(Posted) RD: Jessye Norman

Nominator's comments: Roles and parts sections need more refs (not sure what the standard is here for classical musicians). Looks good to me otherwise. Funcrunch (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I moved the discography to a separate article, and kept only roles and parts with a reference. I need to go, with minor sentences still without ref. Do me a favour and comment them out. She was one of the great voices of a century, and not to mention her name would not be understood by readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the shit storm that gets created when one comments them out, it was very clever of you Gerda, to steer clear of the controversy --DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support a couple of claims unreferenced in the main body but mostly satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not a bad article at all, I think it looks good enough ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The entire Voice type section is CN, and an uncomfortable amount of the prose throughout the article is sourced from musicianguide.com, itself published by deadlink company netindustries.us. Surely there's obits to pull this info from?130.233.2.252 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your assessment, but in any case, I’m sure that citing the nytimes articles/reviews that this source refers to would suffice. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there are a few unsourced claims but otherwise this can suffice. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A few questionable sources here or there, but on the balance, this is well referenced and well written. --Jayron32 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: a German radio station changed their evening program, Norman Norman Norman in recordings and interviews. Can we get this moving please? She'd deserve a blurb easily but a mention soon would be at least something. Sang at the inauguration of U.S. presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Olympic Games, - that's a name many know, not only people interested in opera and classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: I bet that this NYT obituary ("Jessye Norman obituary / Headstrong opera "diva" who faced down racism and became one of the world’s most celebrated singers") has more to offer, but don't have access. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: the "unreliable" source went to the external links, could be replaced by better refs (but seems rather reliable, all facts could be found elsewhere). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal September 2019 climate strikes

Nominator's comments: According to the article these "strikes" ended three days ago. The article is of "meh" quality I'm sure there is something in the WP:MOS about having 96 sections many of which with simple one sentence updates. LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Since I was opposed to putting this as Ongoing in the first place. Thank you for properly creating a motion to remove ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The strikes across the two weekends were the key event. While there will continue to be strikes on Friday, there will be nothing of the scale in terms of the organization that these two weekends had (at least, as currently planned). It didn't make sense to make that ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support has been ready to go for a few days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely not "ongoing".  Nixinova  T  C  22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Umm... what purpose does this section serve that the one below about replacing this article doesn't? — Bilorv (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider to nominate the "school strike" as a blurb, not as ongoing event. STSC (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an interest in differentiating the act of removing the September article from the act of adding the general climate strike article. With the nomination below, both were sort of being lumped together, so once could not clearly vote to remove the September article but not to add the general climate strike article to Ongoing. By doing this, we could separate the two actions ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@STSC: The most recent event to blurb comes from the September 20–27 strikes, which has the more specific article September 2019 climate strikes, which I started this whole thing by nominating for a blurb, which was rejected with consensus to instead add something to ongoing. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. Discussion below remains open regarding the addition of the Ongoing replacement article. Spencer^T•C 01:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Beijing Daxing Airport

Too many Daxing nominations, none of them are getting anywhere near a consensus to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Beijing Daxing International Airport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Beijing Daxing Airport opens for operation. (Post)
News source(s): [1] CNN; SCMP
Credits:

• Nominated by Colipon (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There is no need for superlatives. A large airport – one of the largest in fact – was indeed "In The News" so there is no need for further justification, or what type of records it broke. We have an obsession with superlatives, records, and "firsts" on ITN that imho lends those items undue weight. The article is good; well referenced. I suggest we post with a simple one liner. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unless we open an airport on the moon, I don't think such an event is ITN-worthy. We didn't report on Istanbul's new airport opening, how is this different? ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Again, superlative events rarely make for good ITN, unless they already fall into ITNR like space probes/etc. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you made this point, because I specifically stated above that an event does not need to be superlative to be on ITN. Infrastructure is under-represented on ITN, and this specific piece of infrastructure was a headline on many global news sites (not top headline, but headline nonetheless), so I am nominating on the basis of "article quality" and the fact that it was "in the news". If someone nominated Istanbul Airport, or Berlin Brandenburg, I would have voted "yes". Sometimes it seems like ITN is just an ongoing ticker of disasters and attacks. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's no importance beyond another international airport opening (of which there are over 1,200), then this is definitely not ITN, as openings of routine buildings/etc. aren't appropriate. --Masem (t) 20:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You should have just added your blurb as another alternative blurb to the (5.3) nomination below instead of this new nomination. STSC (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided not to do that because it's hard to determined which "support" and "Opposes" are for which request. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They would say which blurb they support / oppose in their response. STSC (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Call for procedural close per above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose double bubble? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Beijing Nanyuan Airport

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Beijing Nanyuan Airport (talk · history · tag) and Beijing Daxing Airport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Beijing Nanyuan Airport, one of the three operational airports opened before 1910s in the world, closes after the opening of the Daxing Airport. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Beijing Daxing International Airport officially opens with the world's largest terminal.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Zaha Hadid Architects’ Beijing Daxing International Airport with the world’s largest terminal opens in Beijing.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Beijing Daxing International Airport opens for operation.
News source(s): [2] CNN; SCMP Fortune Business Inside Design Boom - digital architecture magazine
Credits:

• Nominated by 146.96.147.137 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ombresuvenere (talk · give credit) and STSC (talk · give credit)

Both articles updated

 146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold up That "before 1910s" link says this airport opened in August 1910. The 192nd decade CE was still a few moons away, but most people are somewhat married to the idea that 1970 was "in the seventies" (and so on). Plus, you're missing sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Source added. I don't know how to describe it better. Airport#History_and_development listed three airports with runways or equivalents before December 31, 1909. Maybe "one of three earliest airports" would work? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "China's oldest airport" packs a fair amount of punch, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not suitable for ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, could you please tell in detail (which criteria does not meet)? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not particularly newsworthy, it has little encyclopedic value and I'm certain that the vast majority of our readers will not be looking for this story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ITN. Support DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As interesting as I personally find it, I do not think this is particularly ITN-worthy (on notability). If only the whole world were av geeks... ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight Support I didn't think I was into historic airports before this entered my bubble, and now I'm not so sure. Maybe this is a gateway into the wider world of harbours, train stations and wherever escalators wind up. Maybe there are others just afraid they wouldn't care, who could use a friendly shove. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting but ITN is generally not best for "superlative" events like this. --Masem (t) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • nudge  Nixinova  T  C  22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (alternative blurb) - It's better we just concentrate on the new Daxing Airport itself with a blurb like this:

"A new airport with the world’s largest terminal, Beijing Daxing International Airport, officially opens in Beijing." CNN; SCMP - STSC (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support STSC's alternative blurb That Nanyuan would close upon the opening of Daxing was forecast long ago. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RIP, but not particularly newsworthy. Neutral on alternative blurb, this whole thing seems a bit crufty, but world's largest airport is of broader interest. Oppose all airportery. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Blurb as proposed by STSC I've come to my senses ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "World's largest terminal" is based on a very questionable interpretation of "largest" used by CCP press releases and repeated without checking by a handful of lazy journalists. The terminal building has the largest footprint, but that's because it's a low-rise structure; in terms of actual floor space, it's considerably smaller than Dubai International Terminal 3 or the main terminal of Istanbul Airport, and roughly the same size as the existing main terminal of Beijing Capital International Airport. ("Largest terminal" is a largely meaningless title, as very few large airports operate a single-terminal model.) ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources say so; Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not original research. STSC (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's original research to say that 1,000,000 m² is smaller than 1,700,000 m²? That a lazy journalist has repeated PR puffery without bothering to fact-check for themselves, doesn't mean Wikipedia repeats it; we abandoned the principle of WP:Verifiability not truth a decade ago. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us your sources to support your argument. STSC (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt blurb, it's certainly suitable for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 3 assuming my own nomination above is closed procedurally. Same arguments as above. I don't care if it's the largest or second largest and in any case don't support something based on some superlative claim. But I don't think one can doubt that there's only maybe a handful of infrastructure projects of this size in a decade, and this in one of the top air travel hubs in the world as measured by passenger traffic. Anyway the support or oppose votes are mostly a matter of personal preference it appears as there are no contentions based on article quality, merely subjective judgments of importance, which admittedly might simply come down to a numbers game. We need to think about systemic bias here, not just geographical, but also topical. My own argument is that The Guardian, New York Times, and Reuters all reported on this so it is undoubtedly "In the News" - if that counts for anything - and this is only counting "western" sources of information. On Chinese-language sources this was the top headline on several news portals. I oppose posting Nanyuan on its own or mentioning Nanyuan at all. Colipon+(Talk) 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alt blurb 3 so what? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's significant global news. STSC (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a big airport terminal opening, so it's nothing to do with "significant global news"! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fortune claims it's the world's largest airport.[3] That is quite significant. STSC (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what feels like the fifth time, you can present as many sources as you like regurgitating that press release, but it won't make it true. Even one terminal at Dubai Airport, let alone the whole of Dubai Airport, is larger than Daxing. It's not original research to point out that by their own figures, this airport is half the size of (e.g.) Istanbul. ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are professional journals, they're not tabloids. You'll have to supply the sources that support your fringe theory. STSC (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "airport terminal building" only - it is actually a totally new airport, along with several accompanying rail lines, one of which is high-speed. Not to mention various "technology" firsts like use of facial recognition for boarding etc. FWIW, on Chinese WP, which is actually mostly staffed by people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, this was posted without contention - the five stories on there right now are SE Asia Haze, Jacques Chirac, Kashmir earthquake, and Thomas Cook bankruptcy. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how lovely, if I ever happen to fly to or from this airport I'll be sure to look out for those rail lines and technological marvels. That doesn't mean it's a newsworthy story to slap on to the main page of our encyclopedia though. Oppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure why a snarky remark is needed there. Colipon+(Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not that it would even be ITN if it was the world's largest terminal, but it isn't, so it's run-of-the-mill news. Also, per STSC's arguments, this. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your point of raising that rancorous discussion in an innocuous venue such as ITN? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see why the opening of a record-breaking airport would not be postable, but this particular opening is being overshadowed in coverage. Searching for China for example returns lots of results, but they all deal with the anniversary celebrations and not this airport. Banedon (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A new big building for planes to take off and land at -- it doesn't exactly scream newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk)
• Oppose anything relating to the new airport, neutral on the closure of the old airport considering its age. feminist (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that my "neutral" on the old airport is conditional upon article improvements. feminist (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - old airport Beijing Nanyuan Airport has around 15 uncited sentences starship.paint (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Viju Khote

 The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am doing this right, nominating for recent deaths: Veteran actor Viju Khote died on 6:55am IST (1:25am UTC), 30th September ref. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've fixed it up for you. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article needs expanding. The only coverage on the article is the lead which talks about a few appearances he has made and a brief personal life section. Filmography section unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a veteran actor, immortalized by Sholay. The article needs expansion to cover his life and career. Sourcing needs lot of work as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too short article on own life. Rest is un-referenced filmography. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 UCI Road World Championships

Nominator's comments: ITNR and annual event but apparently hasn't been listed since 2011. Could use more prose and update. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is there is good, and references are in order, but a prose summary of the results is needed.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is weak but good enough ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose summary is very weak indeed, much more needed to cover this multi-day event. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article will surely improve by the time we have a consensus here, and if not, article is viable as of now. Aviartm (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Too many unsourced claims about living people. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is much improved from nomination date. The prose summary is very nice and gives the impression that bicycling is exciting. I have added references covering the the !vote above, and I believe everything is in order.130.233.2.252 (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admins? It would be nice to get this ITNR posted at least twice in a decade.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Indeed, much improved. Good enough for me. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 01:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: José José

Nominator's comments: Highly popular Mexican singer. A bit more sourcing needed. EternalNomad (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~;Comment: I'm working on the article when I have the chance. I have work today so I'll help out with the changes. Erick (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, @Spencer:, I finished overhauling the article. Is it good to go? Erick (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Nice work improving the article. Spencer^T•C 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing replacement: School strike for the climate

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit

(Closed) 2019 Pune flood

(Closed) RD: Joseph C. Wilson

(Posted) RD: Jack Edwards (American politician)

Nominator's comments: 10 times Senater. Article with good sourcing but needs expansion now excellent sourcing as well as expanded. DBigXrayᗙ 09:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Thin, documentation lacking. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Sca thanks for the review. I have expanded the article and the sourcing. Please review again.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks OK now. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment still ready, nearly 24 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Rob Garrison

Nominator's comments: Played Tommy in the Karate Kid Villain. Article with excellent sourcing but needs expansion. and now expanded. DBigXrayᗙ 08:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Wasn't the "villain" in TKK, he merely had a barely memorable line; and he was in only one episode of its web series 30 years later. His other film and TV credits are unmentionable. — Wyliepedia @ 09:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I stand corrected. Can you talk about the article quality. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's marked as a stub, which I believe is frowned upon at ITN; and the article wasn't created until his death and only significantly covers his TKK quote and his recurrence with the franchise (minor roles in two films and one spinoff episode). If any of those pass ITN standards, I'll move on, but my "oppose" remains for exclusion, due to his less-than-stellar career. — Wyliepedia @ 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the template above, the discussion for ITN RD should focus only on article quality. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Both of us are working to address the size concerns. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I have expanded the article to C class. It is well sourced. Should be ready to post. The Rambling Man and Sca please review and revisit your oppose !votes -DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

marked as ready--DBigXrayᗙ 17:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing/blurb: 2019 World Athletics Championships

(Posted Ongoing) Climate strikes

Article: September 2019 climate strikes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new wave of climate strikes (strike in Wellington pictured) take place worldwide. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A second day of worldwide climate strikes (strike in Wellington pictured) draws millions.
News source(s): [9] [10] [11] [12] etc.
Credits:

• Nominated by Bilorv (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The strikes were featured on ITN on 20 September, which ended up with a rough turnout of 4 million people. Today there is another equally significant wave of 2,400 protests which have already gathered 1 million in Italy and 170,000 in New Zealand, and school has been cancelled for 110,000 in Canada, where Thunberg plans to speak. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for two main reasons: 1) It's very difficult to tell in the article what updates have been made describing events that took place today vs. events that took place this time last week. Many of the subsections in the Actions by Country section do not even have an associated date, so it's hard to tell if those actions are new news that were updated for 27 September. I fear that, due to the size of this section, it will be hard to fix this. 2) I'm questioning the significance of this week's events compared to last week's. There's not much that's majorly different from what happened last week, and the blurb just links to the same article, so the news becomes rather less notable. Perhaps this should have been put in Ongoing for this week, but as the article is about September Climate Strikes, which are wrapping up, it seems a little late to do this now. ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the associated sources. The main countries striking today include Italy, New Zealand, Canada, India, Sweden, the Netherlands and Argentina. The strikes are not "wrapping up" but have been focused around 2 days, September 20 and September 27, making this the second of two of the largest strikes in human history, rather than an event that's been taking part throughout September and is petering out. As for the "significance of this week's events compared to last week's", I repeat that there have been over a million protesters in one country alone, and 2,400 planned protests. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mainly per mike gigs - if this is going to become a regular phenomenon ,then it should go in Ongoing rather than posted as a fresh item every week.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: I'm rather confused by your reasoning. This is the final day of striking planned, and any subsequent "regular phenomen[a]"–which I'm not aware of the existence of–certainly wouldn't be housed at September 2019 climate strikes. This is the second major day in a series of global strikes that have been planned since November 2018, and I'd be surprised to see anything of this scale again until mid-2020 at the earliest. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it, and then we can think about writing some new articles and putting one in "Ongoing". — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah OK... you'll have to forgive me, I don't know the details of the story and assumed from the fact that there were strikes last week and this week, that they would be ongoing. Obviously if there were a further strike next Friday then I'd expect us to move the article to September – October 2019 climate protests or similar. But if this is the last one, then who knows... maybe it's worth "re-elevating" the story we posted last week, but I'll leave that to others to decide. Switching from oppose to Neutral for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added an alt blurb so that this doesn't seem like a brand new thing but a continuation from the Sept 20 ones. Also tentatively saying millions based on the 1M from Italy, that may be subject to change. --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that "millions" is accurate, and I prefer your blurb over mine. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing If this is still newsworthy immediately after rolling off the main page (it literally just fell off shortly before this request for a new blurb) then it should be posted as an "ongoing" link instead. We shouldn't keep bumping what is essentially the same post to the top of the page every time there's a new round of protests. That's exactly the purpose of ongoing. Lets put it there. --Jayron32 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to have been planned as the 20th one. It is not like there are more immediate plans for climate strikes in the next several weeks, or that this one today happened out of nowhere. So it's a little weird to put this to ongoing for the second day of events, because tomorrow it would be stale for that purpose. --Masem (t) 14:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article makes it look like these are isolated events, but these are really part of the larger School strike for the climate/Fridays for the Future movements, which have been happening every Friday for months. See List of school climate strikes. They've been going on for over a year. Yes, the most recent two have been much bigger, but this is not a one-off (or now two-off) event, but rather part of a regular, ongoing story. --Jayron32 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support School strike for climate as ongoing as second choice per Jayron32, but I still believe that the two strike events in September 2019 climate strikes are significant enough for ITN as individual events, given that their attendance is sizeably larger than the two largest FFF events, and a couple of orders of magnitude larger than any others. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ongoing - The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least. STSC (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ongoing per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to Ongoing  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: it should surely be School strike for the climate included at ongoing, not September 2019 climate strikes, which are already finished now (or ending in the next few hours, at least). — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    But that wasn't the nominated article... I think people were voting based on the strike that took place today, but I don't know, not sure I could declare a definite consensus for the alternative article. Maybe open a new nomination to explicitly request switching the target to that article and see if it has consensus?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing some ambiguity in the discussion above. "The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least", for instance. Well, no, the September 2019 ones ended today, as I told another user above, but the school strikes for climate are continuing so that's what I took the comment to mean.

    @Jayron32, STSC, and MSN12102001: in your support of an "ongoing" link, did you (a) refer to September 2019 climate strikes and also understand that they ended today; (b) refer to School strike for the climate or a similar page on the more general movement; or (c) misunderstand in some way? If (c), it would be useful if you could express support or opposition for (1) September 2019 climate strikes being listed as an event and (2) School strike for the climate being listed as ongoing (two independent proposals). — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let the "September strike" disappear from ongoing, then I would support it if you nominate the "school strike" as a blurb. STSC (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support speedy removal from ongoing: the strikes only lasted from Sep 20-27 so definitely not ongoing.  Nixinova  T  C  06:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Ambon earthquake

Nominator's comments: Considering the current blurb for the Kashmir quake, might have to reword the blurb Juxlos (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but I can't see much more coming rapidly on this due to location. Sourced and covers basics. --Masem (t) 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major fatal earthquake. Article is short but fully referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the comments above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Sufficient for ITN. Ping Muboshgu because this has been ready for a few hours and you were the most recently active admin I could find. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Supreme court is the oldest and should be removed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William Levada

Nominator's comments: Catholic cardinal, former Archbishop of San Francisco and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Should hopefully be adequately referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support not my taste in article quality, but sufficiently referenced to avoid most BLP traps for a cardinal. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Hong Kong protests

Nominator's comments: Another one not being "continuously updated". I know where the "history" link is too it's all ref fixes and content tweaks, no new info for days. Stale, very stale now. Had a good run. LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree with this. It's really no longer in the news. It'd been there also for a long time it seems. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I still see HK pop up when I check the front Google News page, but it not as intense as it was when this was added. --Masem (t) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to lack of meaningful, large-scale updates to the article recently ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose / wait per Masem. Still in the news, but less so than before. Davey2116 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Lack of interest even in broadsheet newspapers, and not much updates in the article. STSC (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Masem and per Davey2116. There's no scarcity of news articles when I look for them (I easily found 10 stories from 10 outlets from today with one search). I'm still seeing it prominently in my news feed every couple of days, so it would not be appropriate to remove it at this time. The article certainly could benefit from further updates, but with the breadth of available news stories we'd likely need to put it back on ITN as soon as the article sufficiently covers the latest information.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – There has been no significant update since September 20 making this older than the oldest blurb. This is objectively old news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove No substantial updates since at least 23 September. Being in the news and updates will come later can't be reasons to keep articles in Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading, I note that many edits are biased or even outright sloganeering, despite this being a semi-protected. They are being (rightfully) reverted, but they're still up for a few hours at least. Those are hours in which readers are clicking on the link from the Front Page and seeing bad text. The article protection ends today, and perhaps it would be better to have a period of full protection to get the article sorted, and if anything comes up in the mean time, re-nom for Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove We don't need to keep it up just because the protest continue. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Banedon, the protests are still going, there are still developments happening, and the international press are still covering it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed from Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just curious: do we need consensus to keep or consensus to remove? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in WP:ITN but didn't find anything on this. I would assume though that we need consensus to remove ongoing from ITN, as usually we need consensus in favor of doing an action (usually adding something to ITN) but in this case that action is actually removing an Ongoing article. Does anyone else agree? Or do I sound crazy? ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For those who oppose please note: "Articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" per WP:ITN - STSC (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-removal oppose considering that List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests is still being updated. And if we must link 2019 Hong Kong protests from the main page, I'm happy to update it. I particularly expect significant events to occur on 1 October so this would probably have to be re-added to Ongoing in a few days, if it's not restored now. feminist (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Papua protests

Nominator's comments: While the protests may still be "ongoing" the story is no longer "frequently in the news" and the article is not being "continuously updated". LaserLegs (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removal - it is still very much ongoing and in the news. Just 2 days ago The Guardian reported "At least 20 killed and 70 injured in day of violence in West Papua" [13], and the recent sources which have been added covering that violence include Al Jazeera and The New York Times. The article has had edits every day since the 22nd September, although there was only one edit between the 14th and the 22nd. The most recent additions need some editing, and no doubt other editors will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait maybe a few more days. There were several substantive updates on September 22 & 23; I would leave this for a little while. If nothing new happens by the weekend or so, then I would agree that it needs to be taken down. --Jayron32 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - still some considerable updates recently. BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I too noticed some updates being made recently, pretty significant ones too. No need to rush to take this down ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above comments. While I would have supported this removal if it were proposed about a week ago, it has received major updates over the last few days as tensions significantly escalated.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was on a wikibreak a week ago ... but consider that one meaningful update in weeks might not be enough... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meaningful updates have been occurring within the last few days because the situation itself has been re-intensifying over the last few days; had the Papua protests been removed previously, now would actually be a good time to put the story back up onto ITN.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose scores of people were killed or injured just a couple days ago. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is being rather overshadowed by the SEA haze. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Jayron32. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove – Now stale. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wamena-Jayapura riots said it all. Dhio-270599 03:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Since 24 September, there have been no material updates to the article. The large byte-numbers in the edit history are a quirk of Wiki's diff algorithm. That 7 kb change was padding references, a few hundred bit changes here and there are tweaking the infobox. On September 23 a new section was created to document the resumption of protests, and the results of which have not merited mention in the article. Three days of no updates and an apparent loss of interest by editors means this should go.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You have perfectly explained why we should wait. Template:In the news shows that the oldest blurb is from September 22. As long as the most recent significant update to the article is as recent or more recent than the oldest blurb, this should stay, per WP:ITN#Ongoing section: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had thought that this direction was more of a litmus test. That, updates should be frequent and the quoted circumstance indicates infrequent updates; not that the circumstance should be a requirement for being infrequent. I am leaving my vote as is, because a 3 day break in updates is obviously not continuously updated per the stated criteria for Ongoing. Even moreso when "scores of people were killed" (to quote someone above) and this still doesn't result in updates.130.233.2.252 (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, 7 days since last substantial update, and 4 days of NO UPDATES at all.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. Per above. --Jayron32 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Jacques Chirac

Article: Jacques Chirac (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former French President Jacques Chirac (pictured) dies aged 86. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times) (Guardian)
Credits:

• Nominated by Bruzaholm (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bruzaholm (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose solely on article quality. When these issues are dealt with, then a blurb is supportable. Major world politician that is blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Several citation issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, per Mjroots - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - until article is done.BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, RD is fine once the referencing issues are resolved. An influential politician, but not a world-changing one. Modest Genius ^talk 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His opposition to the war in Iraq forced the US and UK to go it alone; that was pretty world-changing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think history would have been very different if French troops marched into Basra alongside the British ones. Chirac didn't stop the war. Modest Genius ^talk 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, per others. The article needs some updating. However, once resolved, I would support a blurb over RD ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for section title issues. I understand that there is a desire to have descriptive headings, but I think there are either too many of them, or several sections put too much information in the headings. Rockphed (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite blurb if article issues are resolved. Former leader deaths of major nations are almost always blurbed, and Chirac was leader for a full twelve years.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only The standard is "major transformative world leaders in their field" not leader of a G7 country. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, Support RD - per what I've been told, we're no longer covering deaths of former leaders or leaders in blurbs. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per what I've been told -- how is that an argument? -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Chirac was a pretty important world leader, he lead a major nation for 12 years. I remember hearing about him quite often in world news when he was president of France. 1779Days (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Just because he was the head of a G7 nation doesn't mean we should automatically give his death a blurb. He's been out of office for over a decade. He wasn't a transformative figure, as best I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb (obviously) when ready. Leader of a major nation, who had important global effects. Davey2116 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2116:, obviously not an "obvious" blurb since three people above you have written "oppose blurb". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The reasons given by these opposers are not really substantial imo. We're not trying to blurb this just because he was a G7 leader; he was a dominant figure in France for decades and had far-reaching global effects as has been said (Iraq war, nuclear testing, his support for the EU and NATO, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• His point (I think) is that calling one side of a dispute "obviously" the right one is disrespectful of those expressing the opposing opinion. The blurb threshold is extremely subjective, so neither opinion is the "correct" one. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality, support blurb in principle. Chirac was the most important living French President, and also served two terms as Prime Minister; I'd suggest that Chirac is the only post-Mitterand French President who would deserve a blurb. He was one of the most important global voices that opposed the War in Iraq; and also played a role in ending France's atomic bomb tests. He also played a significant role in the French-speaking world. However, the article is in bad shape right now--I counted 18 citation needed tags, and several more unreferenced paragraphs--and this article cannot be posted until that is remedied. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD or blurb when ready. He was an important world leader, and his policies on issues like nuclear testing (especially in the Pacific), French overseas military bases (especially in Africa), and the Iraq war had international impacts. (Surely Americans remember when French fries were renamed Freedom fries?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose large swathes of text are unreferenced. It can be posted when the text quality is fixed. I'm agnostic on whether or not this is a blurb or RD. Makes no difference. --Jayron32 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Cannot be just RD, he was a notable global statesman. STSC (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality - I would support blurb but the article needs fixing up on its sourcing as it has a lot of citation needed tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, but Support blurb on significance, once sourcing is improved. -Zanhe (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality but support blurb – Article quality is still a problem. But Jacques Chirac was a major influential world leader. His death warrants a blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've fixed/removed most of the references error messages [14]. Those mentioning "article quality" etc. here would be more helpful if when objections were more to the point, that is: make actable points. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A valid point. We tend to be less specific when the quality is worse. The overwhelming majority of this article has no references at all. The RD/blurb argument is moot; this is probably not going up. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article would be OK if every opponent here had fixed just one reference. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't the ones asking for it to be posted to the main page. It is incumbent upon those requesting that an action be taken to make the necessary changes so it can be taken. People who haven't expressed the desire to have it posted are under no obligation to fix the article. People who want it posted should fix it themselves. --Jayron32 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mention any obligation, not even an expectation. Just a help suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Even a suggestion that opponents fix the problems they detect is frowned upon, as it is a hair away from saying "...or else hold your tongue." GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad framing. Again: I did not "suggest[ion] that opponents fix the problems". Please stop it.

Actually, what is the actual ground to declare 'bad quality'? Can't we use a FA-GA-A-..-C assesment? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is: a very notable President died and this wiki cannot get the article link on its mainpage. Dozens of opinions here re article quality, but only few editors actually moving the article fw. That Chirac is not on our mainpage is a disgrace. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, putting an article of that quality on the main page would be a disgrace. WP:SOFIXIT and it'll get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar wth this page, but the gratuitous declarations of '[bad] quality' are below standard. And useless, uncheckable. How did those !voters here decide? No argument, no points for improvement, nothing. We'd better have just one (speedy) FA-...-C assessment, inviting improvement. A lousy thread this is. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, citations, specifically the lack thereof. Do you see the orange tag on the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: I see two even! (in some 40 paragraphs). But I do not get a single argument here on what would be acceptable? How is ths article ba, compared to other RD listed articles? My question remains: how do we measure & judge this "quality"? Why do I not see a single point for improvement to make the article MP-worthy? All I see is !votes/votes. Useless. (Sure after my pressure drops of useful notes appear. OTOH, I read that "article quality assessment don't count". sure.). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now due to quality, support blurb per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• RD asap I propose. Important Predsident (he opposed Iraq war, agains US dominace). Those dozen+ claiming '[bad] article quality' may not have scrutinised the article really, I doubt their judgement wrt detail and actual faults. Anyway, the article should be assessed (speedily) instead of judgerd by free, unchecked remarks. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is class-B [15]. That is enough to qualify for WP:ITNRD listing. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I counted more than 30 paragraphs without a single reference, and multiple unreferenced sections. Your unilateral assessment is meaningless. Stephen 21:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, please clear those two orange tags, they're the obstacles to getting posted in ITN. STSC (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@STSC: 1. Please don't talk down on me. Everyone can fix them, you too. 2. Until now, nobody argued that those tags were the issue (they just !voted, remember). How should we know that removing them was the obstacle to do? Even now, how can you guarantee promotion of the article after this? 3. And please don't talk down on me. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, The article has to have everything supported by citations and no tags (or any reasons to have tags). No unsupported information or anything unreferenced. Yes, Chirac should be on the MP, but he needs to have an article of sufficient standard. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't talk down on you, it's just a friendly advice. "'orange' level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page" per WP:ITN. If I have time, I'd make the effort to find the references but it looks like an enormous task, to be honest. STSC (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @DePiep: I assume you're new to ITN, as you seem baffled by the Oppose !votes above which cite the article's quality,yet that is always a thing people look for when they decide if a page is eligible. The rule is set out at WP:ITN#Article quality and, as SchroCat says, it generally requires every paragraph to have at least one source, and every fact that may be challenged to be cited. I'd love to help out with fixing the article, but unfortunately it's late and I don't have the time now, and frankly it's a huge task as JC's page is not in good shape right now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Amakuru. Yes I am new here, as I noted. For the first time someone points to the more objective criteria applicable here. Took some posts to get here. So, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: you're welcome and yes, I can understand that it's difficult if you are new to a place and don't understand the established rules. It's often worth looking at the top of project pages if you're not sure - this one has a lot of useful links near the top, explaining all details of the ITN process. Have a nice weekend and good luck to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality per above. This article is going to need a lot of work before it can be posted. Referencing in particular is unacceptable for any article much less one covered by BLP. I have also reverted DePiep's grading the article as a B class. It is not even close to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on RD. Major world leader. Hybernator (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Chirac's death is a pretty glaring omission from the home page. It's also kind of wild that the death of a former U.S. president will get a blurb within an hour or two of his death, while a former French president can't even be included in the "Recent deaths" section because it would generate more traffic and potential contributors to his article(???). What a bizarre and bad system. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are about two dozen CN tags throughout the article, which might be covered by other references within the article, or which might be resolved by removing that particular sentence (the article is very granular), but they are deserved. This is a common problem with articles using non-English sources for references; it greatly reduces the number of editors that can resolve such things. I do this from time to time, but it is a tedious task, especially when the CN is for a direct, already-translated quote, or when (esp. in this case) the CN is for a purported motivation that looks suspiciously like an editorialization that you find in political literature. Articles for US presidents have an active group of editors curating their pages, so when one dies that articles are already in a postable state.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Southeast Asian haze: blurb/ongoing

Article: 2019 Southeast Asian haze (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ During the 2019 Southeast Asian haze, nearly 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nearly 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases resulting from smoke from wildfires across Southeast Asia since June 2019.
Alternative blurb II: ​ During the 2019 Southeast Asian haze, over 800,000 people endure respiratory diseases.
News source(s): The Guardian, Bloomberg Quint, The Diplomat, SCMP (nearly 900,000...), Vice, The Straits Times, Aljazeera, and many others
Credits:

• Nominated by Dhio270599 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Night Lantern (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TheGreatSG'rean (talk · give credit), RGuy02 (talk · give credit) and Starship.paint (talk · give credit)

 Dhio-270599 02:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Amazon fires made it to the blurb, the ongoing SE Asian fire might be blurb-worthy as well. Open to blurb alternatives; especially from non-Indonesia datas (the main blurb and the first alternative represent impacts in Indonesia). Dhio-270599 02:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Update: first alternative removed)[reply]

• I think we need better blurbs, not that this isn't ITN-able. The second blurb is not appropriate (anything that is along the lines "won't someone think of the children" and ignore the adult also affected is not neutral). The first blurb is true from the SCMP article, but it should explain this is total #s over the last few months. The issue is coming to head now just as the Amazon fires did - air quality was so bad as to make the sky red in parts of SE Asia, but this is not just a sudden event. --Masem (t) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Thank you for the advice. Deleted the first alternative; is "Over the last few months, almost 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases from the 2019 Southeast Asian haze" a sufficient alternative for the main nominated blurb? Dhio-270599 03:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel obligated to suggest a perfect blurb yourself. We can crowd source something appropriate. Instead can you make sure "900,000" has an in-line citation? I don't see it mentioned in the article clearly. Editors here are unlikely to accept synthesis of figures. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - In principal, there are a couple of citation issues to be cleared. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While the article isn't in the best shape, I think it just squeaks by for good enough. If a couple more citations were added where they're needed, it would be a shoe-in. I'll look into finding some ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good now. I'd prefer ongoing but I'll support either blurb or ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are enough decent references —and well placed. Good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Blurb fact still not mentioned in target article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coffeeandcrumbs: - it is mentioned now [16]. starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major environmental disaster affecting multiple countries. Article is now well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment clearly strong support, this is good to go, but make sure the blurb is properly constructed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I'd be fine with posting the article, but we do NOT as yet have a decent blurb. Both blurbs are currently demonstratedly factually wrong, as the text of the article says that 900,000 people in one particular country have experienced respiratory distress, yet our blurb states the wrong fact that there are 900,000 total people. We need to find another hook for this one before it's posted, and the 900,000 figure needs to go entirely. --Jayron32 12:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems hard to find a # affected, but agree it should be of all countries, not just one. --Masem (t) 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be too vague to just say "...over a million people endure..."? I'm concerned with ever nailing down an actual number ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but we need a citation about even that in the article. Currently, the only citation we have is for 900,000 in Indonesia. Maybe, it would be better to make this an ongoing link instead. That works for solid articles that are of newsworthy stories, but where there isn't a good blurb to write. This one seems more of a slow burn (excuse the pun) anyways, which is more suited for ongoing. --Jayron32 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Proposed ALT2 - which is factually accurate even though we only know the number for Indonesia. starship.paint (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wish we had an estimate of the size of the cloud in square kilometers or something instead of trying to tie this to a human cost with a dubious (but verifiable) claim of nearly a million people suffering respiratory diseases because of it. #twocents anyway. Blurb before ongoing is my standard position, FWIW. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted blurb using ALT2. In all honesty, I think the blurb wording could be improved; recommend any suggestions with better precision go to WP:ERRORS. Spencer^T•C 16:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shuping Wang

Nominator's comments: Chinese medical worker that helped to identify bad practices that led to the spread of hepatidis and HIV in central China in the 1990s, which she was shunned and attacked for, forcing her to move to the US. We never had an article on her (!) but not only do we have obits but we also have the fact that she was, early this month, helping in the production of a play based on her experiences that opened in London, so we also have some coverage to add for there. (That is, she was notable before her death, just that we never created this article). Will need improvement before posting. Masem (t) 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NOW it is at a state that should be minimally good for RD. --Masem (t) 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support thank you for starting this article @Surtsicna:! Thsmi002 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice work Surtsicna and Masem! I read about it on BBC last night. This should probably be posted under Sep 25 as that's when her death was reported. -Zanhe (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you, people! If this proposal does not pass, I will nominate the article for DYK, as was my initial intention. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding a note that while I had nominatd this at the Sept 22, she actually died Sept 21, but first reports of her death were on 25th. --Masem (t) 23:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment still ready, 12 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I have 2 minor problems: I am unsure if she should be listed as Wang Shuping or Shuping Wang (at least one source lists her as Wang Shuping), and the article does not explain what her medical credentials were. I see her listed as a doctor in one of the sources. Was it missed in the article, or do we not have any sources that actually explain what her medical credentials were? To be clear, I don't think either of these problems is enough to stop posting this otherwise excellently written and well sourced article. Rockphed (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your first question, per the article: "The native form of this personal name is Wang Shuping. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals." (Wang is the family name). Spencer^T•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• She died 21 September. And is placed before Arne Weise on the Main Page. And is placed on the 25th here. Move.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @BabbaQ: it looks like her death was not announced until the 25th. If that was the case, then she is eligible to be listed under the later date. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Kashmir earthquake

Nominator's comments: Major disaster with casualties. Article may need expansion Now expanded to double size.. DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is the deadliest earthquake in 2019, killing nearly twice as many as the second-deadliest earthquake, and the death toll is still rising. The article could use some expansion, but what is there appears to be cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though would like to see more expansion if possible. We're talking a relatively remote area so that may not coming quickly. --Masem (t) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is bare-bones, but it does have sufficient citations to make it usable. It will most likely be expanded as time goes on. INeedSupport ^:V 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article could be expanded, and I expect it will be, but the sourcing for what is there is good ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significance and impact are obvious. Article needs some expansion though. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I have doubled the size of the article since the time I nominated it. More expansion will follow, but it can now be posted. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Still a short article, but it looks well written. Rockphed (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muboshgu, can someone post the credits. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Spencer--DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Arne Weise

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sourced well, no objections here ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Seems perfectly well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hazza Al Mansouri

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Hazza Al Mansouri (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hazza Al Mansouri (pictured), the first United Arab Emirates astronaut, is launched to the International Space Station (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, CBS News
Credits:

• Nominated by PhilipTerryGraham (talk · give credit)
• Created by Hektor (talk · give credit)

 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - quality is not good enough, too many citations needed. Also not sure if this is really newsworthy, we don't typically cover the first astronaut from X country do we? Presumably the mission itself, Soyuz MS-15, might qualify under WP:ITN/R, although its article is also little more than a stub.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I mean, this is important for UAE and don't want to downplay that, but superlative things like this (first X to Y) don't necessary make the greatest ITNs unless we're talking national leaders. --Masem (t) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose would make a great hook for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd refer the nominator to the DYK process, which is perfect for stuff like this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not refer articles to WP:DYK when they have no chance of meeting the 5X expansion requirement. It seems cynical and not helpful. We can just oppose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense, GAN is a perfectly normal route these days for that part of the main page, arguably much easier than a 5× expansion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Not everyone considers GAN as easy as you seem to think they are and it would be helpful then to point out that the nominator should improve to GA and then nominate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      That's as maybe, but it still shouldn't stop us recommending other aspects of Wikipedia which are perfectly apt for this kind of story. I'm not going to regurgitate the rules of DYK, that's for others to discover. Your "cynical" claim is offensive, likewise pretending it to be "not helpful" is, itself, not helpful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) RD: Linda Porter

(Posted) 2I/Borisov

Nominator's comments: This was scrolling off the ITNC previously, which was nominated when the yet-to-be-published paper was released. There were opposes one the technical quality of the article (which, as a science article, may be unactionable) and concerns about the lack of peer-review/published paper (see [18]). However, on this day (Sept 24) as it was about to scroll off, the International Astronomical Union have confirmed the findings of Borisov and renamed it as "2I/Borisov", confirming it as the second interstellar object to be observed and the first comet of that type. This was based on independent findings from NASA and ESA among others - this should be the equivalent of peer-review to alleviate that issue. There is new news coverage of this discovery (24th and beyond) and the IAU's naming in association with this, so I believe this requalifies as a new ITNC discussion, though again, I link back to the past one for review of the !votes. – Masem (t) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb per nom and as previously. Brandmeister^talk 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – it's the first interstellar comet; a big moment in the history of astronomy. Definitely worthy of an ITN blurb. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability; I prefer alt burb. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt-blurb; I've written an alt-blurb which tidies a repetition of wording, and clarifies 2I/Borisov is the first to be verified as interstellar; aren't there several comets that could be interstellar but aren't yet proven to be? Sceptre (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt-blurb2 - I supported this the first time it was nominated so I definitely do now! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a slightly modified version of ALT2. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 81 minutes nom to post is awfully fast, given the prior nom had a lot of opposition- not all of which has not been addressed by the IAU statement. 159.53.110.192 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prior nom had two main points of opposition: One was a lack of peer-review, which I have pointed out, the IAU renaming based on independent validation satisfies that, and that the article was too technical. On the later, I have been doing some edits to help bring it down a bit (eg the part about eccentricity was definitely a notch too high). Coupled that there was a whole week of previous discussion, and that I tried to get attention yesterday before it scrolled off, makes the short time to post not an issue. --Masem (t) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to ongoing) Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

Nominator's comments: Yes, this is not the end of the road on this, but this is the first actual formal inquiry by one full chamber (committees have talked of it before). Obviously, we're not going to have resolution for several months, but this is a significant aspect of the long-running situation over Trump and the formal announcement is a point of no return on the process. Masem (t) 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment What does "impeachment inquiries" mean? Seems like a bit more clarity would be useful because I can't assess how momentous this is based on the blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the US, the House of Reps must set up a case for impeachment by bring in witnesses, collecting evidence and testimony, etc (this is the inquiry) Once a case is made it is formalized into articles of impeachment that then must pass a vote of the House. If that happens, the President is impeached, at which point it goes to the Senate, overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, to vote whether to convict the President on the House's articles. The Senate can then choose not to convict (as with Clinton) and nothing then happens, or they can convict, and that kicks the President out of office. Impeachment in the United States has more detail. Yes, its a long road, and right now, no one is pegging the Senate to convict, but still, we've only had impeachment happen 4 times before. --Masem (t) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are better of starting with the new article Impeachment of Donald Trump. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just seen that, using that as the target. --Masem (t) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – The storm isn't breaking yet. This more of a dark cloud on the horizon. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC) → .[reply]
• Strong support or add to ongoing (as compromise) – As Masem noted, this is just the start of a long process, but it's notable regardless and is very rarely used against a US President. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC); Edited 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it be worth linking to the 2019 Trump–Ukraine controversy in the blurb once that article's quality is improved? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Most analysts believe that was the triggering event but Pelosi didn't mention it directly in the announcement. --Masem (t) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks! Makes sense to leave it out if there's no direct link made by Pelosi then. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Scratch that, she did. Might make it too long, but I'll altblurb that. --Masem (t) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Proposing Alt blurb II. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would suggest that we could maybe put this under "Ongoing" as well? The impeachment process will take a while and this will likely be in the news for months to come. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with that. It would probably be the best choice. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until at a minimal it goes to Senate for trial, if not actual conviction. -- KTC (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support and/or add to ongoing events – An exceptionally notable and rare event that will be talked about for generations. It will have a widespread impact on global affairs, the rest of Trump's presidency, and America's politics. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support and/or add to ongoing events per MarvellingLiked. Enormous story, but it's not an impeachment proceeding yet.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• support - and add to Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and/or ongoing per above. This is clearly notable and is the right time to post this. Davey2116 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a comment related to putting this in ongoing: Clinton's impeaching - from inquiry to acquittal, took about 4 months - a month for House to issue Articles (Nov to Dec 1998) and then a month for the Senate trial (Jan to Feb 1999). Nixon's were nearly a year, but prolonged by the Watergate discovery. My suggest is that we should only use ongoing this if/when the House issues and passes the Articles which will require the Senate to hold its trial, as in Nixon's case that was also only about a month. --Masem (t) 23:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing Seems like an important process. Would of course be removed if anything comes from it. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - because it's unlikely anything comes out of this, and unless something does, it's just internal politics. Weak oppose only because of the breadth of coverage I'm seeing. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support later Wait until the trial-- BoothSift 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb – This is a major development in the news. We can put it in ongoing when it rolls off. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now pbp 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support blurb big news, but the target article is pretty thin. No ongoing, this is a step in a process that may never go anywhere. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ongoing / Oppose Blurb I have consistently opposed the never ending succession of Trump related nominations here. However I have to admit that this is on an altogether different level. It's not impeachment but it is the first formal step in that direction and it moves the United States closer to a serious constitutional crisis. I don't think we can ignore this. That said, it is the first step only in what is likely to be a hyper-partisan and highly sensationalized investigation. Most of this will likely be in the form of public hearings held over a lengthy period. All of which makes a blurb rather unsuitable. So ongoing should work for now. If/when articles of impeachment are adopted by the House then a blurb would be justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The event we want to blurb is Trump undergoing impeachment in the Senate. This is too soon to blurb, and we don't want an endless string of Trump-related blurbs. The House approving impeachment might be soon, but it is not yet here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Because Trump is only the 4th president to have any serious chance of being impeached. The only other presidents comparable to where Trump is right now are Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Andrew Johnson. It's received significant attention because his presidency is unique in American history. It's received disproportionate attention because Trump is disproportionately notable.MarvellingLiked (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until it goes into the Senate. At most it can go into ongoing right now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for Ongoing until first House committee(s) pass articles of impeachment to be voted upon in the full House per the timeline Masem noted Re: Nixon and Bill Clinton. In line with others expressing opposition to turning ITN into an excessive Trump ticker, blurb should wait until the full Senate votes on articles of conviction. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: well, I kind of shot myself in the foot when I argued downstream that "Ilhan Omar introducing articles of impeachment shouldn't be ITN, but if Steny Hoyer did it, that's a different story", didn't I? :P Sceptre (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - Let's see what comes of it. STSC (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The mere existence of an impeachment inquiry has only happened 4 times in American history. In other words, an average of ~60 years. Its mere existence is extensively notable on its own. MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait - I'm echoing the above. If it doesn't go anywhere, I suppose we can mention it per the support reasoning, but as it stands it's almost definitely going to evolve into something bigger so we might as well wait for that. Pie3141527182 (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for the actual impeachment proceedings to start. This is not a major international news. Nor is it extensively covered in the international media as headlines. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems like the Mueller inquiry which is best listed when it concludes and we know the result. Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Andrew D. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Until she sits down, gavel in hand, and actually calls order on this, it is still just talk. Rockphed (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ that. I can get behind that. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The impeachment inquiry has already begun through Pelosi's announcement. The Constitution doesn't require a formal commencement/vote. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Rockphead above. I question how newsworthy this is if it doesn't go anywhere. The announcement of an inquiry isn't news, it's the result that is. ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. As far as I can tell, this is just an announcement. The inquiry hasn't begun, and it's a long way from an impeachment vote. Impeachment of a sitting US president would certainly be ITN-worthy; a political announcement of intention is not. Perhaps if the House votes to charge Trump, that would be an appropriate point to post this story. Also, there is no clear consensus to post, so I'm removing the 'ready' tag. Modest Genius ^talk 12:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though I'd concede it's not an absolute necessity to post now. But on a point of clarity: this is not a political gesture or "mere" announcement, but the actual start of proceedings. The inquiry is now happening. Also, fears of a constant stream of Trump posts were valid in Jan '17, but we've managed it well. We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait although User:GreatCaesarsGhost has answered my most cogent question already, the procedure, which would only have a concrete result if 2/3 of the Republican-dominated Senate voted to convict Trump, seems more of a political stunt than anything else. I would urge to see where this leads before we make an elephant out of a molehill. complainer 13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Waiting for a conviction, which has never happened in the history of congress, is a bit too far. I can understand waiting for the judiciary committee to bring articles of impeachment, which has only occurred three times in the past, or waiting for a majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach, an event that has only occurred twice in the past. This is not like a vote of no confidence which is a common occurrence in parliamentary governments. This shit just almost never happens in United States. IMO, editors here are putting too high a threshold. We are not being reasonable. I hope there is not this much resistance to nomination if the house brings articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the actual trial begins. That’s the big event that should be covered. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing This is a rare and serious process, and it is one that will take some time. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing - clearly a (rare and serious) process rather than a discrete event. Neutrality^talk 19:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing - Duh. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise proposal: Support ongoing - Although I stated I was for both above, I'm fine with this as a compromise solution. MarvellingLiked (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose /Wait per many comments above. As and when this gets going fully, for the actual impeachment votes etc, we can post. But for now it's premature. I wouldn't post it to ongoing either,as its early days and I would not expect daily updates.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing but oppose blurb. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to ongoing — Consensus leans in favor of posting in some form. Of the votes, 10 are in support of a blurb, 8 for ongoing only, 10 suggest waiting, and 4 are outright opposed. Comments are in largely in agreement over a compromise to post in ongoing rather than a blurb and that is the chosen action. This serves to avoid excessive updates/reposting of blurbs with the incremental happenings.
  Those in support focus on this being the most serious action taken against President Trump to-date and the exceptional rarity of such an event. As brought up by the nominator (Masem), this is only the fourth instance of an impeachment inquiry against a US President. Those in opposition or suggesting to wait are focusing on this not the biggest part of the story, but a Senate trial would be. Another notable opposition point is the potential lack of results from this inquiry. While this potential does exist, the story is very much a major event for the United States regardless of what happens next. Anticipation of results either way creeps into WP:Crystal territory, and I have elected to give less weight to those arguments. Furthermore, international significance is irrelevant per ITN/C guidelines. This will undoubtedly be a long, drawn out story with at least one other major event (more if it brought to the Senate). President Trump is almost constantly in the news for various reasons and thus mention of him is largely avoided on ITN. However as mentioned above, this particular case rises above the rest as the most serious action taken against him to-date.
  
  Summation: consensus exists to post with a compromise to post to ongoing. Further discussion on a blurb can continue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: By my count, I see 14 votes in support of some form of posting (Support, Weak Support, or Support Ongoing [9 votes]), 18 against posting (Wait, Oppose, or Weak Oppose), and 2 retracted (crossed-out) votes. How this makes a consensus to post at all, much less post as ongoing, I question. Regardless of my opinion on posting or not, I don't see how a majority of votes against posting constitutes a consensus for doing it ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with mike_gigs above. Consensus needs to exist to post to ongoing or the item needs to be continuously updated as it ages off the template; Ongoing is not a "compromise" space to post items without a clear consensus. Sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Spencer^T•C 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]