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.


Whakaari/White Island in 2013
Whakaari/White Island

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 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

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)

Attack on Bagram Air Base[edit]

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)

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)

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019[edit]

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): [1]

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)

(Ready) 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)

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.
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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): [2],[3],[4], [5],[6]

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): [7]

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)

(Ready) 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)

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)

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)
  • Weak Oppose Not in horrible shape but a few too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 9 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: [8]. 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): [9] [10]

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)

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)

(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%). ([11]) ——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)

December 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Herbert Joos[edit]

Article: Herbert Joos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Stuttgarter Zeitung

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential jazz trumpeter and flugelhornist. When I met the article not even his death had a ref. Much more could be possible, - he has an article on his recordings on de. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, well done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Does the With Vienna Art Orchestra list need citations? Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    The ref is on top of the recording section, after the name of the orchestra. Feel free to copy it to every item if you feel that is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Some red links but that's not a quality issue, sourcing looks fine for this --Masem (t) 15:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Bump Elliott[edit]

Article: Bump Elliott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Long-time college sports coach and administrator. Article is classified as a GA. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for nominating. Need a short update on his death — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @TonyTheTiger: Perhaps you would have time to address Martin's concern and make any other updates required for this article? Kees08 (Talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for a couple of sentences of prose about his death. @Lepricavark: can you help? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @MSGJ: Yeah, I should have taken care of that, but I wasn't sure where it would fit within the article. It looks like Pawnkingthree has taken care of the update. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support @MSGJ: Not much to say but I have added something. Hopefully good to go now.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Saunders[edit]

Article: Ron Saunders (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Veteran football manager. Article is in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019 Maltese protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Maltese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Maltese Prime Minister Muscat set to resign in January amid continued and escalating protests in Malta.
Alternative blurb II: ​A series of protests rock Malta, following an investigation into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia
News source(s): CNN, BBC ABC news,

Article updated

Nominator's comments: News on the protests have been widespread across international and national agencies. Protests are ongoing, and of national and European importance. Zugraga talk 09:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment First of all the article needs to sort out the copyright issues. I was not aware about the protests in Malta before looking at the article. Abishe (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is now well sourced and would be great to make it into ITN as most of them might not be aware of this protest. Abishe (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing – More appropriate. Note that present-tense lead says "a series of ongoing protests." – Sca (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ongoing. For now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing no evidence of "continuous updates" as required by WP:ITN. November 7 update mentions "dozens of protestors". Dozens. Come on. Oppose Blurb for now it'll be fine when he actually resigns in January. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure if my comment is allowed - the "dozens" you are referring to refers to a small protest carried out by Maltese in London. Tomorrow, another demonstration in Malta has been announced, with a turnout expected in tens of thousands, as all other protests in Malta. Thanks! Zugraga talk 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So when that happens it will have been the second protest of any significance in a week -- still not "ongoing". I don't care that much if it's blurbed I just don't want a slow simmering story festering in the box for a year. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, willing to support individual blurb only. While the event is continuing, subsequent updates wouldn't be worthy of ITN-level postings, but a regular blurb about what's going on would be. Can consider an additional posting with a later resignation. SpencerT•C 19:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing and/or blurb OK The article topic seems reasonable updated for ongoing and has no major problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
On second thought I will support a blurb once the Prime Minister resigns, so ongoing for now I guess. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question don't we usually wait for the Prime Minister to actually resign before posting this kind of blurb? Banedon (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have posted to ongoing. Discussion about a blurb should continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb since the PM hasn't resigned yet. He can change his mind anyday. --DBigXray 17:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting messy. The nomination was for a blurb and posting to Ongoing does not, by my eye, have consensus. The above comments are correct in that the blurb can't be posted as-is, because plans to resign has not historically met the impact threshold at ITN. The updates to the article are a bare minimum for a current event, the organization of the article is not good but passable, and on reading through the article I lost track of what, exactly, the protests are supposedly about. I strongly suggest to pull from Ongoing and continue with this as a blurb nomination. I have suggested an alt-blurb that I think is more reasonable. If Ongoing is desired, someone should make an Ongoing nomination so we can vote clearly for/against that. (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Berkley Bedell[edit]

Article: Berkley Bedell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KUOO News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Member of Congress for ten years. Article appears to be in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, updated. -Zanhe (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ron Leibman[edit]

Article: Ron Leibman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Start Class article of an American actor. Sourcing, especially filmography needs volunteers to work upon. DBigXray 09:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose For now, until refs are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hyderabad gang rape[edit]

Article: 2019 Hyderabad gang rape (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape case are shot dead by the police.
Alternative blurb II: ​The four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape are shot dead while trying to escape by the police.
Alternative blurb III: ​The four suspects in the Hyderabad gang rape are shot dead while allegedly trying to escape by the police.
News source(s): CNN, BBCDawn ABC news, NDTV AFP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The news of rape and murder was itself widely reported. After the Police encounter it has become a leading news item across international newspapers (see links above from today). The article is well sourced. DBigXray 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Suppport I also thought of nominating this here. It is a developing story across the globe and has enough coverages from prolific news media. Despite the current Afd, I feel it would be worth enough to nominate here. Abishe (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting that I've closed the AfD as Keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thx Sam, we can now focus this discussion on the article quality.--DBigXray 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, story is getting wide and deep coverage. --Jayron32 13:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Since it has been added, support Alt blurb III (The one with allegedly) --Jayron32 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport AfD it is mentioned here has been closed as keep, the subject is newsworthy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport Noteable and definatly in the news at the moment. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I made an altblurb as to clarify why they were shot (knowing that, if this were the case in the US, the original blurb would question if the police willingly did it). All accounts I see state the police were acting in according when the suspects attempted to grab weapons and flee during scene recreation, making it a justified shooting. --Masem (t) 14:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Masem, The concern I have with the alt blurb is, we are assuming the claim by the police as a fact here. Only an independent investigation by NHRC that is ongoing, can bring out if it was indeed what the Cops (who are the killers here) were indeed being truthful or if it was a fake and staged Police encounter. AFAICS the sources are attributing the claim to the Police, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to not do it. --DBigXray 14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that - just that none of the RSes are posing that question. As I mentioned, if this was in the US, it would be implicit that there was a possible police setup to kill these outside the justice system. I don't know if India has that same problem, but the sources are not giving that impression - no one seems to be begging the question of the police story, yet. I have no problem with the alledgely in there as in the alt2, but the first was just a bit too terse that it could have been read that this was a criticized action on the police, where in fact its being treated as a resolution on the rape crime. --Masem (t) 14:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Alt blurb would need to be changed to allegedly, according to the police, trying to escape during a 3am reconstruction of the crime. :) --valereee (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Added Alt III which should address the concerns noted above. --Jayron32 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I must confess some doubt about the wider significance of this sordid episode, which seems to depend on its lurid and violent character for newsworthiness. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Slow down I keep thinking the same thing, and mentioned as much in an earlier incident. Rapes happen everywhere, and India is a big country. As an American right now, I'm thinking WHAT THE HELL is going on in India with all the rape/murder/burning incidents all of the sudden? Gang rapes of 8 year olds?! Then my brain clicks and thinks - is this not just a matter of media coverage? I honestly don't know which is true, but we should weigh that question carefully. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the thing you think after your brain clicks is true. Sometimes I wonder how you, as an American, are even alive right now, with the opioid, shooting and fascism epidemics tearing your world apart simultaneously. Then my brain clicks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, Sca, User:GreatCaesarsGhost. If it was just a rape, we probably wont even be having an article on wiki. yes rapes happen everywhere, but not all rapes are covered like this. The reason for the enormous coverage is the enormous public protest and outrage that came after the rape. You can see the Aftermath section to understand more. --DBigXray 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That's fair - the reaction is the story. My point (before it was intentionally perverted) is that a casual reader may not make that connection, but instead read a steady stream of rape stories about India as evidence that India is uniquely afflicted. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Opinion - The frequency illusion that tags India as rape central is a good article on this. Side discussion continued on User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost --DBigXray 21:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Apart from various aspects of culture, India does have one point of uniqueness directly related to potentially increasing gender issues -- its rapidly tilting gender ratio, currently 1.12/1.13 males to every female through the age of 24 (fifth highest in the world at birth) and climbing. In a country of 1 billion+ population, that adds up to a lot of unattached men. - Tenebris (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either original or ALT3; pace Masem, but I don't think anyone actually believes that the police's story is wholly unelongated, and certainly not to the extent of treating them as a WP:RS (as opposed to having the biggest WP:COI since Charles Canning won an Influencer of the Year Award, 1857). ——SN54129 15:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Unelongated – is that like unmeaningless? – Sca (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - blurb is good; I'm not concerned about the wording. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted No consensus (and seems most WP:NPOV at this point) to not get into what "allegedly" happened.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We're not featuring this grammatical curiosity on the main page: "The police has not confirmed a link between the second corpse and veterinarian's murder.". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, Are you saying a problematic sentence is reason to keep the blurb off the main page? Because if it's just an issue you've found in the article that needs to be fixed, it's generally better to just fix it yourself, or if you can't figure out how to fix it, you can discuss how to fix it at the article talk rather than bringing it up in the itn nom. --valereee (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with valereee, this is bickering. I don't see any problem in the sentence, but if someone thinks they can rewrite it in a better way, they are welcome to change it.--DBigXray 19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree all you want, I read articles before rushing to pile "support" on some "very important" bullshit if that's not good enough for y'all I don't know what to tell you. These ESL articles ALWAYS have questionable grammar and require constant attention while on the MP. Nevermind... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no clue what ESL articles mean. Nevertheless, you should know that "require constant attention while on the MP" is never a reasonable justification to oppose a proposal for Mainpage. That is another bickering. --DBigXray 19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Presumably English as a second or foreign language is what LaserLegs is referring to.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, not only have I read the article, I've edited it heavily in the past 8 hours. The sentence you objected to as being disqualifying for the article being linked from the main page was fixed by this: The police has have not confirmed a link between the second corpse and the veterinarian's murder. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Indian English can be appropriate under MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Grammar Slam Shot by police, not while trying to escape by them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting edit - While still not a great headline, I added 'case' to it so that it reads less like the perpetrators were caught in the act. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree, thanks Fuzheado--DBigXray 19:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment – Interestingly, none of the 15 European Wikis include this squalid affair in various versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    yes, and how many of those 15 European languages are spoken in India? Let me guess. None. --DBigXray 23:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Tabloid trash in any language. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape and it’s one of the most important news trending in India right now.—IM3847 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ji Zhe[edit]

Article: Ji Zhe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP, Xinhua

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Three-time CBA champion, died at age 33. Zanhe (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good. plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Robert Walker (actor, born 1940)[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 02:15, 11 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: Robert Walker (actor, born 1940) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

Article updated
Nominator's comments: American actor. The article has several issues, but I'm working on it. --SirEdimon (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but ping me once the references are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:01, 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.

(Posted) SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

Proposed image
Article: SMS Scharnhorst (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreck of the German armoured cruiser SMS Scharnhorst (pictured), sunk in December 1914, is discovered near the Falkland Islands.
Alternative blurb: ​The wreck of the cruiser SMS Scharnhorst (pictured), which sank during the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, is discovered
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Interesting news and it's a featured article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – The sinking of the Scharnhorst, with the squadron commander, Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee aboard, was a significant event in the early naval history of WWI. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
PS: This is not the noted battleship Scharnhorst of World War II. – Sca (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Article is of great quality. My support is only weak because of the small size of the portion of article that's on the wreck/discovery mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. A famous warship that seems more significant than other recent shipwreck nominations. The article needs more than two sentences on the wreck discovery before it should be posted, but is otherwise good (an FA). I suggest we get Battle of the Falkland Islands into the blurb. Modest Genius talk 18:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Altblurb added. Modest Genius talk 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A significant find. The ship was the flagship of the Imperial German Navy's Asiatic Squadron that was involved in arguably the most important chapter of naval warfare during the Great War, second only to the Battle of Jutland. In addition to the Battle of the Falkland Islands (see above) she was also involved in the Battle of Coronel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems like the article is ready for posting. and interesting news.BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support FA quality article, seems a no-brainer to me. --Jayron32 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, although it's wild to see at least two people supporting above who previously opposed a discovering of a different sunken warship, a ship that was arguably more significant that Scharnhorst and also has a FA article on Wikipedia. That's not to take anything away from this nomination, which I'm happy to see posted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy[edit]

Procedural close: The article is currently at AfD and a speedy close does not appear likely. I would also note that this has been going on for a while and might reasonably be considered stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 5 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: 2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy (talk, history)
Blurb: Sri Lanka and Switzerland engage in a diplomatic standoff after the abduction of Swiss embassy personnel in Colombo
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a major incident in Sri Lankan politics after the 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election and has been in the headlines since 25 November 2019. Abishe (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have slightly re-formatted your nomination to include the updated & bolded article and to re-phrase. At a minimum, the article needs some CE. Note that the sources in the nomination are from 27 and 28 Nov., while the motivation for the nomination is based on reports from today in lesser-known sources. More coverage may develop in the coming days. (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It's a fascinating story - one that I think could be featured on ITN - but the sourcing is questionable and the article is currently red tagged as a candidate for deletion. If there is consensus to keep the article, please ping me for reconsideration of my vote. mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Article certainly needs some work, but I'd disregard the AfD. The editor that did that is a disruptive user and proud of it (seriously, check out his user page). (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @IP159.53.78.147 you weren't kidding. I noted my opinion to keep the article on the AfD page. And Abishe, don't be sorry! I don't agree with the red tag but unfortunately, we cannot support a red tagged article for ITN. Hopefully it'll be taken off soon mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Self oppose I am extremely sorry for this nomination because it has now been Afded and it might not be factually right to get into ITN section. Possibly if the article is retained then can think about this. Abishe (talk) 14:46, 5 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 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • A boat carrying refugees capsized near Nouadhibou, off the coast of Mauritania, in one of the deadliest maritime disasters this year, leaving 58 people dead and many more who tried to swim to shore in need of treatment. The boat had departed The Gambia on 27 November 2019. It was heading towards the Canary Islands when it approached the Mauritanian coast to get fuel and food. The boat had been carrying between 150–180 people when it capsized, most of them aged between 20 and 30. (The Guardian)
  • A gas explosion in Szczyrk, Poland causes a three-story building to collapse and kills 8 people (

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Chen Xingbi[edit]

Article: Chen Xingbi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Xinhua

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted. Looks good, fully updated and sourced. SpencerT•C 19:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tetsu Nakamura[edit]

Article: Tetsu Nakamura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Japanese humanitarian in Afghanistan whose murder has been making headlines worldwide. Zanhe (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article is in shape. This man is a hero that our readers would be privileged to read about. starship.paint (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Would love to see more info about his humanitarian work as the article is slanted toward coverage of his death, but covers the key details and is ready for posting. SpencerT•C 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Looks ready mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Parker Solar Probe[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 21:52, 9 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: Parker Solar Probe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists publish four papers reporting their findings from the Parker Solar Probe's first two of three dives toward the Sun so far.
Alternative blurb: ​The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves.
Alternative blurb II: ​After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves.
Alternative blurb III: ​After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves strong enough to completely reverse the local magnetic field and increase solar wind speeds by 300,000 mph.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Guardian, Nature [12], National Geographic
Nominator's comments: May need more of an update than my layman's understanding of the Physics. This should be an ITNR, by my interpretation, as the mission is now accomplishing its goal, but our criteria for probes and other spacecraft at ITNR needs to be updated reflect the modern way these missions accomplish their goals. Reaching their destination is not the major accomplishment anymore. It is times like these when scientists report their findings that the mission reaches its true climax. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We did post when Parker "arrived" at the Sun last August in an operational state. We have 6+ more years of scientific study. Unless we have a groundbreaking result, this is not really news. (If we had not posted its arrival, this would have been a way to recognize that) --Masem (t) 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Masem, no we posted the launch. We have not posted the arrival. In a manner of speaking, it will arrive at its destination more than 2 dozen times (already reached the Sun's corona three times). So arrival is not a major accomplishment for this mission. Results are the major event for this mission. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Hrm. I thought that was arrival, but yeah. Obviously this is an important mission, but we can't post every time papers are released, (and with about 3 passes each year, that's potentially a lot). I would still want to see some fundamentally important affirmation/discovery from the data that is groundbreaker rather than just because the first data was published. But I'm not sure now yet. --Masem (t) 05:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    We need an expert. @Modest Genius: what do you think? The media is making a big deal out of this. Is this much ado about nothing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have a conflict of interest on this one, so should refrain from !voting. I do think this nomination needs to be judged on the scientific advance, not 'arriving at destination', as that doesn't really apply to PSP (even first perihelion would have been a stretch). Modest Genius talk 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ping Kees08 too. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose there're plenty of astronomy missions and it's not plausible to make their reporting of results ITNR. For example, just count how many probes were launched by the European Space Agency that we have articles on (and that's only one space agency). These missions all led to scientific papers as well, many of them quite important for their respective fields. There's nothing especially important about these Parker papers other than the fact that the media has chosen to cover them. Banedon (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Four reasons:
    1. Solid article.
    2. There are not plenty of astronomy missions like this one. These are the first published scientific data from the closest we've ever been to the sun. The headline of yesterday's editorial in Nature (journal) was Parker probe kicks off a golden age for solar exploration: Humanity is finally getting up close and personal with Earth’s nearest star.. The media is widely reporting it. NPR: An unprecedented mission to venture close to the sun has revealed a strange region of space filled with rapidly flipping magnetic fields and rogue plasma waves. National Geographic: Today, four studies in the journal Nature report the first data from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, an unprecedented mission that has been able to fly ever closer to the sun, three times so far, and taste its coronal breath. Already, these close encounters are solving some solar mysteries, and they’re revealing a treasure trove of unexpected findings. NYTimes: Scientists released the mission’s first batch of findings on Wednesday, revealing that the dynamics of our star are even weirder than once imagined. Space: The first science results are in from NASA's Parker Solar Probe (PSP), which has flown faster and closer to the sun than any other human-made object in history. Science News, Reuters, CNN, CNET, Guardian, Independent, Le Monde, India Today, The Australian and so on.
    3. We are an academic project and it would be good to have something in the box that isn't politics, sports, natural disasters, or recent celebrity deaths.
    4. Great picture. Levivich 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree with Banedon here. It's not reasonable to make spaceflight any more ITNR than it already is, as there's a flurry of high-profile events about to happen; ongoing results from Juno and Parker, the OSIRIS-REx asteroid landing, the launch of Chang'e 5, the return to Earth of Hayabusa2 (that one probably will be significant enough to highlight), the maiden flights of Dragon 2 and Boeing CST-100 Starliner (which will mark the return of crewed US spaceflights after the retirement of Shuttle), the start of construction on the Chinese large modular space station, the launches of four separate Mars missions (US, Russia/ESA, UAE and China), and activation of OneWeb and Starlink, all over the next 12 months. Our existing guidelines (both written and unwritten) when it comes to spaceflight were drawn up before the start of the latest space race and if anything need to be tightened, not loosened. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strictly because the blurb does not make clear the significance of the event. It might well be that, even clarified, the significance is not high enough. Publishing reports is de rigueur for these kinds of projects, even if the project yields nothing new. Contra above, I do not think that existing rules wrt spaceflight should be tightened, because I don't sense an over-abundance of spaceflight items getting into ITN. (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP above. The publishing of findings is a poor blurb in my opinion - the blurb should mention the findings and what's significant about them. If they found anything of interest, that would be the event I think ITN would want to cover, but it does not seem that's the case here (from my novice understanding of physics). mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    mike gigs, alt blurbs added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now because I find the blurb banal and uninteresting. Scientific papers are published daily on a variety of subjects. What makes them newsworthy is what those papers say. If we can get a blurb that outlines a particularly novel or groundbreaking bit of science this probe has provided for us I would reconsider, but this is a nothingburger. --Jayron32 14:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, alt blurbs added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb – "After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe observes a thousand "rogue" magnetic waves strong enough to completely reverse the local magnetic field and increase solar wind speeds by 300,000 mph." (Sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]).
    • Shorter: "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves and other solar surprises."
    • While this isn't the scientific breakthrough of the century, that shouldn't be the metric by which we judge inclusion. This is a lot more rare than "head of government elected" or "head of government resigns", which are two blurbs currently in the box. Levivich 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that's closer to what we need. I would drop the "and other solar surprises" as basically meaningless. --Jayron32 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        I would support just "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report 'rogue' magnetic waves." There are four papers published about four separate findings of the probe, and rogue waves is just one of them, which is what I intended to convey with something like, "among others", but it's really hard to condense four scientific papers into one short blurb. Perhaps just picking the rogue waves one is best. Levivich 17:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        Levivich, please go ahead add a couple of blurbs to the nomination template and add the facts you want to highlight to the article body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
         Done Updated the article and added some alt blurbs to the nom. Levivich 02:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Haven't we posted this (or something very similar) recently? – Ammarpad (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wider significance beyond a niche audience is not apparent. What impact do the 'findings' have on people in general? – Sca (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb II or altblurb - but altblurb III makes me feel like there might not be anything more in the article - so I probably wouldn't bother clicking rogue waves - and regards the previous comment by Sca - I think that's not important - some foreign leader resigns has very little direct impact, but doesn't mean it isn't potentially interesting EdwardLane (talk) 12:18, 7 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.

(Closed) P. Chidambaram[edit]

Closed. Consensus against posting. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:34, 6 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: P. Chidambaram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Finance Minister of India gets bail after 106 days in prison.
News source(s): IndiaToday, BBC
Credits: (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not particularly clear, but if I understand it (and the BBC story) correctly he hasn't been convicted of anything, this is just an issue of whether his bail is served in or out of prison while he awaits trial. We do occasionally post convictions in sufficiently newsworthy cases, but a release on bail is nowhere near that level. Also the article has an orange NPOV tag. Modest Genius talk 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Politicians get arrested daily. Nothing significant about this. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait/Oppose for now We generally only post convictions, not earlier steps in the judicial process. Would be willing to revisit this article when he's been convicted. --Jayron32 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 5 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) RD: Bob Willis[edit]

Article: Bob Willis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph; Sky News

 SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is 9 minutes a new record? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    And I thought 15 minutes was fast... Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Which quality concerns with the article do you have? --Jayron32 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    None at all? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Alphabet Inc. CEO changed[edit]

WP:SNOW closing. No chance of getting support at this point. --Jayron32 12:16, 4 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
Articles: Alphabet Inc. (talk, history) and Sundar Pichai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Google CEO Sundar Pichai becomes the CEO of parent company Alphabet Inc. after founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepped down.
News source(s): [17] [18]
Article updated
 2409:4062:2E93:B445:5C8C:925:3991:8A43 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even remotely close to significant enough for ITN. Routine business news standard. -- KTC (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per KTC DTM (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant impact. Anyway Sundar Pichai is the CEO of Google and becoming a CEO of Alphabet is just a little thing in his case. Abishe (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yawn. I can't think of any company where a change in the CEO would be ITN-level news. Modest Genius talk 12:14, 4 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.


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: