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.

Kyle Busch
Kyle Busch

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Suggestions[edit]

November 22[edit]


November 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: John Mann[edit]

Article: John Mann (musician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Globe and Mail

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Lead singer of the band Spirit of the West died November 20. The bio is reasonably well referenced. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Wataru Misaka[edit]

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

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese-American basketball player was the first non-white player in the Basketball Association of America, later known as the NBA. —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Fábio Barreto[edit]

Article: Fábio Barreto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Folha de S. Paulo, Globo.com

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian film director. His film O Quatrilho was nominated for a Academy Award for Best International Feature Film in 1996. He died after 10 years in coma. The article has several refs issues, but I'm working on it . I believe I fixed them all. --SirEdimon (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment IMDb is used a reference four times. The article appears well-referenced outside of that. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment
  • Fifteen children are confirmed (and three more suspected) dead from measles in Samoa as the illness epidemic continues within the country. (RNZ)

International Relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

November 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Terry O'Neill[edit]

Article: Terry O'Neill (photographer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, Sky News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Swinging 60s British photographer. May be some sourcing required. but not a very long article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Can't believe you've missed that cn tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the one that's now gone. Perhaps we can just ignore the cn tag then. Cheers though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Well quite possibly, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your jokey small text comment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Can't see any reason to oppose now. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick turnaround on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Brown[edit]

Article: John Campbell Brown (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RAS Uni. Glasgow

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The Astronomer Royal for Scotland. His death was announced in reliable sources on the 18th, but he actually died on the 16th. Unfortunately the RSes don't mention the exact date of death, but otherwise the article seems adequately sourced. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The death date is now sourced to a local newspaper. Struck above. Modest Genius talk 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Fresno mass shooting[edit]

Consensus to post this is not going to develop. I would also note that over time a rough consensus, at least among ITN regulars, seems to have developed against posting American mass shootings absent some factor that distinguishes them from the sadly routine shootings that occur here. I'm not trying to discourage future nominations, and every nomination should be judged on its own merits. But I would encourage editors to be aware of this trend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 18 November 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: Fresno party shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Fresno, California, at least four people are killed and six injured in a mass shooting.
News source(s): NYT, Sacremento Bee, BBC, L.A. Times, Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: More people died in this shooting than in the previous one nominated that took place in Santa Clarita. Suspect is also still at large - an unusual ending to most mass shootings in which the suspect either is captured or takes their own life. WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow-up nom comment - I might also add that this shooting is unusual in that it did not take place in a school or a public space, but at someone's private dwelling. Children were also present.--WaltCip (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the discussion of the Saugus shooting below. None of the differences are significant. Modest Genius talk 14:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. --Masem (t) 14:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time, I concur with Modest Genius. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article contains very little information; it is only marginally past stub level. Heck, there's almost more text in the headers than in the actual prose itself! I would consider supporting with a significant expansion of text. --Jayron32 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd be willing to expand it. What sort of details would you be looking for? Local/national reactions? A synopsis of what occurred? --WaltCip (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
A synopsis is better. Reactions are usually WP:TRIVIA-level stuff, added to beef up an otherwise thin article. The article should be, as efficiently as possible, a complete summary of what scholarship there is on an event. Do note that my opposition allows for the possibility the article could never be expanded, if for example, there's just not enough information in reliable sources to write a decent article. --Jayron32 17:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose despite this being the deadliest shooting at a garden party in Fresno in November in 2019. This is something like the 400th mass shooting in the United States this year, business as usual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, it was a watch party, one that happened to be in a garden.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, where I come from there's no such thing as a watch party. That just sounds like a load of creepy blokes comparing their pieces. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Nor where I come from. Sacremento Bee calls it simply a backyard party. – Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've heard the media use the term "watch party" term dozens of times, whether its for a major sports contest (i.e. the Super Bowl), important political events, or series finales of popular shows. A quick Google search shows 9,920,000 results for the term. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, in America. This is English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah and British English uses words and phrases American English doesn't either, and vice versa. Doesn't make them either dialect illegitimate. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I said nothing about British English. There are plenty of other variants, none of which use "watch party" in this context. When this becomes "American English Wikipedia", let me know. But we're dithering around the edges. This, like all such other "mass shooting in US" nominations is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
My point was just because you've "never heard of it", doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Google found almost 10 million results for the term, so clearly it's commonly used. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, but a word that's going to be misunderstood (not even just simply not understood - a "watch party" is surely more common to mean vigil or having a stake-out?) by a large number of readers doesn't belong on the main page. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
What's there to misunderstand? Like I said already, a watch party is when a large group of people gather at a specific location and time to watch a certain program on TV. Not exactly rocket science here. CNN called it a watch party by the way. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons Saugus was opposed just last week ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You've got to be kidding me. Two mass shootings in my state in less than a week. pbp 15:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The 3rd in a week even. There also was a domestic murder-suicide in San Diego with 5 dead. At least according to this article. Which in itself makes clear how, while of course tragic, this sort of thing is just business as usual. 80.138.66.157 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – The fact that this was the third mass shooting in California in less than a week puts this in a different category in terms of news value, aka significance, IMHO. Wiki shouldn't be anti-something solely on the basis of location, i.e. country. (WP:NPOV)Sca (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree; I wouldn't mind a proposed alt-blurb that highlights that this is the third high-profile mass shooting in California within a week.--WaltCip (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
PS: "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country."Sca (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Why not highlight that it's the Xth (~400th?) mass shooting this year or something similar? That, to me, is far more newsworthy than a coincidental three in one arbitrary geographical locale in a week. There's no link, so using Wikipedia voice to somehow even allude to a one is insulting in extremis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another mass shooting in California this week. Without a notable death count, this now falls into practically expected. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but expand. Article is pretty scant on specific details. The suspect is unidentified and still on the loose, the motive is unknown, it's not even clear whether or not the suspect even knew the victims or if it was just a random act of violence, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Saudi Aramco IPO[edit]

Article: Saudi Aramco (talk, history)
Blurb: Saudi Aramco sells 1.5% of its shares in an initial public offering, valuing the entire company at $1.71 trillion
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: $1.71 trillion makes it by far the largest public company in history (see comparison [2]Banedon (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on quality and significance, but feel we need at least a little context on the IPO itself. Every story I read on this is mentioning Khashoggi, most are saying this is bad timing, asking "what does this all mean?" etc. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Shame on me for taking blurb at face value. Why in the hell would be post a blurb for something that hasn't happened? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it will only be after the IPO that we will have a good idea of the value of the company; the IPO closes Dec 5. Additionally, we usually don't post this type of business news unless proven to be some significant/superlative facet. (To add, the IPO had been planned for a while, the drone strike earlier this year slowed plans but obviously they are back now. This is not a big surprise outside of the speed.) --Masem (t) 15:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a big number, but as Masem notes, meaningless until after the IPO. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. Apparently that's only the announced price for the first 1.5% of the company, so this is a massive extrapolation and no-one has actually bought it yet. If it finishes as the largest IPO ever, I think that would be worth posting, but let's wait to see what happens. Modest Genius talk 15:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the first IPO for what is essentially the world's largest corporation. On top of that, it stands a fairly good chance of breaking the IPO record.NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The IPO has been withdrawn from the London and New York markets, which were the only one's that mattered. It will debut sometime (Dec-Jan?) on the tiny and illiquid Saudi-run Tadawul exchange. That is, the stock will not be freely tradable and will not represent controlling interest, as most readers would assume for an IPO. This has been a cat-and-mouse game going back to 2006 or so. This simply has to wait, at least, for the stock to actually be listed and for bonafide transactions to take place (so as to establish some semblance of "public" valuation).130.233.3.140 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Big number, little meaning. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Sri Lankan presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa wins the 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election to become the 8th president of Sri Lanka.
Alternative blurb: Gotabaya Rajapaksa wins the Sri Lanka presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa (pictured) is elected president of Sri Lanka.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Results are expected on Sunday, otherwise Monday. No doubt, prose is lacking hence would like to start discussion on what else could be done to make it to ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Since the votes are still being counted, I'm holding off on officially adding a blurb. But since sources from Reuters and BBC are projecting Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the winner, my proposal is: Former Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is elected president of Sri Lanka.
    • With that being said, I unfortunately will have to give this a weak oppose for now. While this election is unusually important for such an overlooked country (due to, among other things, the controversial reputation of Rajapaksa, the election happening months after a devastating terrorist attack, the strength of Indian and Chinese influence in the region depending on who wins, etc.), the article itself is poorly organized. The "Timeline" section needs to be converted to prose (probably reorganized into "Background"), and there is an "Empty section" tag in the "Polls" section, for starters. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The election results are still pending but Gotabaya Rajapaksa claims that he has emerged victorious. Officially the Election Commissioner hasn't revealed a reliable statement about this. Gotabaya is leading the election results by a big margin at the moment compared to his rival Sajith Premadasa. I would support if the winner is officially confirmed. Abishe (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The details are updated and I hope this would qualify for ITN. If Bolivian protests can be nominated for the ITN why can't the Sri Lankan elections be considered. Looks like no one is interested regarding this at least few could have said to oppose this. No response and no regular activity here today and it is quite ironical to say this. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is worse than the article for #Spanish general election which we also did not post. No summary of results and an ugly timeline that should be presented in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where are the results? And there seems to be a little lack of refs. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The results are updated now and this is seriously important to nominate for ITN. First of all Gotabaya had several charges levelled on him and defied all the odds to become the President. Notably escaped from a suicide bombing in 2006. He is charged with war crimes which were committed durinf the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and had issues regarding the American citizenship prior to contesting at the elections. So these factors I guess would make sense to be nominated. Tamil Guardian CNN Al Jazeera] Abishe (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • You still to address the formatting for the "Timeline" section, and many of the sources on the page are just bare URLs. If both of these can be fixed, I will switch to support. Mount Patagonia (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The results have not been summarized in prose. Please summarized the highlights from the table of results in words and cite sources to verify the interpretation. Something like "Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party earned 52.25% of the votes...[3]" and so on to describe the major points detailed in the table. Don't force readers to interpret the results for themselves. The aftermath section is not a summary of results; it is a summary of the aftermath. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Tweaked blurb.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series (talk, history)
Blurb: Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championship.
Alternative blurb: ​In stock car racing, Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championship.
Alternative blurb II: ​In stock car racing, the NASCAR Cup Series concludes, with Kyle Busch (pictured) winning the driver's championship
News source(s): MRN, USA Today, The New York Times

Article updated

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

 Dough4872 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Some CN tags. A very thorough ITNR article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There are only three cn tags on unimportant facts, which I think is acceptable in such a mammoth article. I'm pleased to see there are prose summaries of every race. We don't put sponsor names in ITN blurbs, adding alt2. Looks good to go. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    I won't debate the importance of those facts, but they are "likely to be challenged," so they need to be sourced. No problem though, because "any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not disputing that they need a source; the tags are justified. I just don't think they're a serious enough problem to prevent posting in ITN. If you prefer to delete those statement entirely, that's fine with me. Modest Genius talk 14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Understood, just my own preference is that I would not support as is, and I won't strike the statement unless I personally put in a good faith effort to reference. I've done so for one of the three. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    All the cn tags have been dealt with (not by me). Modest Genius talk 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt II like all good Boat Race articles, this is GOOD TO GO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Still good to go, four hours later! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Image isn't protected. I've just sent it to CMP and I'll post as soon as the bot does its job. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Bolivian political crisis[edit]

Closing as unnecessary. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 18 November 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 Bolivian political crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
 Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb is still on news and no immediate sign it is about to fall off. Better to consider the situation when the blurb does fall off. --Masem (t) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I nom'd because the blurb is a week old... but so is the box... Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 17 November 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.

[Ready] 2019 Iranian fuel protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Iranian fuel protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least twelve people have been killed after protests across Iran when the government unexpectedly announced it was rationing petrol and hiking prices.
Alternative blurb: ​Multiple protests break out in Iran after the government announces fuel rationing and price hikes, leaving at least twelve people dead.
Alternative blurb II: ​Tens of people die in the 2019 Iranian fuel protests following the government's unexpected announcement of fuel rationing and price hikes.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Dominating worldwide headlines. Article is well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Your blurb is plagiarized. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The content of the article is fine and suitable for ITN. I have addressed some minor CE things. I cannot check references, however, because 13/20 of them are in Farsi or Arabic. I know for certain that some of the details that these references support can be found in English language media. Without those, I cannot know for certain the precise words that protestors have been chanting, for example.130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support according to the BBC, we're now up to at least twelve killed and the article is of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportAmnesty International, clearly the more reliable source in this matter, is reporting at least 106 deaths during this event. The article quality is sufficient. It drifted a bit since TRM commented, which is why I withheld my support, but has since been remedied. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like a decent article.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is this not being posted? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurbs (even with "at least" included) are an under-representation of a nation-wide protest with several cities descending into anarchy for a time. I propose either removing the "12 people" part or adding the Amnesty International statistics to avoid propagating a possible big lie further. I added a blurb resembling the one used in Persian Wikipedia. Bazdasht (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Mark Cady[edit]

Article: Mark Cady (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American jurist, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa (2011–19) who wrote the opinion which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa, dies at age 66. Article could use some expansion. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment 33 year career as a judge, with 21 of those years as the highest judge in the state, and the only mention of his judicial acts in his BLP is for gay marriage (twice) and abortion. As for his personal life, I now know that Cady had a dog and participated in some civic organizations. I guess there's nothing wrong with the article, just that it doesn't inform the reader of anything.130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per IP, it's a stub. Needs expanding.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose stub, what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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

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