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.

Hosni Mubarak in 2009
Hosni Mubarak

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. 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


February 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

February 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Nexhmije Hoxha[edit]

Article: Nexhmije Hoxha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

 Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 CD3[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 CD3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover 2020 CD3, a mini-moon that has been in Earth's orbit (orbit pictured) since about 2017 and expected to escape orbit by April 2020.
News source(s): New Scientist, CNN,

Nominator's comments: Might be seen more as a curiousity but it is an unusual astronomical discovery. Article is short but in decent shape. Masem (t) 06:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - support the idea of posting this, but article is currently rated stub-class. - Indefensible (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose More trivia than newsworthiness. --qedk (t c) 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is new, so why not expand it a bit and submit it for WP:DYK? Regards SoWhy 08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "mini-moon" is misleading, this is a temporary satellite a few metres across. This is essentially astronomic trivia. It will have no lasting significance beyond a line in the list of these rocks. --LukeSurl t c 09:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Send to DYK, a perfect story for there. --Tone 09:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • A man was revealed to have been arrested the previous day for attempting to blow up a car in The Pentagon parking lot. (NBC)
  • Aimee Anne Duffy, a Welsh singer who goes by Duffy, reveals she was raped, drugged and held hostage over some days resulting in her disappearance from the limelight in recent years. (The Guardian)

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Kazuhisa Hashimoto[edit]

Article: Kazuhisa Hashimoto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WaPost, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Video game developer, best known for giving us the Konami code. I did just create the article today, but it was possible to have created this article before based on existing sources. Masem (t) 22:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Good short article. Could use a little more prose about the death, but it's not a dealbreaker.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I've been trying. doesn't have much help here and the language barrier makes it hard to search Japanese sources directly. --Masem (t) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • (Also dealing with alot of sites in talking of his death pointing back Wikipedia sooo... that's helpful :P --Masem (t) 23:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - No glaring issues, could use more detail / referencing, but meets the minimum requirements of WP:ITN/DC I think. The Konami Code that the subject was responsible for seems fairly extensive, so influence and significance appears justifiable. Archived some of the article's refs. - Indefensible (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Javier Arias Stella[edit]

Article: Javier Arias Stella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): El Comercio (in Spanish)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Peruvian academic pathologist and foreign minister. I've expanded the lead, and refs look OK for a start class article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • A lot of the content is referenced to ref #1. But that reference link currently leads to a 404 page. It'd be good to fix that and it would be better also to link to the actual original source instead of rerouting users to Google translation. Not everybody needs Google translation, but those who do, would know how to find it when needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ammarpad: good point, thanks. I've linked instead to an archived version of the original source.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go now. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Dmitry Yazov[edit]

Article: Dmitry Yazov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: The last marshal of the soviet union and a convicted war criminal -- (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - death is not currently noted in the article except by lifespan. Article is currently rated as stub-class, although it looks decent and the subject seems significant. - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Could also have better referencing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article is a stub, and in particular, the person in question had many high posts such as being 5-star general and a defence minister and it is not really explained even at a basic level how this came about and how specifically he was removed from being defence minister. There is unsourced stuff about his legal problems and because the article is short, this material is a bit disjointed and the context is not clear, which is a problem Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for lack of refs, and like noted above, the text about his activities during the early 1990s is confusing and feels incomplete. (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much work to do right now, as evidenced by the myriad tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ping me when fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article seems to have been improved, with better referencing. Only one cn tag remaining, which may or may not be a blocker. Death is now noted. Most of the refs are in Russian though, so not able to verify how good / applicable they are. Article is still rated as stub-class as well. BabbaQ, you might want to take another look now. - Indefensible (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) North East Delhi riots[edit]

Article: North East Delhi riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​21 people were killed and more than a hundred and eighty nine are injured as riots break out in North East Delhi amidst the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
Alternative blurb: ​Twenty one people are killed and more than a hundred and eighty nine injured in riots in North East Delhi as part of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
Alternative blurb II: ​Twenty one people are killed with more than 189 injured in riots in North East Delhi as part of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.
News source(s): NDTV 21 deadBBC, NDTV

 --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I've added a slightly different altblurb to tighten up the language a bit and avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. The article is short, but well written and well referenced, and the subject is being covered by major news sources. Checks every box for me. --Jayron32 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose when you take out the background filler sections, it's very light on details. Where in Delhi? Was it one large protest or scattered confrontations throughout the city? Total number of participants? Some kind of chronology of events? Way too thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed --⋙–DBigXray 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I have updated the blurb --⋙–DBigXray 14:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm moving note of this article Delhi communal violence 2020 from a comment left in the wrong place by User:Rashid Jorvee. Have not yet checked if same thing. --Masem (t) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, they are the same news item but different articles. Should be merged (history merged ideally). --Masem (t) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I have redirected it as a newly created duplicate to the existing article. The content hardly merits a hist merge. --⋙–DBigXray 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Working --qedk (t c) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose original blurb because there have a grammatical errors and problems whether it is eleven or 11 in numerical form, because it, I Support the Altblurb with more clear sentences and significance. (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the alt.blurb, seems constructive to me. Dey subrata (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support the alternative blurb in favour of my own.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. I have poked around on the article and it looks decent. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Mostly  Done. Marking as ready, support from me, added altblurb2 since we don't write 189 in full words per MOS:NUMBERS (also takes up much space) and both blurbs fail MOSNUMBERS at this point. --qedk (t c) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but do fix on a blurb which meets our MOS guidelines, all numbers or all words for those comparative figures. Maybe rephrase so it can be all numbers while not starting with a number.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: MOSNUMBERS specifically allows for numbers to be spelled as words if they are two words or less. --qedk (t c) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I know what MOSNUM says, it also says we use the same format for comparable entities in a sentence. So all numbers or all words. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    You're aware, TRM, that the problem had already been fixed for over half an hour when you made the above comment, right? --Jayron32 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I was simply noting that I had already pointed out the problem before the blurb was posted as I am fully commensurate with MOSNUM. Thanks for your input Jayron. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but I think it's important to mention that this coincided with the state visit of Donald Trump. There was barely anything going on on the 23rd, and there was a sudden outbreak of rioting and violence on the 24th. I think Donald Trump's visit is highly relevant to this. I have made edits to the blurbs accordingly. Karan (Karandotg) (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion but remove mention of Trump from the blurb. The article only mentions his name once, down in one the body and I don't think this is particularly relevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I have removed the Trump part from the suggested blurbs, and I sugest they be proposed as an alternative version if someone prefers that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru: I wondered about that too. Article says "violence appeared orchestrated due to the US President Donald Trump's visit to India". Awaiting further comments on this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: well that's a quote, attributed to the government, rather than a stated fact. I just find it odd that our blurb would mention something that doesn't even appear in the article's lead section. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I have removed it for now. If people feel strongly that it should be included, they can make their case — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, and indeed we'll see - maybe others will think it's relevant. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) plus Posted with a few tweaks to altblurb2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the alt.blurb. But, it should be corrected. The death is now 24.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Hosni Mubarak[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak (pictured) dies at the age of 91.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Surely notable. Article looks fairly well sourced as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, maybe even blurb as nominator. Article seems well sourced for the most part. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb on significance - 30 years as a powerful head of state of an important regional power. --LukeSurl t c 11:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment it's not terrible, it could in theory fall under WP:ARBPIA, needs to be closely scrutinized for BLP issues and may attract POV warriors. Still working through it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article has some {{cn}}s and an unreferenced section that need to be fixed, which looks easy enough. Once that's done, I will support a blurb - a major figure in the Middle East who ruled Egypt for three decades. Meets the Thatcher/Mandela standard IMO. We need a proposed blurb to discuss. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support blurb infinitely more newsworthy than Weinstein, and my referencing concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once referencing issues have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. We've established the bar on this recently, with the Daniel arap Moi and Kirk Douglas noms. For those who die of natural causes, only those of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela get blurbs. Mubarak was leader of Egypt for a long time, sure, and in some ways transformative, but no more so than Moi, and he is not on that world-renowned level required.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Mubarak was indeed of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thatcher and Mandela were elected to briefly govern mostly-independent Commonwealth realms. This guy ruled Egypt on something more resembling an Elizabethan level. But unlike her or Anwar Sadat, his death doesn't change the contemporary setup (we rightly blurbed his political demise already). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This is a clear-cut case as he spent 30 years in office as president of the most populous Arab country which now has almost 100 million people. His death is expectedly top-tier news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wording comment: Blurb text has him as prime minister. He was, but his period as president was longer and more notable. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Hook amended. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, oppose blurb article is of sufficient condition for main page posting. The article has nothing interesting to say about his death other than it happened, as such, there is nothing to say in the blurb to justify it. RD is sufficient for deaths where there is nothing to say other than that it happened. --Jayron32 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once improved Obviously can't post either RD/blurb right now, too many CNs, but once cleared up, posting the death of a former long-term leader of a major country as a blurb is a no-brainer. --Masem (t) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once referencing is fixed. On the contrary to Amakuru's opinion, being forced out of office after 30+ years by some 2 million+ strong in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in an event given a moniker named after its start date ("January 25 Revolution"), is automatically sufficient for a blurb. As to the commonly used Thatcher and Mandela-trope, applying a strict criterion such as "created the political weather" (as Thatcher / Reagan / Mulroney did), which George H.W. Bush did not by any measure, even if his career began as a diplomat in the 1970s (?) and he was part of a political dynasty. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Jayron, there is nothing to be said other than "dies aged 91", blurbs should be reserved for events where the death itself is the story, per our guidelines. (This is not one of the "rare cases" exceptions in my view.) The article is not yet ready for RD as there are a number of cite tags.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A leader of Egypt for three decades (Egypt is basically half of the Arab world), relevant in the recent Arab Spring events, numerous reporting in the media.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending quality, updates, etc. Mubarak meets the Thatcher-Mandela standard. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – per previous two. An important historical figure (unlike Harvey Weinstein)Sca (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - 30 years' president of a country of just under 100 million. Seems pretty major to me. Juxlos (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support either as RD or with blurb. Notable subject, article looks decent--currently rated B-class. - Indefensible (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb because there have a grammatical errors and linguistic problems But i Support posted to RD instead because the article quality and significance for Egyptian politic history. He is also very notable for Middle Eastern politics as whole. (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when the few sourcing problems are fixed. Mubarak was a transformative world leader, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb once the cn's are addressed, important Middle Eastern politician Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I added the image to CMP so it can be posted when the cn's are addressed. First time doing it so yell at me if I did it wrong or if it was inappropriate to do this early. Kees08 (Talk) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • support blurb - definitely blurb worthy. post when few issues are fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Political and military posts" section is very difficult to source and doesn't add much. Suggest nuking it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. 7 CN tags are keeping this off the main page. If every support above fixed one, this would be up by now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I added 5 more citations; need 2 more. SpencerT•C 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - seems obvious, deeply involved in Arab Spring. Banedon (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Per above. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support photo People remember his face and roles, but he was retired, and retired people dying is unremarkable beyond what the Deaths in 2020 link already covers. The fact that he ruled for three billion man-years until the Arab Spring was notable, so we blurbed it back when. This isn't that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support as one of the most important leaders in the Arab world for decades. He should definitely be listed under recent deaths and it's bizarre he hasn't been already. Blurb and photo? Maybe not as much but he's easily comparable to Qaddafi or Al-Assad in terms of stature & length of rule.Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, neutral on blurb. Article is getting pretty close, and editors appear to be fixing the remaining issues fairly quickly, but it's not ready for the front page just yet, for either RD or blurb, as there's still a few outstanding tags, and there's a few sentences here and there at the ends of paragraphs that are unreferenced. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • RD only Did not died at height of career, death was expected (hospital bound for weeks prior), death has little effect on current events, not a transformational figure. Arguments here rely on that last notion, but "lifetime strongman in Africa/Middle East" is not exactly an unheard of accomplishment. Sadat was transformative, Morsi might have been, but Mubarak and Sisi are just continuing a long line of tradition for that part of the world. (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – I took care of the last few CNs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb. I see a consensus for a blurb, though not universal. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I see consensus for acknowledging his long reign and widely-reported overthrow were historic, but nobody seems to think the fact in the blurb (died at 91) matters on its own merits. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Readers can read the article(which is what we want) to learn that he was a long time overthrown leader, it doesn't need to be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want dead retired politicians to pick up steam, you have to entice new readers with something memorable, a hook. Plenty were suggested, none made it. Odd, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I still Support photo, regardless of the newer Delhi riots. He's more visually appealing than they are. And no, that's not a fascist bias, it's just the thing about a welcoming smile. Even coming from "beyond the grave", it's inherently warmer and more comforting than the mass personification of rage and despair. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - InedibleHulk has suggested at WP:ERRORS that we could note the length of Mubarak's presidency in the blurb, as a way of asserting the significance of his death, for example:
    • Hosni Mubarak (pictured), Egyptian president from 1981 to 2011, dies at the age of 91.
    I know this wouldn't be the usual formulation (as per the death of George HW Bush) but something to consider, and I am neutral on whether this is better or worse than what is currently there.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
If "former president" isn't enough of a hook, I don't see how adding the years of his term helps. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with 331dot. If some readers can't immediately recognise someone's significance, the bolded link directs to the article for more information. We don't need to post blurbs indicating significance when we have this page to evaluate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
"Former president" isn't a hook at all, potentially describing several unblurbworthy people just as well. Eight supporters found the long term the main point of interest, and none were excited about his age. If newsworthy aspects of a news story don't matter so much as giving readers a name to click, this could have just as easily been as uninteresting and clickable in RD. But whatever. Boring and scant lines aren't as bad as incorrect ones, at least. This occured "in Cairo," if anybody finds settings brief and cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bob Iger[edit]

(non-admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:50, 26 February 2020 (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: Bob Iger (talk, history)
Blurb: Bob Iger (pictured) steps down as CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and is succeeded by Bob Chapek, former chairman of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products.
Alternative blurb: Bob Iger (pictured) steps down as CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and is succeeded by Bob Chapek.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator's comments: Given that Disney is one of the most well-known and profitable media conglomerates in the world, I believe that this news is significant enough for inclusion on the front page. (Also hey, my first ITN nomination. Hi, mom!) AlexKitfox (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post run-of-the-mill business news, even when the business is one of the largest in the world. If there was some significant reason for his step down (eg was arrested on criminal charges) then maybe but this is a standard transition. --Masem (t) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't view this as run-of-the-mill business news in the slightest, or I wouldn't even have nominated this article. Iger presided over Disney as it made major acquisitions (including 21st Century Fox, PIXAR, and Marvel Entertainment for instance), produced some of the most profitable films of all time, and saw a record-breaking increase in wealth. Saying this news is "run-of-the-mill" requires some stretching of logic. AlexKitfox (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
      If the story was about him leading Disney, those feats would matter a lot. But it's about him leaving the top office now, for (seemingly) far less interesting or exceptional reasons. Has the new, unpictured Big Bob done anything to suggest the corporate future on his watch will be substantially different? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thank the nominator for his good-faith nomination and encourage him to do more ITN nominations in the future, but this is still ultimately business news that is inappropriate for ITN. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith nom but this doesn't rise to the level that we typically deal with on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is included in WP:Current events but not sure it rises to the level of significance to be included in ITN. For example, contemporaneous to Iger's resignation as Disney CEO in Current events is Thomson Reuters appointing a new CEO, but that is not similarly nominated or posted. Even if Iger's resignation is unexpected, there may be no greater meaning or noteworthy consideration beyond that. However, if some significant reason does come up, then it may be worth posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability: standard business news.  Nixinova  T  C   05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret, because I'd really like more business news on ITN. However, apart from the timing of leave, there's nothing "noteworthy" about this. All CEOs of medium-or-larger corporations preside over various initiatives, acquisitions, etc. Chairmanship can end in death (would qualify for an RD blurb), ousting (could qualify depending on circumstance) or leaving (which is mundane and not notable). There is of course something going on at DIS which is not being told, but without RS coverage we've nothing to found our "noteworthy" arguments upon. (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose person replaces person in business is not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with thanks for the nomination. I think there would need to be some controversy behind the change or the individual was forced out. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2020 (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.

February 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Clive Cussler[edit]

Article: Clive Cussler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: Author or co-author of around 80 novels, which have sold more than 100 million copies. He also founded the National Underwater and Marine AgencyJuneGloom07 Talk 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Serra Cary[edit]

Article: Diana Serra Cary (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]

Her death is notable as she was the last surviving star of the silent era (a few other child actors are still around, but she was the only real star). It seems quite well-sourced, every section has at least one source. --Clibenfoart (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support One CN tag noted but otherwise the article appears to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, and note that she was indeed a star. That she was a little kid and ridiculously easy to rob shouldn't take away from the fact that she drew over a million bucks, at a time when a million bucks could buy a large swath of Africa (a continent much larger than most flat maps suggest, even today). If the "quotes" weren't meant to mock the magnitude of this "silly widdle baby", sorry for "getting all defensive" about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi InedibleHulk, I wanted to emphasize that she was the last star, because other silent film actors are still around, but they were never stars in the true sense of the word. So there was no harm intended. Greetings, --Clibenfoart (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. I'd have found italics or *stars* a bit clearer, but was only mildly harmed. Barely even knew of her, personally. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I fixed the CN (Amazon Prime to the rescue! was able to confirm from her autobio). Also confirmed that the list of films is based on MOMA's list and so its singular source there is fine. --Masem (t) 06:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I just glanced at it but it looks like there is a citation to reddit? Might be worth taking a quick look at source reliability. Kees08 (Talk) 07:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per Kees08 point above. Good spot. The sources also include the now defunct fansite  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've tagged the article. There's also a source called which in any case is a dead link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have been able to replace the reddit and that second link with appropriate sources (huffpost and guardian). Additional NYTimes has its obit up and I started seeding that in there. There's more that could be added, but in terms of sourcing and fundamentals, it shoudl be there now. --Masem (t) 15:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thanks to Masem for sorting out those last few dubious refs.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olof Thunberg[edit]

Article: Olof Thunberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]

 BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose stubby Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. I did not see that it has been rated a stub. When it is clearly a Start.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The main body about his career is only 214 words. The rest is about his famous descendants and a long list of participations in events Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Not a stub and adequately referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Harvey Weinstein convicted[edit]

discussion is turning into unnecessary bickering. Consensus is to post. Errors in the article content can be discussed on article talk page. Errors in factual content of the blurb can be reported to WP:ERRORS. --Jayron32 16:50, 25 February 2020 (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: Harvey Weinstein (talk, history) and Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American former film producer Harvey Weinstein is convicted on two charges of rape.
Alternative blurb: Harvey Weinstein is convicted on one charge of rape and one charge of felony sex crime while acquitted of two charges of predatory sexual assault.
Alternative blurb II: Harvey Weinstein is convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act.
Alternative blurb III: Harvey Weinstein is convicted of two felony sex crimes.
Alternative blurb IV: Harvey Weinstein is convicted on two charges of felony sex crimes while acquitted of two charges of predatory sexual assault.
News source(s): NYT, NBC News

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Highly publicized trial (especially for its significance to the Me Too movement), with a verdict carrying a sentence of up to 25 years. Davey2116 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality issues I forgot that we post on conviction not sentence, as I was going to post this when I saw it and added the news to the article. Note that I added an altblurb focusing on the charges he was cleared of which were the ones that would have carried the heavier sentences and that more people wanted to see. I note that when I added this to the trial article, there was almost nothing about the last two weeks about the trial at all which was in the news (at least, noting when the jury was given the case to deliberate). --Masem (t) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He still has another trial waiting for him in Hollywood, so I can't say this is ready to post yet since it's not over. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose seedy character convicted for seedy crimes. Happens every day everywhere. This one happens to be an American prominent in Hollywood. Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of what happens at future trials, this verdict will send him to jail. Key moment in the Me Too movement and fall of a key figure in modern culture is of global interest. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:20BB:11B4:8EE1:9D30 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – This case is a very influential. See Weinstein effect. This conviction is the climax of a long controversy worth posting on ITN. Oppose the current blurbs. He was only convicted on two charges. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Celebrity crime/gossip we are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - We are stupid not to post this. This is definitively in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Walt, this is "in the news" in our shitty clickbait world. This isn't ENCYCLOPEDIC as far as I can tell. Little wonder if this kind of shite is getting traction for the main page that we're now considering ditching ITN altogether. Gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)`
  • Support pending article quality This is not, as Ad Orientem suggests, merely "celebrity crime/gossip". This case is a touchstone to the Me Too movement. Something like the Oscar Pistorius case is celebrity crime/gossip alone. This is much more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --- this is as much ITN as anything else that's posted on ITN. TRM's comment that he's American is irrelevant. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, if he was Sri Lankan or Filipino or Greek you'd be supporting. Of course. But your argument, it's ITN because it's ITN because everything else like it has been ITN and therefore this should be ITN is spot on. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Ad Orientem. No doubt this is on all the front pages around the world, and I'll be honest - that used to be my criterion for posting here per WP:ITN#Purpose. But I have been told many times by ITN regulars, and consensus usually follows this, that despite our "purpose" of getting the day's news stories up on the main page, we are at the same time not a news ticker, and that means we don't post celebrity stories etc. just because the media do, but we only choose stories of genuine encyclopedic value. So if we're picking and choosing our stories based on encyclopedic value rather than newsworthiness, and hence rejected stories such as Brett Kavanaugh being appointed to the supreme court, then we should also reject this one which, despite the rhetoric, is ultimately just the trial result of an individual Hollywood celebrity and not even a massively unexpected result.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    As pointed out above, this is not just a big-name celebrity news story (that would be something more akin to Kevin Spacey's current trial). Weinstein's accusations kicked off the entire #MeToo movement which washed through Hollywood and numerous other industries and not just in the US and yet remains probably the highest profile case. That seems to be the reason to post, its relevance to #MeToo, not because Weinstein was a Hollywood big shot. --Masem (t) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose because of referencing in the filmography. Weinstein isn't your usual sex offender, this kicked off "me too" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    We do not have to bold link the bio. The cases have their own article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as worded the blurb is about a single case. If this is about the Me Too movement, it needs to say so (although the "timeline" section in the Me Too movement article conspicuously starts from 2006). Banedon (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support once quality is taken care of As said above, this did kick off MeToo. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly notable watershed moment of accountability for an extremely powerful man. Agree that this case started the MeToo movement. Attempts to redefine the purpose of ITN in this discussion are irrelevant, in my view, and should be discounted. The article(s) may not be 100% perfect, but they are good enough. Blurb should be posted asap. Jusdafax (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb errors: Only one count of rape He was convicted of two counts, but only one count of rape.[4]Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I fixed that while adding a fourth blurb that summarized both convictions and acquittals. --Masem (t) 05:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer Alternative blurb II. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The New York Times calls it a "#MeToo watershed".[5] Not just another "seedy character" conviction, as some opposers contend. Prefer simplicity of Alt blurb III, minimizing legalese.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment RE: BLP & BLPCRIME. Should this go up, it must include the least legalese and the crimes described in the blurb should be in layman's terms that are understood throughout the ENGVAR universe. Alt III is most suitable. Specific descriptions like "predatory assault" and even "felony" have various meanings. Specific information on the charges are in the article, but as a single line on the front page it should cause the least amount of misunderstanding. Terribly important in this case, as subject is in legal jeopardy in different countries and venues, which may have different definitions for some of the terms in the proposed blurbs. I add my Support !vote: trial is of immense international interest, subject was famous beforehand, topic is, well, topical. (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Altblurb 3 as suggested. The Katherine Johnson photo just went up so I thought I'd leave it a little more, but someone can change it if they wish. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Do we really want to post a picture of Weinstein on the front page? Similar to our not putting a picture at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2020, I think there's a danger it would attract more controversy than it's worth.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think we just leave it as-is. As Chris Kraft might say, "if you don't know what to do, don't do anything".--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @WaltCip: when you say "leave it as-is", do you mean we should include a picture of Weinstein, as that's the default, or do you mean we should not have one, and leave it as Johnson's pic?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    That FA was regarding a person notable solely as a criminal, and not wanting to encourage copycat crimes. Weinstein, on the other hand, is notable beyond this case.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post posting support but I definitely don't want Weinstein's mug up there.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
P-K3 why not ? you are supporting the name though. I am for both or nothing.--⋙–DBigXray 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no requirement that the top blurb must be pictured. And I will happily admit to a bias in favour of looking at Katherine Johnson rather than Weinstein for a week.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You are hereby condemned to see this pic ⋙–DBigXray
Pawnkingthree, In that case I propose that you as well as Wikipedia reading Humanity be forced to see his face like Clockwork Orange as long as possible, so that we may not have another Weinstein. ⋙–DBigXray 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Bagumba: I have reverted the use of Weinstein's picture for now, per the discussion immediately above. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should wait and see if there's consensus first.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd rather look at a inspiring academic than a despicable criminal, but I think we have a clearly established (and recently confirmed) consensus that blurbs get the photo over RD. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, lets not be hypocrites. Lets not introduce personal BIAS here. If you find it suitable to blurb him, it must have his picture. If a new blurb comes, his pic can be replaced, not until then. ⋙–DBigXray 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read more carefully - that's exactly what I just said. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Where's Trick when we finally need him? – Sca (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support restoring Weinstein image All or nothing i.e. pull down the blurb if you dont want the pic. But it is hypocritical to say you like to see his name there but not his face. --⋙–DBigXray 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't care either way whether Weinstein's picture appears, but we should leave Johnson up for 24 hours before changing. ITN doesn't have an inexhaustible supply of images, and there's no requirement for the top item to have the image. We should make full use of each opportunity we have, otherwise we end up with the same image staying up for ages (as happened with the Dail and Parasite pictures). Modest Genius talk 14:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's been up for 14 hrs already. It's about being as timely as possible. This isnt like rotating through Nobel winners on par with each other.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh well, Mjroots has now put the image back in place again. This is arguably a violation of WP:WHEEL, and it would have been nice if they'd consulted me first, but no harm done - there is probably a rough consensus for inclusion by now. Let's see if anything kicks off at WP:ERRORS or Talk:Main Page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, IAR, I am glad, someone used his admin bits, to undo the hypocrisy. More power to unbiased admins. ⋙–DBigXray 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Apologies, Amakuru, I was not aware that it had been previously posted. I saw that there was an image available related to a blurb, rather than a RD, checked that the image was protected, and inserted it. AFAIK, RD images are only to be used if there are no suitable blurb images (I think I commented to that effect recently). There was no intention to WHEEL. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Mjroots: Fair enough, and that's fine - thanks for the explanation. I get the point about RD and blurb pics, my only concern was that there have been objections in the past to posting pictures of convicted criminals and terrorists on the main page. But evidently there's consensus here, so no harm done. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, there's been times when I thought "do we really have to have that ugly mug there?", but it's the system we are working under. Best we can do is apply the system fairly and without bias and partiality every time, no matter what our personal feelings are on the matter. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support image newest post gets the image, otherwise it's editorializing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support image RD images are only if there's no suitable blurb image, and this is a suitable blurb image. (EDIT: There's also no requirement that the imaged blurb be the top one, but this is the "main" story of the ITN section right now, so it makes sense for the image.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support; the trial isn't newsworthy in and of itself; its newsworthy for its role in touching off the Me Too movement. Describing it as nothing more than celebrity gossip interesting outlook. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Way overplayed (per TRM, Ad Orientem, Amakuru). Despite the interminable hype (there'll be more in Calif.), this squalid episode is of little general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe someone could photoshop some bars across his mug? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Lugnuts, would posting his pic above this image would work for you ? ⋙–DBigXray 16:46, 25 February 2020 (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: Katherine Johnson[edit]

Article: Katherine Johnson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article looks to be in good shape. Not personally convinced this rises to the level of a blurb but could see the argument for it. Sam Walton (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per intersecting multiple areas of international/intergenerational interest. ——SN54129 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Samwalton9 A recent deaths nomination is dependent only on article quality, so there isn't any argument necessary in that sense. (Unless you are proposing a blurb?)-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, by ITN I meant a blurb. Corrected my note :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Quality is good and seems ready to go. --Masem (t) 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks in good shape.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we post the photo? Been looking at that empty room for a long time. (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would support this being an IAR case of posting an RD photo (even if the Weinstein blurb above is posted). --Masem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support and I agree that we should post her picture. Davey2116 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I’d support a blurb. If you look at the children’s publishing world, she has rocketed in popularity as a subject of biographies. For example, DK’s children’s biography series has a title about her, putting her on the same plane as one Nelson Mandela. I think there will be a great deal of interest in this article. Zagalejo^^^ 17:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The problem is .. it's like just short of all metrics we're consider for blurb. She's an important mathematician but was not the top of her field. She was an important first-female type thing, but that's not a reason to blurb as well. --Masem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I have also added the image to WP:CMP; it may be added as soon as KrinkleBot does their job (I will be AFK for a while). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Picture posted It is Black History Month, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Coronavirus outbreaks occur in South Korea, Japan, and Italy[edit]

Closing this as it "isn't notable". NoahTalk 14:55, 24 February 2020 (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: 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: Coronavirus outbreaks occur in Italy, South Korea, and Japan, infecting over 1,300 people.
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know this is ongoing, but these are the first major outbreaks of cases outside of China. Based upon the 4% drop in markets in Europe and US stock futures, it certainly seems to be garnering significant attention. NoahTalk 13:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the story is in "Ongoing" which is fine. Both regional outbreaks seem to stem from interactions with Chinese nationals, no evidence of a wider pandemic. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue is this is no longer contained in China with just isolated outbreaks elsewhere. If it keeps on increasing like it has in Italy, South Korea, and Japan, it will be one. PANDEMIC is being mentioned in tons of news articles now. These outbreaks are quite notable on their own. NoahTalk 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is more notability in the panic induced 4% drop in the FTSE 100 and DAX 30 than in 225 cases with 3 fatalities in Italy. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no special factor of these cases in S. Korea or Italy as to reblurb the outbreak. It already had been spread well beyond China already. It is similar here to climate change, and only want to make to blurb stories where there has been massive change. If, for example, WHO reclassifies this to a pandemic, then that calls for a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but not to the extent of a thousand+ being infected. It was pockets of double digits in countries. All the news sources are screaming pandemic. I would say thousands of cases outside China is quite a change. NoahTalk 14:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • South Korea has almost 1000... I see no reason not to blurb that the virus is rapidly spreading in places outside of China since it hasnt been done thus far. NoahTalk 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Well ITN is not a news ticker, and there is no requirement to blurb every development on every single story. The coronavirus is clearly a major deal - the likely overall mortality rate of at least 2% and the potential for global spread makes it more worrying than the winter flu cases mentioned above - but probably we should wait for a more major development before re-blurbing.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing is the right place for this.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news affecting three of the top economies in the world, on two continents. It is funny that some people think the WHO's calling it a pandemic would be considered more notable than this. 50k people in Lombardy are in lockdown.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Several million people in Wuhan have been in lock-down for weeks, as have smaller numbers in several other countries. Why are the Italians more notable? Modest Genius talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. For now, ongoing is the right place for this. Things do seem to be escalating so I'm open to re-posting a blurb once something major happens, but these localised cases aren't substantial enough yet. Modest Genius talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • CLOSING: Closing due to lack of notability expressed by the opposition. NoahTalk 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Kiki Dimoula[edit]

Article: Kiki Dimoula (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Ekathimerini

 Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sardar Patel Stadium[edit]

Consensus to post this likely will not develop. --Jayron32 15:05, 24 February 2020 (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: Sardar Patel Stadium (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US President Donald Trump on his first Presidential trip to India, officially opens the Sardar Patel Stadium which is now regarded as the largest cricket stadium in the world.
Alternative blurb: Sardar Patel Stadium officially opened by US President Donald Trump as the world's largest cricket stadium with a seating capacity of over 110, 000
Alternative blurb II: Sardar Patel Stadium, the world's largest cricket stadium and second-largest overall with 110,000 seating capacity, is inaugurated in Motera, India.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Reuters, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is quite significant as the stadium is also now regarded as the second largest sports stadium ever in the world in terms of seating capacity. Abishe (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Second-largest stadium is second-largest and thus not record-breaking. Even on this, I would oppose the blurb focusing on Trump, just announced that the second-larget stadium by seating was opened, there is no need to make this potentially political. --Masem (t) 05:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It's the biggest cricket stadium. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Purpose is irrelevant, though I would make a distinction if we were talking between indoor and outdoor stadiums from an architectural standpoint. --Masem (t) 05:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hardly irrelevant. You can't even play serious cricket on most soccer grounds, and soccer fans don't like watching their game on big, wide cricket grounds. Note that we are talking of the two most popular sports in the world here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Not irrelevant but not necessarily significant enough to be posted either. Undecided on this one currently though. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
If the key factor is "largest", then it is an architectural facet , not a sporting one, to figure out the way to support that many seat, though the sport itself is going to partially dictate why they need that many seats (eg , there's a reason why several of the largest ones are American college football) --Masem (t) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Comment The building (and perhaps the opening) of the stadium is the news here, not the fact that Trump opened it. Stadiums are noted for their size, tenants, location, and many other things, but never for who opens them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Change Alternative Blurb II to say opened rather than inaugurated, and I will support it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not the largest and Trump inaugrating it is irrelevant, ITN is not a press release. --qedk (t c) 06:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability as the blurbs need a lot of qualifiers to prove notability. ("Largest cricket stadium" doesn't seem to be a bit deal.) Article also needs copyediting.  Nixinova  T  C   07:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because grammatical errors. Grammatical errors like assumption that it has largest stadium world is false. Because grammatical errors, it not sufficient to include in ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced you know what a 'grammatical error' is. You appear to be criticising a factual error. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a part of Trump’s visit to India, which in itself is nowhere near when Trump and Kim Jong-un met in terms of importance. Besides, the stadium itself is the largest among cricket stadiums. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a new stadium, but the article is a mix of info about the new stadium and the one which stood previously in it's place. Strip out the trivia from the old structure and there isn't much left. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral on significance, oppose on article quality. The opening of a large stadium is pretty uninspiring, especially one that isn't record-breaking, though I suppose we do need some new items on the template. However the article is mostly about the old stadium, full of unencyclopaedic cheerleading, needs a heavy copyedit, and hasn't even had the tenses updated. If posted, the blurb certainly shouldn't mention Trump, who is irrelevant to the story. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivia.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2020 (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.

Mahathir Mohamad[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Mahathir Mohamad (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad submits his resignation to the king after 2 years in office.
News source(s): CNN Prime Minister's Office of Malaysia AFP Guardian

Nominator's comments: A prime minister resigning should be notable enough to be front-page news. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Nahnah4 (talk

  • Oppose For as long as the target is, I can't find an update in the suitable section (Second term as prime minister). Updates to the infobox and lede are lacking in detail. I am therefore unconvinced that this resigning is any more impactful or notable than any other. (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Prose updates are now at least in the correct place, but there are still no details regarding why this in important. Indeed, the updates make it sound as if nothing is actually changing. (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment A change in PM is not always notable outside of a general election, mostly when the incoming PM is of the same party and policies are not expected to change(don't know if that's the case here). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The CNN & Guardian sources above make it clear this was unexpected, seems to be excluding the person who was previously thought to be the most likely successor, and will lead to a new coalition. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment "The Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of government and the highest political office in Malaysia. The prime minister leads the executive branch of the federal government.". We really need to get over this inane head of state vs head of government fixation. I'll change to full supprot if I have a chance to read the target before the nom is SNOW closed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - has the change of leader actually taken place yet? I suggest we wait to post this until it's known who is successor is, and the reins of power are handed over. Then we can mention both of them in one story.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems he's the interim prime minister while a new government is formed. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Unexpected resignation, high quality article. Mahathir_Mohamad#Resignation seems enough of an update. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The forming and dissolution of governments in the parliamentary system are not generally significant enough to be posted (though general elections are ITN/R). New PMs are posted on a case-by-case basis, but he is still the PM for now and could remain so in a new government. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose post new PM per ITNR. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and GreatCaesarsGhost. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support of course its note worthy enough for the main page, the change of a government outside an regular election cycle is significant. The fact the King has asked Mahathir to stay on as PM until his replacement is resolved, is also significant as it shows his government the crowns support even if the parliamentary processes dont. Gnangarra 01:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll tell a bit about the situation. Mahathir Mohamed is supposed to appoint Anwar Ibrahim like what had been planned where he'll take the position just for 2 years (written in news) but he resigned which make the appointment of Anwar Ibrahim as a new Prime Minister is off. So, there's a plot twist phenomenon there as Mahathir Mohamed doesn't seems to put off the position when the Agong of Malaysia appoint him as Interim Prime Minister. I think he's notable enough to be in the front page because he's one of world phenomenon.CyberTroopers (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This sounds like domestic political intrigue, and I don't think it's suitable for ITN absent some other criteria. (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but wait This is clearly dominant news over in Malaysia, and is also covered significantly by international media (would probably be more if not for the entire virus affair, but what can you do). However there is still plenty of uncertainty so best make sure we at least know what's going to happen first. Juxlos (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Judging from recent developments, I think it would make more sense to nominate 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis as an ongoing item. Masjawad99💬 06:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Otherwise, perhaps we should wait until it is clear that either Mahathir or Anwar gains enough support to form a new government, or whether a snap election would be called to resolve the deadlock. Masjawad99💬 06:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree that 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis seems more applicable for posting as an ongoing event, as the subject seems broader than just the person of Mahathir Mohamed. However, the article looks like it needs some cleaning up currently as well. - Indefensible (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Lulusword seems to be doing an excellent job with creating and maintaining the article and providing extensive referencing so far. - Indefensible (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the rec. I am doing what I can, but I can only edit on mobile, so it will probably experience slow updates. Lulusword (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

February 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime
  • Lesotho PM Tom Thabane is granted sick leave until 27 February when he is due to appear in court for the murder of his former wife. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II[edit]

Article: Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British boxer Tyson Fury defeats American Deontay Wilder to win the World Boxing Council and lineal heavyweight championships.
News source(s): USA Today, Al-Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was the most anticipated heavyweight championship match in decades, and is certainly a lot more notable than some of the items WP:ITNR Or Who am I kiddiNG boxing isn't a popular sport in this parts like I dunno Gaelic football or netball, but it cannot be denied this was the sporting event at least for this month. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Dally-Watkins[edit]

Article: June Dally-Watkins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Australian businesswoman and fashion model. I have updated the body so it is now start-class rather than stub.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hisashi Katsuta[edit]

Article: Hisashi Katsuta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: The voice of Dr. Ochanomizu. Nicely sourced but could use a little tidying and expanding. Died the day before, but announced on this day. ミラP 02:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good to me. AGF on sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Thich Quang Do[edit]

Article: Thich Quang Do (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Straits Times

Article updated

 Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Nominator comment am expanding and adding sources. The patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, banned under the communist govt of Vietnam. Nominated for Nobel Prize and other things for dissident activities Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too soon for a fair use image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. This seems to be happening more and more, and it is a breach of the WP:FAIRUSE terms, so soon after the BLP's death.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed image. Is anything else required? Regards, Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
      Thanks for that, Bumbubookworm. Now almost good to go, but I think the WP:LEAD section needs a bit of expansion, so that it summarises the body of the article. Currently it is limited to saying he was a patriarch, and mentioning one of the awards he received. But lacks any info on his life and career, particularly anything mentioned in the "Political opposition" subsection, which comprises the majority of the article at present. Once that's done, sourcing is good so looks good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Lead expanded - I forgot about that, thanks for the prompt Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
        Great, thanks for the speedy turnaround! Support now, and marking as ready. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted, requesting opinions on whether the diacritical form Thích Quảng Độ is appropriate or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: B. Smith[edit]

Article: B. Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support was coming here to nominate after reviewing state of article, which appears to be fine. --Masem (t) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article seems ok for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted --valereee (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Hughes[edit]

Article: Mike Hughes (daredevil) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox LA

Article updated

Nominator's comments: From a first pass of sourcing, the article looks ok, but keeping in mind he was also known as a flat earther, I would ask !voters to consider neutrality of language as well (I'm not seeing anything that immediately sets off problems). And while this would fall under a possible "unusual death" blurb, this is mainly a D-list celeb, so not to the level of recognition a blurb merits, and RD is fine. Masem (t) 02:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - It is ready as far as I can see for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Surprising, really. But then again, not. Article in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Lisel Mueller[edit]

Article: Lisel Mueller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Sun Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Pulitzer-prize winner for poetry. - Article expanded and refs added. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - the line in the lead about her being the only German-born poet to be awarded the Pulitzer prize doesn't seem to be cited. Other than that, good to go. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like citing issue has been resolved.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Art and culture
  • An 18th-century Ethiopian ceremonial crown, one of the 20 in existence, is returned to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. It was discovered in the Netherlands in 1998, and was held by Dutch authorities until now so it could be returned when the country was more politically stable. (BBC)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Peter Dreher[edit]

Article: Peter Dreher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Badische Neueste Nachrichten

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German painter, famous for a series of painting the same thing more than 5,000 times, exhibited internationally. For a change, I trimmed the article - tagged with multiple problems - to like a fifth of its former size, leaving sourced things. If someone is inclined to source more: welcome. Please dont' use a site which is a mirror of this (former version), though. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • plus Posted. Let the WTFBBQ commence! El_C 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - obligatory WTFBBQ. This seems pretty thinly sourced and more appropriate for the German Wikipedia, but hasn't even been posted there. - Indefensible (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What specific statements still need sourcing? Also, any article of sufficient quality is eligible for RD, it doesn't matter what the German Wikipedia does.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There wasn't a single person supporting this between its posting and its nomination, and even the poster anticipated "WTFBBQ" as a reaction. While the subject was notable enough to have an article, it was start-class and deemed low importance, with only 5 references of which only 1 is in English. The fact that there is only 1 English ref and that there was no posting in the subject's native language Wikipedia suggests low notability. So the nomination seemed lacking in support and significance. - Indefensible (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    That position is indefensible I'm afraid! 😎 RDs can't be opposed on significance, only on quality and referencing. 5 refs of which 1 is English, and start class, are probably sufficient. If you really think it's not notable then AFD is the place, but here we generally assume it's notable unless very obviously not.  — Amakuru (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The nomination still lacked any support between the posting and the nomination, regardless of significance. But if that is really the case, that means anyone who has a start or better class Wikipedia article who dies should be posted, which is obviously not the case. If an article has sections that lack ref'ing, they should just be removed so that the remaining content is fully ref'd. - Indefensible (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's unusual for RDs to be posted with support from only the nominator - but it does happen. There's no reason to hold up posting if the admin is satisfied that it meets the RD criteria. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your second sentence. If an RD is nominated, then yes - if it is Start class or better, referenced and not stale, it should be posted.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The point in the 2nd sentence is that there is inconsistency in behavior in the relationship between article quality and nomination/posting. This can be seen from the numerous people who are not nominated or posted despite being notable enough to have an article about them listed on Deaths in 2020 (and I'm sure there are many more who are missed from that page as well) and are above stub-class and meet the subjective quality criteria (e.g. referencing). Michael Medwin might be an example, from a quick glance. Whether having an article should be enough to meet the significance criteria is a separate issue, although I am inclined towards having a higher threshold than that. - Indefensible (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dominican Republic Election 2020[edit]

Article: 2020 Dominican Republic municipal elections (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protests happen in major Dominican Republic cities over the election problems.
News source(s): (Dominican Today) (Dominican Today 2nd)

Nominator's comments: I am nominating this as protests are happening over the election being halted due to problems. People are being arrested. (Blurb might need to be updated) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • AGF, I'm going to make some suppositions about how this sort of nom goes. The election (and its suspension) will not be seen as sufficiently significant. Protests are non-stop around the world right now, so those are not significant per se, though the size of crowds (not documented yet) would be considered. Deaths are significant, but the passive voice ("left at least two dead") suggests less malicious intent (a heart attack, maybe?). This could develop in to something, but it's not there yet. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: These are sub-national elections, so would not normally be posted. Sufficiently major protests could be a blurb of the own, but there is one sentence about them in the nominated article. The two Dominica Today links provided have just a few sentences, and the international media haven't paid any attention. Unless I'm missing something, that does not indicate sufficiently major protests. Modest Genius talk 20:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The article now has a decent section on the protests. However the Miami Herald source used there (the only one I can read) says there were 'hundreds' of protesters. That's substantial but protests with hundreds of thousands usually don't make it onto ITN. I'm afraid I must oppose this nomination. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius' explanation which is well accurate. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The OAS is now investigating the situation. I doubt this makes a difference, but this now involved the United States and other countries. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Protests begin outside of the Dominican Republic because of the election problems. It is now very notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Elijahandskip, by "OAS" I assume you mean the Organization of American States. It seems that the election has been postponed to March 15 though and the situation has largely resolved for the time being until that date. Per what Modest Genius wrote this probably does not meet the threshold for posting even with the additional protests currently, but perhaps it is part of something larger as you wrote that should be documented in a separate article. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wallan derailment[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Wallan derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An XPT train (example pictured) derails near Wallan, Victoria, Australia, killing two people and injuring twelve.
News source(s): (Sydney Morning Herald)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There is no such thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, so let's not cite the lack of deaths as a reason to oppose. This appears to be the first fatal accident for the XPT (am open to correction on this), which adds some significance if correct. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I call into question the validity and relevance of this justification for opposition. Labelling the fatal derailment as an accident caused by the driver "rushing" (which has not been confirmed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau) does not make this event any less notable. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Call it into question as much as you like. It's simply not that notable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still not picked up by a majority of worldwide agencies, don't see much notability here, sorry. --qedk (t c) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    To be fair, it has.[6][7][8][9] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of the non-American part of the world's media ignores college football. These arguments are silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM. Unfortunate, but a comparatively minor accident. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Despite what it may seem, this accident was certainly not minor. In fact, looking at the photographs of the incident, it is surprising that there were not more casualties. The entire train (except for the trailing locomotive) derailed, causing the front locomotive to fall onto its side, and the first four (out of five) passenger cars to buckle. The train has ripped off the tracks from the ground, and appears to have ploughed through up to 100 metres of trees on the side of the tracks. This is not a minor derailment. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The term is relative. From a railroading perspective, the damage could be considered major, but in terms of fatalities (which are important, regardless of what anyone says) it was far down the list of current events in the world in which we live. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
PS: AFAIK, the jargony term "XPT" would not be understood by a majority of readers. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With Blurb Fix I support as it is notable, but the blurb is wrong. The official report was 2 dead and 69 injured. (Check current events portal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talkcontribs) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The 2 dead, 69 injured refers to a motorway pile-up in Canada. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb fix: As indicated by the nominator, this incident caused two fatalities and 12 injuries, which certainly makes it notable. As far as I can see, this also appears to be the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003. A fatal passenger train derailment is inherently notable due to the fact that rail travel is, by several metrics, one of the safest forms of transportation in the world. Regarding the blurb, it should read "derails" rather than "is derailed", because the latter suggests that the train was deliberately caused to derail. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The blurb has now been updated, so I have removed my suggestion for the blurb alteration. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question Was this a case of a SPAD, or is it too early to say? Does that have any bearing on notability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What is known so far is that the signalling system was in a degraded condition due to a previous fire in an equipment hut. Trains were being diverted into a passing loop as work was being carried out on the other track. Both driver and pilotman were killed. First fatalities on an XPT since introduction in 1982. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The "pilotman" was a woman. It doesn't seem to be Australian English. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: At the moment, it is definitely too early to say for sure. Although, it does seem clear from the photographs that the train derailed at a set of points. After the crash, a passenger on the train apparently walked back and discovered that the points were set to direct the train onto a passing loop on the left. News reports indicate that the signalling system on the entire stretch of line from Donnybrook to Kilmore (about 30 km, by my rough measurement) was inoperable due to a fire two weeks prior, and the points were also being operated manually. I would assume that this meant the driver did not know that the train was due to be directed off the main tracks (these points had been set to straight for the last few weeks apparently) and thus did not slow down. The speed limit for this set of points is apparently 15 km/h, and according to a passenger estimate, the train was accelerating through roughly 80–90 km/h when it reached the points. So, I guess it is a result of poor maintenance of the signalling facilities and a breakdown in communication between the driver and the main control centre. Clearly, going 600% of the speed limit is not going to end well. Ironically (but certainly not in a humorous sense), one of the two people who died had actually just boarded the train to assist the driver in navigating the section of track in question. Very sad indeed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the very clear summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Of course, this is all just speculation until the accident report is published. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was a cynical attempt to criticize the necessary parsing of borderline cases. Nothing about that kerfuffle changes the accepted consensus (globally, not just at WP) that a disaster with a high death toll is more significant than one without. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • So if there was another disaster, with three dead, this one would lose out. But there isn't. Or do we need to wait for one with 12 deaths to trump Hanau? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @GreatCaesarsGhost: whilst it is accepted that the more deaths there are = greater weight to the case for notability, I do not accept that a lack of deaths = a lack of notability. In this case, we have the first fatal accident to those on a particular type of train in 38 years. This, and possibly the cause of the accident, is what give weight to the case for notability. In anyone thinks the accident is not notable, the AfD is thattaway! Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with @Mjroots. Claiming that an incident is not notable due to a lack of fatalities based on the premise that a large number of fatalities implies notability is a logical fallacy—specifically, denying the antecedent—and is therefore logically invalid. An incident need not have copious fatalities for it to be notable. To assess notability, one must consider the nature of the incident itself and what it represents rather than just looking one-dimensionally at the number of fatalities. For example, this accident took place in Australia, where events like this are rare occurrences. By my check, this is the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003, and according to the nominator, the first death on the XPT in its entire history. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you missed the strawman you were aiming at and hit me, allow me to clarify. The logical fallacy is "There is no such thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, so let's not cite the lack of deaths as a reason to oppose." The extent to which a disaster results in deaths or financial loss is material to the significance of that disaster. It's not the only thing that's material, but preemptively dictating that it is not up for discussion is a bad faith argument. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
True. I agree with your comment regarding the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS thing in that the number of deaths definitely impacts on the perceived severity of the disaster. My point is more that (and I realise that you did concede this, so I'm not trying to be argumentative) the number of deaths is not the only thing which contributes to an accident being notable. I disagree that the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS comment was made in bad faith, though. Cynical? Sure. But cynicism only arises when there are things which fuel it. I think the nominator was just trying to say that the nomination shouldn't be rejected solely on the basis of the fatality count. Anyway, I think we've said enough on this issue. ChocolateTrain (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support An entire train derailment seems unusual and the article, while short, is sufficient to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because of grammatical issue whether is just XPT or have a long form name, what is the abbreviation of XPT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It is short for Express Passenger Train. It is just what the train is called. It is not a grammatical issue. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
XPT is its common name. It's the Australian equivalent of the British HST, which it was based on. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
IP180. You don't need to oppose. You just need a different blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If IP180 doesn't adjust this. I trust the assessing admin will see it's not a "strong oppose" to posting per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the explanation. I now Support it to be posted. (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reading what our article says, this is a case of an accident that had some unfortunate deaths but could have been a lot worse (as described by most reports). That "lot worse" is where we would have posted as it would have been a mass death accident but right now this is just a unfortunate case of a lot of things gone wrong in the prior 24hr. --Masem (t) 15:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Marking ready - IMvHO, the strength of the supports outweighs the weak opposing arguments. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
'Weak' and 'strong,' to say nothing of the frothy variants 'very strong' or 'strongest possible,' are meaningless in terms of votes on ITN nominations. – Sca (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Bad form. With six opposes and three supports, this is hardly clearcut "ready" for posting, and you shouldn't be judging consensus on your own nominations, especially in such circumstances. Deary me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Two of the opposes are of the form "I haven't seen this in my local news", which we all know is not a valid reason to oppose. If this page was properly administered, and Admin would instantly delete such rubbish comments. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I now count four supports. Although we all know it's not a !vote, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    It was six weak opposes vs four strong supports (my nom counts, remember). It is not bad form to mark one's own nom as ready, as it merely indicates to other, uninvolved, admins that a decision is needed. Posting it would be, and an abuse of the tools, which is why I will never do it. Now six weak opposes vs five strong supports. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Nonsense. The strength of support/oppose is up to the assessing admin, and should not be up to the nominator to even really comment upon, let alone attempt to claim ready to post when the opposition clearly outnumbers the support. If the nomination has a consensus, it'll be assessed and posted by an independent admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    As this is not the first time we've disagreed over this issue, I've raised a discussion at WT:ITN, where all editors are encouraged to participate. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    So perhaps show the courtesy to the community to allow the discussion to continue before going ahead and doing what you were going to do regardless. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This is ITN worthy. Deaths, plenty of coverage. Article is not long but sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the argument that they are the first deaths in the history of the line, starting in 1982. Kees08 (Talk) 17:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Kees08 first deaths on board the XPT, not on the line in question, but thanks for you support. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Would an uninvolved admin please decide whether the strength of arguments in favour of posting outweigh the strength of arguments opposing posting and post this, or indicat that further discussion is required? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could get Paul Theroux to rule on this. In The Old Pategonian Express he talks, rather nervously, about train wrecks. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Admin comment: Doesn't look like there is consensus at this time and I am continuing keeping the discussion open for a little bit longer. The nomination has been open for just over 24 hours at this point, and it's not unreasonable to allow discussion to continue a little longer. SpencerT•C 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Spencer. Let the discussion continue then... Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I see this as similar to the recent Caspian Airlines nomination - a transport accident which could have been horrific, but is mostly a near-miss. This is tragic for the two crew members who died, but we can't post every transport accident that causes two deaths. I agree with Masem, the impact of this crash seems to be thankfully minor. Users shouldn't mark their own nominations as ready, especially if it requires dismissing some of the opinions expressed (whatever one might think of them). Modest Genius talk 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because there nowhere train incidents like this in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems sufficiently notable to me, especially since in today’s OTD there is a modern (2007) train derailment with only one fatality. In the first world and modern age, even non-fatal train derailments are very unusual and make waves in news. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Modest Genius. I get the fact that train and plane accidents are usually far more talked about than car accidents with equivalent fatalities, but even so this one doesn't seem to rise to the level that makes it front-page ITN news. And as much as it may be making waves in some media around the world, I can say anecdotally that I have not encountered this story anywhere in my perusal of the news in recent days.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
And I NEVER see American football finals mentioned in the Australian media. Nor, probably, do you in yours. But we still post it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
What, you mean the Super Bowl? That gets a surprising amount of coverage here these days, which may irritate some people. And It looks like it featured on the main page of your news sites in Aus too. Anyway, my point on that was mainly in response to the contention above that this is "making waves around the world",not saying that my having heard of it directly impacts its postability.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No. Sorry. I meant college football, as I had already mentioned earlier in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well I opposed the college football too, so you can't blame me on that one Smiley.png  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the similar Livraga derailment on 6 February 2020 in Italy was nominated and not posted; posting this event would be inconsistent with the most comparable precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, posting such a minor train derailment would be problematic since there are a slew of massacres and other mass death events in the last few days that haven't been nominated. People could say this is because they are happening in the third world. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fix it then! Write the articles and nominate them. What a ridiculous reason to oppose = OTHERSTUFFDONTEXIST. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
      • The articles exist, but people refrained from nominating them here, as you should have with this article. Abductive (reasoning) 02:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, so it was OTHERSTUFFNOTNOMINATED then. Of course this should have been nominated - major rail accident in Australia, first on-board deaths on XPT in nearly 40 years. Since nomination, further details have come to light which mean we can add in underlying causes as a further reason. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It isn't stale at all, we still have a mass shooting from February 9 listed.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I come from the city this happened close to, so I was well aware of the incident before I saw it here. I didn't think of nominating it, and was surprised to see it here. However, the number of appalling reasons people are using to oppose this has led me post this support !vote to balance out the idiocy, bias and ignorance in the rest of the thread. (When will the Admins who watch here do something about the massive proliferation of rubbish posts?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Zealander of the Year Awards[edit]

Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2020 (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: New Zealander of the Year Awards (talk, history) and Jennifer Ward-Lealand (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Jennifer Ward-Lealand is named New Zealander of the Year.
News source(s): (TVNZ)
Nominator's comments: New Zealand big award that is done annually. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Local news. Good for DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    While I agree it's not suitable for ITN, it's also not good for DYK under any criteria used there. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Extremely regretful oppose - I wish we could have more ITN stories from my home country...--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose referencing issues. Not one citation for the filmography, for example. --Jayron32 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are generally not going to post any national honorary titles unless there's more to the news about them. --Masem (t) 14:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, but doesn't rise to the level of English Wikipedia's main page notability. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Also suggest closing this per WP:SNOW. --qedk (t c) 17:10, 20 February 2020 (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: