a US bias. --Masem (t) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps appropriate for the article's talk page? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
We're at 26 now, which is much better. In general, if you don't want it to be taken down but do want it to get better than the solution is obvious: Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, its fine now. At the point I was commenting, I didn't have enough time available to try to fix. But I did want to note it here, that in future considering of worldwide-organized events like this, the article should have a better broad coverage to be considered at quality for posting. nothing else to worry about in this specific case now. --Masem (t) 17:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – No. 1 global story today (four sources added above). – Sca (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • An F-16 fighter jet of the Belgian Air Component strikes a house before crashing into a field near Pluvigner, north-west France. Both pilots eject and escape with minor injuries, but one gets his parachute entangled in high-voltage power lines, requiring two hours to rescue. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime
Science and technology

RD: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali[edit]

Article: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Euronews

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: President of Tunisia until he was ousted in 2011. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support References look good and plentiful, full article, nice prose ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, definitely worth RD. I'd say it's almost worth a blurb due to Ben Ali's length of term and influence. His deposition was one of the events that set off the Arab Spring. 1779Days (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks decent, but RD only in relation to general notability. – Sca (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Quite a few paragraphs that end without a reference. Stephen 22:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's many paragraphs that have no obvious reference at all. The number of references is not a good metric; the metric we should use is the portion of the text which is unreferenced. There is extensive amounts of the text which is unreferenced. This is not main-page-ready. --Jayron32 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Rugby World Cup[edit]

Consensus against ongoing, nominate when the winner is known for a regular blurb. --Tone 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Rugby World Cup (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Begins on Friday, September 20, 2019 87.140.111.165 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting single sport events in progress, which is not what Ongoing is intended for. The one exception is the FIFA World Cup(which I oppose as well) as the most popular sport in the world. The final result of this event can be posted. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 Cricket World Cup were posted as well. A sport event in progress is an ongoing event per definitionem. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, we're well past the "is not what Ongoing is intended for" argument now, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess Ongoing is turning into a sports ticker before our eyes. Technically the 2019 Major League Baseball season is ongoing, and as such would merit posting under this criteria. I'm not sure that's a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I would further add that rugby is not nearly as popular as football/soccer and cricket(the #1 and #2 sports in the world, I believe). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Not one person on earth would conclude that the MLB season is equivalent to the Rugby World Cup. And it may not be as popular as football or rugby, but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support assuming that prose updates will be made to the article every match. If the quality of updates is inadequate, it should go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I'm not too sure that a sporting event of this length really qualifies as Ongoing (agree with 331dot) and, while I may be acting cynical, I have doubts about this article's prose being updated often. Really I only think that the charts will be filled in with results on a regular basis ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until completion, blurb the results, and then ONLY if the article has sufficient prose and isn't just a bunch of tables and charts. --Jayron32 13:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing this is a competition that is scheduled to last for over a month. We can always take it down if the updates are not up to par, but as long as it is consistently updated I think there's no reason not to put it up. --PlasmaTwa2 18:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What updates are there aside from match results? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Match results and even prose reports about matches if someone was prepared to write them, just like the prose summaries of other sporting events. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I regret voting yes for FIFA Women's and voting no on Cricket World cup. 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup did not sustain consistent prose updates but 2019 Cricket World Cup did keep up. If 2015 Rugby World Cup is an indication of what we can expect, it is clear we will not get the proper amount of serious prose updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Illustrative material seems undue – stock photos and that superfluous map of Japan. – Sca (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose What matters is who is the champion, not what happens on each and every day, the way it is in the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We post FIFA World Cup to ongoing because it is insanely popular and gets massive coverage internationally. I'm sure this Rugby event gets coverage, but nowhere close to the degree of coverage as FIFA has. That said, it is a month+ long competition of more than a few region teams involved, and updating seems to be in place, so it would be fully reasonable to be ongoing, hence the weak oppose, but I am concerned about having too many of these smaller world cups "flood" Ongoing. --Masem (t) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sport competitions in Ongoing until there is clear criteria for inclusion. A cutoff for popularity or % of world participating nations or anything more objective. Like with any Ongoing nomination, proposals for removal due to poor updates must be taken seriously. "It is notable and I haven't had time" just keeps crap articles on the front page. And [Rugby] it may not be as popular as football or [cricket? sic], but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball What, then entire Western Hemisphere plus Japan is not global enough?130.233.2.183 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
How truly popular is baseball south of the US-Mexico border? (Genuine question. I personally love the game.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Very, very popular, especially in Mexico, Cuba, and other Central America countries. Some articles of interest include Pan American Baseball Confederation and baseball in Cuba.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not what ongoing was intended for.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Israeli legislative election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: September 2019 Israeli legislative election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After April elections failed to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White alliance (leader Benny Gantz pictured) wins the most seats in the second Israeli legislative election this year.
News source(s): (National Post), AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP, 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: Official results expected Thursday. Right now the final outcome is unclear, other than that Netanyahu has probably lost. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – For outcome. – Sca (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Sca.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - let the results come in, get updates done Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would we specify that this was a snap/do-over election, since after the April one a new government was never formed. I don't recall what we do. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say no in the interest of brevity/clarity. Best attempt I can muster: "After April elections fail to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White party win a plurality in the second Israeli legislative election this year." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it "plurality" is largely an American term; "the most seats" is what we usually do. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until results come in but then support once proper updates are done ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The nominated event is ITNR; quality is the only thing being discussed. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment With the results mostly in by this point, should we offer a blurb and post as soon as possible that the Blue and White party has won a plurality, or should we wait (however long it takes) for a new Prime Minister to be announced? It's not clear yet whether or not this is the end of Netanyahu's premiership, or if he will remain a caretaker PM.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
General practice in such cases seems to be to wait for formation of a new govt., which in this case could take as long as it did in Italy, and for its formal installation. IMO we tend to be somewhat overcautious about the installation part. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The mere fact that Israel needed a second election at all is noteworthy, as it's the first time one was necessary. After the last election, no government was ever formed and it's a possibility this time too. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be posted. ITNR states "The results of general elections", not the formation of governments(though we have occasionally posted those in unusual cases, which this might very well be). 331dot (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Are unsettled elections in Israel more important than unsettled elections in Italy? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm dealing with the election in front of me. The 'election' is settled- it's the government that is not. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
No it's not settled. By 'unsettled' I mean elections that have failed to produce a governmental result. Please don't quibble about semantics. And how about answering the question? – Sca (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not semantics. The election is over and settled. We know the results. Now the process to form a government is underway. Two different steps. I did answer your question. And as noted below, Italy's change in government was not due to an election. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally concur with 331dot; Italy's governing coalition collapsed and its PM resigned, but there were no election results to post, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not general practice at all. Say what you want about this ITN/R (and I'm on the record as hating it), but there is no ambiguity: the election result is ITNR, not the formation of government. The results are NOW known, to the level of specificity that would be shown in the blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is an unreferenced section and the "Allegations of misconduct" section is an indiscriminate collection of Tweets. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • At least 27 people, a majority of them children, are killed in a fire caused by an electrical problem at a boarding school in a suburb near the Liberian capital of Monrovia. (BBC)
  • A Twin Otter cargo plane carrying rice and four people goes missing shortly after its departure from Timika, Indonesia. (The Loadstar)
International relations
Law and crime
  • 2019 Samoa assassination plot
    • Prosecutiors in the case of the latest attempt to kill Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi announce that Eletise Leafa Vitale, convicted of the assassination of one of Malielegoai's Cabinet members in another failed attempt at killing him in 1999, will testify in the trial against the conspirators of this year's plot. (RNZ)
  • Crisis in Venezuela
    • The NGO Human Rights Watch publishes details of what it deems to be arbitrary executions and arrests in Venezuela. The Venezuelan government alleges that most of those listed in the report were armed criminals, but admits to have placed several hundred security agents under investigation for abuses of power and extrajudicial actions. (Human Rights Watch)
Politics and elections

RD: Graeme Gibson[edit]

Article: Graeme Gibson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian novelist, Margaret Atwood's partner. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Fernando Ricksen[edit]

Article: Fernando Ricksen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Professional footballer best known for his time in Scotland with Rangers  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not yet: The whole 24 years of his life before joining Rangers are not covered. It will be a challenge to find resources for something outside the English-speaking world in the 1990s, but this is a major absence. The honours are unsourced, some of them coming from this time in Holland in the 1990s as well. 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:195F:BAD6:53EC:BC46 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ye Xuanping[edit]

Article: Ye Xuanping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Powerful former governor of Guangdong province. Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think it's a fairly weak article as far as references goes. Needs many more to be in good shape ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I could easily add dozens of media sources that repeat the same information, but I'm not a fan of WP:REFBOMB and believe it's the quality, not quantity, that matters. In fact, I've removed a source that does not add information that's not already present in other sources, but added scholarly books that provide in-depth research of his career. -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support To me the referencing seems sufficient and covers all major aspects of the article. SpencerT•C 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As usual, AGF on the Chinese sources.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

17 September 2019 Afghanistan bombings[edit]

Article: 17 September 2019 Afghanistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Afghanistan, two suicide bombings kill 48 people and injure 80 people.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is a stub, but these were deadly attacks which should be notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for right now I would consider improving the article, add more details-- BoothSift 23:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality . I saw this early, couldn't find any article on it, but clearly an attack that had significant civilian causalities is not something we'd ignore even out of Afghanistan --Masem (t) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on both notability and quality now. The quality (particularly the length of the article) is much better than it was when I first !voted. While it would still benefit greatly from further expansion, it's at least worthy of a start class assessment. Striking my previous comments. on notability due to the high death toll, but the article could use some development for now.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Thin. (There were multiple RS stories about this on Tuesday.) Alas, not particularly notable for Vietnamistan. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support It looks like this is barely over the stub threshold, but only by the smallest of margins. It would be nice to see the article expanded some more though. --Jayron32 13:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has gone nowhere in the last 24 hours, and significance in the news has been superseded by yet another bombing attack in Afghanistan.130.233.2.183 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cokie Roberts[edit]

Article: Cokie Roberts (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News, AP, WX Post, CNN

Article updated

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

 pbp 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support pbp 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't need a support for your own nom.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That "criticism" section needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. The 'Criticism' section seems gratuitously overlong and detailed. It seems to have been assembled by persons who didn't like Roberts's style or opinions. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
100% agreed. It's laundry list of criticisms. There may be something in the paragraph about Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting stuff, but like the last para, about missing some abortion ads in early newspapers, that's human error and was corrected by NPR, so..yeah. I'm not seeing much there that can be kept in the current state. --Masem (t) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I cut the abortion thing and the one Slate.com keyboard warrior's random opinion. we have to figure out what to do with the Guatemala thing and the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting info. If it's legit, it should be relocated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP concerns over that section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Three sources, none of which get into dissing Roberts, added above. NYT says full obit to appear soon. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: Criticism section has been trimmed in the last couple hours pbp 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while there is an orange tag in the criticism section. No other issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks acceptable to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely not something we'd feature in its current state on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the "Criticism" section is dealt with. WP:CSECTION recommends that the problems with these sections can often be dealt with by placing the information into more appropriate places within the narrative of the article rather than collecting the criticisms into their own section, such that the organization of the article creates an undue weight to such matters. If someone did want this posted on the main page, they could see it done quickly if the information was placed chronologically into the main narrative rather than collected like a scarlet letter in its own section. --Jayron32 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (Well, that group of three didn't take long, did it?) The orange tag is gone, and once that one {{fact}} I put at the one uncited sentence is dealt with I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu:, @Ad Orientem: @Jayron32: I think your concerns have been allayed in the past few hours pbp 22:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, I still see two citation needed tags, and one questioning the reliability of a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I resolved one of the CN tags. I switched out the questioned reference for a different one. And it turned out that that source also resolved the other CN tag, so I added it in a second place. pbp 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support referencing problems have been fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Looks like all my concerns have been fixed. --Jayron32 12:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Good work all. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comet Borisov[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Support, significant science story, article in good shape. The previous interstellar object was not a comet. Brandmeistertalk 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Provided NYT source says the last interstellar comet was interstellar and probably a comet. It didn't change many lives at all. What's different now, especially to general audiences? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Bad argument. You do realise the "didn't change many lives at all" argument can literally be applied to the vast majority of ITN entries ever, yes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, "many" is subjective. But next to most anything that happens on Earth, a chunk of ice 170 million miles away that may or may not be faintly visible through a consumer-grade telescope is going to seem relatively dull, just for remoteness from life. Unless you've invested time in caring about astronomy, of course. I'm happy it excites people like you, just concerned most of our readers won't feel they've learned anything useful. Could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, September 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good, references look good, sources look good, and a neat discovery ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:33, 17 September 2019
  • Oppose/wait on two grounds: i) no peer-reviewed paper has been published and ii) we haven't learnt anything yet. 'Oumuamua was the first interstellar object; the second discovery of something is usually not an ITN story. Whether it shows a coma or not (comet vs asteroid) is not really that important. 'Confirmation' by the IAC does not make up for the lack of peer-review, which we usually require for science stories; in the case of 'Oumuamua we posted when the discovery paper came out in Nature. We could wait for one to come out on this object, or (my preference) not post at all unless & until something surprising is discovered. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose principally on the lack of a peer-reviewed paper (its been submitting but not yet affirmed). I will assume that the journal it was submitted to will try to rush the review so that it is published before December and that might be the better time to post, when the comet is in closest proximity to Earth. --Masem (t) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Much of the article is quite technical and won't be understood by most readers. General significance seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Eh on the technical side. I see a few places that unit conversions and linked are needed like on K2-18b to help establish large distances into more common language, but the article is describing the trajectory of a comet which is using all the proper terms that scientists would use, with blue links and some helpful "(asides in parans)" to assist the terms in context. What would be needed is establishing the revelance of why this would be ITN - eg , what is so important about an interstellar comet compared to one like Haley's ? (eg K2-18b explained the relative importance of finding water vapor on an exoplanet). --Masem (t) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on being overly-specialist rather than general news; equally, the article may need a layman translation. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks fine and a peer-reviewed paper is not necessary. The discovery has been verified by multiple observers; peer review unlikely to show up and say "hey, you didn't actually discover a comet". It's only going to change minor details. Banedon (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with nods to the above !vote. Article is well referenced, and although technical, it includes directions for amateurs to observe the comet. These might be of interest to Wiki readers, and would not normally be included in a general audience news source. Obviously encyclopedic subject. I think "fist interstellar comet (as opposed to 'object/asteroid')" makes it suitably notable without pigeonholing.130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Robertson[edit]

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

Article updated

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

 Neutralitytalk 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Posted. He won't be up for very long though, as his death was announced at least on 11 September. [2]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Better late than never, especially given delays here at ITN. Appreciate your posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections
  • Brexit
    • UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson abruptly pulls out of a press conference in Luxembourg to avoid an anti-Brexit protest organised and attended by British citizens living in Luxembourg. Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel attends the press conference, where, during a short speech followed by questions from journalists, he contradicts Johnson's prior public statements and exposes that the UK government has not submited any concrete proposals for amendments to the UK's Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union, or delivered any alternative to the "Irish backstop" which Johnson wishes to replace. Bettel warns that Johnson "holds the future of all UK citizens in his hands" and that he shouldn't "hold the future hostage for party political gain". (BBC)
    • At the Liberal Democrats conference, party leader Jo Swinson reaffirms that if elected any future Liberal Democrat led government, would halt Brexit by revoking Article 50, adding that in the case of a hung parliament she would not enter a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour. (BBC)

(Posted) RD: Sakahoko Nobushige[edit]

Article: Sakahoko Nobushige (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nikkan Sports

Article updated

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

 Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Lotus Tower[edit]

Closed per consensus for oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

September 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Purdue Pharma[edit]

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Ric Ocasek[edit]

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

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

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

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

2019 Ashes series[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support. Article looks good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Target article is thoroughly sourced & doesn't have any noticeable problems.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose summary of the last two Tests, probably the most important two since the fourth resulted in Aus retaining the urn and the fifth resulted in the series being drawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man but this event should not be ITNR anyway. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present due to lack of prose summaries of last two tests. It is worthy of ITNR as one of the earliest international sports competitions on earth. The title dates back to 1882 so it is older than the modern Olympics and a very important sports event in both countries. At the moment, I am tired due to late nights watching the Ashes but that is another story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready per above. Should definitely go up once those two match summaries are in place. The nominated blurb is clunky, doesn't specify the sport, unnecessarily includes the year, and runs into the singular/plural ENGVAR issue we always try to avoid. Adding an altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready, but worthy of a blurb once it is, per Modest Genius. I've proposed a third possible blurb, and I think we should avoid the grammar used in the ALT0 version, because there is an ENGVAR mismatch - in the UK we'd say "Australia retain the Ashes", while in Australia (and in the US too) they would say "Australia retains the Ashes". Better to word it in such a way that this is not an issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I preferred my way around, because the result is a draw, which leads to a retention of the trophy. The retention is secondary to the draw. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Australian here, we also say "Australia retain the Ashes" - don't know why you'd think we use American grammar. But agree it should be reworded to avoid confusing US English speakers. -dmmaus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs prose summaries of the last 2 matches, tests, whatever they are. And I agree with Amakuru that altblurb is bad. Use the Australian form (since they won) or use Altblurb2. Rockphed (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Article is incomplete, needs prose summaries of the last two tests. Consider this full support once that is fixed without pinging me. --Jayron32 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly not a notable sporting event in terms of outcome. I think we all could have predicted this turnout. (SARCASM) Indeed, it would be far more notable and newsworthy if the Krikkiters appeared out of nowhere to steal the Ashes to rebuild the Wikkit-- What? That only happened in fiction? Now you're telling me! In all seriousness, as per the above, will support once updated to include prose summaries.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think we all could have predicted this turnout." Really? I'm an avid fan, and I certainly couldn't have. And you clearly don't appreciate the significance of The Ashes, even outside the countries directly participating but within the cricketing world. I don't find comments like yours helpful. (Even though you are right about the missing content. But others had already said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, HiLo. I was making a joke, as I thought my reference to a Douglas Adams book would have indicated. Calm down.--WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per others -- BoothSift 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rudi Gutendorf[edit]

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

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

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

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

(Posted) 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

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

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The article has been updated.

  • Updating the Final article. This is the biggest World Cup of the year. You won't see a Spanish-speaking final in the other two... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Haha, there might not be any Spanish-speaking countries involved but you might want to look at the global viewing figures for the Cricket World Cup :) Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
*Yes, "biggest" was a foolish claim there. And looking at List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members I see Spain itself, plus several other Spanish speaking nations. Not likely contenders for the World Cup at this stage perhaps, but eligible. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: Nice try with both Cricket and Rugby in 2019. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg


Sca (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

(Posted) All-Ireland Senior Football Championship[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Oppose no prose, plenty of tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Just like last year. Let's wait. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Per the nom-- BoothSift 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready. One sentence per game does not constitute a prose summary. I've also added a second altblurb in our standard phrasing (we never include scores). Modest Genius talk 10:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Support altblurb2. Hugely improved, that's good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think this is ready as all the oppose !votes have been addressed. Marking as such. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article prose is insufficient, per all of the above. Consider this a full support once that is fixed. --Jayron32 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb II. Prose added. Pictures added. Tags gone. --Gaois (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tremendous improvements you've made to the article, Gaois. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I've amended the above box so that it now says Updated by Gaois.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom, now that quality has been improved (mostly by Gaois's hard work) to the point where, with much prose added and tags gone, it seems adequate to me (tho admittedly I'm not the best judge of quality and I'm probably rather biased here). I'm happy to leave the blurb or altblurbs question to others. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

References[edit]

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

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