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.

Alan García
Alan García

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

  • 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...

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


Suggestions


April 20


April 19

Politics and elections

Turpin case

Article: Turpin case (talk, history)
Blurb: David and Louise Turpin are sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after they plead guilty to several criminal counts including torture, child abuse, and false imprisonment.
News source(s): The Independent, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A high quality article about a subject that has been of significant interest in popular culture as well as the news media. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lyra McKee

Article: Lyra McKee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Journalist shot dead during a riot in Northern Ireland. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable death because of background, and circumstances in which it occurred. Also received international coverage. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per This is Paul. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing Ready. Let's slow down a little here; it's unclear to me whether or not the subject was notable prior to her death. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe she meets WP:CREATIVE but I can understand the hesitation.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Now appears adequately sourced and developed. I think the subject's notability before her death is very questionable; the standards for journalists are very (too?) tough and she would not have been eligible as an author (requires a minimum of two published, reviewed books); such figures appear at Speedy quite often, in my experience. Let's see if anyone wants to move it to "Killing of..." but I don't think that needs to hold up an RD.
    Proposed image
    Article: Extinction Rebellion (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​The Extinction Rebellion group occupies major road junctions for several days in London to protest climate change. with over 650 arrested.
    News source(s): The Guardian, Telegraph

    Article updated

    Nominator's comments: Protests have been major news in the UK all week and are being heavily discussed in the media. User:GKFXtalk 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Comment & Support Added more context to blurb to explain why it's not just a plain ol' protest. Kingsif (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose - This barely registered as a blip in the World section of the New York Times, who are usually quick to report on these sorts of things if they are notable. So I have my doubts as to the notability of these protests.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose – Agree with Walt that it's below the radar on most major news sites. (The Guardian, though a valuable RS, favors these kinds of topics.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment: News coverage of it has been pretty significant here in the UK. I count eight related headlines on the homepage of the Telegraph, which is much further to the right of the political specrum than the Guardian, and in the paper edition over the last few days it has also taken up a large amount of space. However I will acknoledge that it's been less reported abroad. In terms of notability it's unusual for protestors to be arrested in such large numbers in the UK - over 500 people at this point. It's been even reported that police were running out of cells to hold protestors. As an example of TV news there's this interview on Channel 5, and another on Good Morning Britain. User:GKFXtalk 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Where are you getting "closing stations" from? They caused a brief interruption to service on the Docklands Light Railway for an hour or so, but there's no mention—either in the Wikipedia article or any coverage I can find—of them closing stations, let alone "for several days". ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That wasn't my version of the blurb. I've amended it to focus on the road-based protest and the number of arrests. (ref Met Police on Twitter) User:GKFXtalk 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose while it's quite un-British to do this (and the French do it practically weekly), it's still not enough for me to be considered worthy of even a passing mention in the year's most encyclopedically interesting events. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I'll take the risk of disagreeing with TRM, and say that this isn't even un-British. A similar group (probably including most of the same people) were camped out outside St Pauls a couple of years ago, the fuel protestors blocked roads practically weekly in the 2000s, anything with the slightest connection to either GM crops or oil drilling can expect a group of protestors camped out nearby… "Blocking the road" is nowadays the default course of action for any British special-interest group trying to draw attention to whatever cause they're promoting. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Support: When was the last time over 400 people were arrested, in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      Well, according to the government, last year, an average of
      Disasters and accidents

      Law and crime
      Politics and elections

      RD: Lorraine Rita Warren

      Article: Ed and Lorraine Warren (talk, history)
      Recent deaths nomination
      News source(s): MSN, NY Daily News, Deadline

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

      Nominator's comments: The article is about her and her husband. Her husband died several years ago and she died on April 18. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

      • Oppose because it is missing a biographical section and has no mention of death in prose. The criticism section also needs to be integrate to avoid undue emphasis. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Oppose. Lacking references and the criticism section has an NPOV tag. The media appearances section is unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Oppose. The article is in poor shape and contains next-to-no reliably sourced biographical material. Could someone remind me of previous instances when we have published RDs of individuals in this type of joint article?
        death not yet confirmed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

        Article: David Lama (talk, history)
        Recent deaths nomination
        News source(s): BBC

        Article updated

        Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
         Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Wait Not confirmed dead yet 67.183.112.3 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment - The IP is right. All the sources say "presumed dead".--SirEdimon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Wait - until confirmed. Then Support.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

        RD: Jess Roskelley

        Death not yet confirmed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

        Article: Jess Roskelley (talk, history)
        Recent deaths nomination
        News source(s): BBC

        Article updated

        Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
         Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        Agreed per Coffeeandcrumbs There is no mention about it or a citation. Aviartm (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment. We might also want to wait a little; we do not usually work from "presumed dead". The avalanche is being reported as on Tuesday.[1] Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

        RD: Hansjoerg Auer

        Death not yet confirmed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

        Article: Hansjoerg Auer (talk, history)
        Recent deaths nomination
        News source(s): BBC

        Article updated

        Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
         Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

        (Posted) Mueller Report

        Nominator's comments: After about 2 years of investigations and much anticipation along the way, Attorney General William Barr/Department of Justice has released the Special Counsel's final report to the public. Aviartm (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

        • Ongoing major story which has been in the news around the world for years. Parent article and various sub articles get regular, quality updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Ongoing. Stuff will trickle out over the next week or so as people and the news read the report. The release of this report was highly anticipated and is global news. If this is posted as a blurb, the fact that the report was redacted should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Oppose for now. We posted when we knew it was completed, so the fact that a (redacted?) version is out was something that was going to happen - whether voluntarily or coerced by Congress. As I suspect that every outside that even slightly off-from-political-center is going to try to find or disprove the evidence towards Russian involvement, we're likely going to be dealing with a lot of POV in the short term (that is, this is not a good state for Ongoing). The better point to post is if the Justice Department seeks any action, or reports they will take no action, against Trump or others from this report. --Masem (t) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        Justice Department policy (especially with Barr) is that they can't do anything to President Trump; only Congress can. There were other matters referred out of the SC's office but those were redacted so we don't know what they are(though one is likely Assange) 331dot (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        So we can wait for Congress to take action. We posted that it was done, but since no one else can do anything with the redacted version, this is not a ITN point. It's "in the news" but we try to avoid too many stories on the same topic when they are inconsequential updates. --Masem (t) 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        Other than more hearings, Congress is not going to take action as Speaker Pelosi has said there will be no impeachment as long as the chance of conviction in the Senate is zero. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        Then this is a non-story from an ITN point. We posted that the investigation was complete, and if no one plans to take any action, then its done. I know its all over the news because the media are looking for any dirt to throw, but we don't engage in political mudslinging stories here. --Masem (t) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        Good points Masem but if we were to specify any potential action that the Department of Justice might take would still go back to the articles wikilinked in the blurb currently. And the Justice Department has already said they do not plan on charging President Trump or his inner-circle. And the special counsel said they have no more indictments.1 Aviartm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Ongoing Concur with the above. This doesn't seem like a blurb-able story, but it's a top news item, and we have a good article to direct people to which is current and up-to-date. Seems to fit ongoing well. --Jayron32 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Ongoing per above. Article is pretty good, and it's certainly receiving significant coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment. The article may be renamed to just "Mueller report" per my suggestion there. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment. Didn't we post this before? I can see this is a big news story in the States but it's not so key elsewhere. I see no rationale whatsoever for posting it to ongoing; what conditions would it be removed under? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        Espresso Addict My nomination is not for Ongoing, but for Wikipedia:ITN. And my other nomination about the conclusion of the report which was highly contentious, which got uploaded in the end, is similar, and that was just about the conclusion of the report. This nomination is about the public release of the report. Hopefully that clarifies things! :) Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        @Espresso Addict: it's making headlines around the world. Conditions for removal would be the same as any other: the article is not getting updated, or the story is no longer "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        @Aviartm: I haven't looked at the article, but I don't oppose a blurb in principle; it should probably not have been posted before, but that's not a great reason for not posting it now. I am stating my opposition to ongoing because several ITN regulars suggested that above. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        @Espresso Addict: Oh, Ongoing refers to the Ongoing section? I know about the existence of the section but I thought Ongoing meant to wait until more details came out, ex. "Event is ongoing; standby." Aviartm (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        @LaserLegs: I can guarantee it won't be in the news in the UK for more than a few days unless something major ensues. Given the relatively small updates that have led to other articles being kept at ongoing in the absence of heavy global news coverage (see the two removal nominations currently open), and the bias in editing activity towards US topics, we might be looking at this for weeks or months. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Support, but not as Ongoing. The release of the report itself occurred at a fixed moment in time. That report is now available online at the DoJ, as is Barr's "summary". It was two years in the making. Its release, even redacted as it is, should be blurbed in ITN. In contrast, repercussions of that report (and other ongoing investigations, for that matter) should be differently captioned. Whether the repercussions will continue to be front page news around the world has never been an ITN criterion for a basic blurb. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) might make a better target for ongoing than Mueller report. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        LaserLegs That page has already been nominated before by me as you can see here. And the importance of the news is the final report, not the whole entity that is the special counsel. Aviartm (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Weak support – Tons of coverage followed by Demo vows to keep on digging, but the only really new detail so far is that DT tried to get Mueller fired – which considering all the other muckymucks he's canned is somewhat less than surprising. Nevertheless this remains a big topic. I'm not averse to Ongoing, though. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment marked ready. Looks like there is consensus to post, leaning towards ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Posted to Ongoing for now. Discussion regarding a blurb can continue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment tiresome, never blurbworthy right now, ongoing at best... if something comes out of the redaction subpoena, let us know.
          Seems WP:ITN doesn't matter anymore. I can use ABP to remove this from the box for myself, and that'll be good enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

          Article: 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (talk, history)
          Ongoing item removal
          Nominator's comments: Stale LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • In the last week, there have been few, if any meaningful updates to the article. Certainly not continuously updated as stipulated by WP:ITN. An arrest in Spain on charges from 2008, humanitarian aid for a crisis going on long before the election, sanctions starting in 2015, these things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis. The last update which had anything to do with the actual contest was the IMF denying Maduro access to reserves -- and that was over a week ago. The fact is, neither man is going to concede, there are no new defections, Maduro controls the military and the whole thing has faded into the larger Crisis in Venezuela. The presidential crisis is over, and if someone wants to nominate a different article for ongoing, they can, but this one is stale and it's time for it to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support Major events have long tails - thousands have been killed this year in the (how-can-they-still-be) ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria. Just because things keep happening does not mean ITN-worthy things are still happening. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Mild oppose recently there was the arrival of the Red Cross, and a lot US-Canada sanctions. Also sub-articles have received major updates.--MaoGo (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Red cross aid for a humanitarian crisis that has been going on for years, long before the election. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • The Red Cross entry was two days ago and was updated recently. The major plot may be going cold (who know what will happen next), that is why I mildy oppose, but surely the crisis of Venezuela in 2019 is covered with this article, independently from the title.--MaoGo (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Huh? The presidential crisis is over? Independently of whether the article stays on the main page, or is changed to the broader Crisis in Venezuela ... What has happened to the Presidential crisis article is that it has grown so large that major updates are now done in the many sub-articles (almost one for every section), with smaller summaries back to the main article, but the crisis is far from "over", and remains the most highly viewed Venezuelan article. "These things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis"? These things (corruption, crime, humanitarian crisis and failure to accept aid) are the reason there is a crisis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Respectfully -- and I know you're basically the sole maintainer of this -- be it the humanitarian crisis or the sanctions both of those sub-articles make it abundantly clear that those issues were ongoing well before January 2019. That is, while the presidential crisis may overlap with those other issues, neither of those issues is a direct consequence of the crisis. The presidential crisis didn't cause the food shortages, it's just that the latest round of humanitarian aid has been politicized by parties in and out of Venezuela with a stake in impacting the leadership. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • When a very large article (about a geopolitical event of major significance to a number of countries with ongoing developments in multiple realms-- sanctions, censorship, healthcare crisis, aid delivery, recognition of representatives in major governmental bodies, etc) is well structured, well cited, and with contributing editors getting along congenially, one might expect that most content is being regularly updated in the sub-articles, with thankfully rare but succinct summaries back to the main article. On the other hand, your requirements might be satisfied if the involved editors were not correctly using summary style, and instead chunked all new content into the main article, so that it would later have to be cut and moved to the summary article. Do you want ITN to reward that kind of editing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal Contrary to the assertions of the OP, there have been several meaningful additions to the article right up to within less than 24 hours of when they made the nomination. There were several substantive additions made just yesterday, and information in the article covers information as recently as April 16 and April 17. This is still producing enough new information to keep the article moving forward. Evidence shows this is still an ongoing and evolving story. --Jayron32 15:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Jayron32 the 24 hours before that? And before that? Adding images and fixing refs != continuously updated. I went through and cataloged every update > 100 bytes for the last week, if I'm wrong, then fine, but you don't get to tell me that adding a few images on the 13th is "good enough". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I didn't say it was. I said the text added yesterday represented a substantive update, and there are several items about information from as recently as April 16 and April 17. Cherry picking some days when no updates were made doesn't make the other information go away. Also, expressing incredulity at the evidence presented by others, and taking a rude tone doesn't actually make the information go away either. --Jayron32 15:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Sorry if you felt I was being rude, it was not my intent. WP:ITN stipulates a continuously updated Wikipedia article not a sporadically updated Wikipedia article. This one fails the test, because the story is going cold. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • There is going to have some disagreement on what is continuous enough. For me, this one is continuous enough. It isn't for you. We've established both those as true things. There's no need to beat this into the ground anymore. --Jayron32 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Well, independently from whatever ITN requirements are, why do you think the presidential crisis is over? There are two men with claims to the presidency, and a pretty significant geopolitical conflict building up around that problem, not at all resolved, but reflected in issues like delivery of aid, sanctions on Cuba, oil supply to Caribbean countries, US international relations with Europe and Latin America, etc. Yesterday's sanctions were a pretty big foreign policy deal, and all of that editing action took place in three sub-articles, and was summarized back to the main article as it should be in one succinct edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • The sanctions, the humanitarian crisis, the oil embargo, all of those things were going on before the presidential crisis. That's the point I keep trying to make: the presidential crisis is largely over, Maduro won, he's not in any danger of being unseated anymore, and the ongoing Venezuelan crisis which has been happening since 2010 -- well it's ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • Ah, I see what your point is now; thanks for responding. That you believe that "Maduro won" the "presidential crisis" aids in understanding your position in the matter, in spite of the familiar geopolitical alignments of countries who don't yet believe anyone has "won". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • I'm not saying that he won and is legitimate, just that Guaidó is out of cards to play and the story has gone stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal per Jayron.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal but no issue pointing to the general VZ crisis article. The fact there's so many sub-articles makes this a difficult topic to see lots of activity at one level but the crisis clearly is ongoing. --Masem (t) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I'd rather that, if it's getting regular updates, because this story is about done. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal - The presidential crisis is FAR from over. This is an ongoing crisis reported every single day in several media outlets. I really don't understand the insistence in trying to remove this from the main page.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • WP:ITN stipulates a continuously updated Wikipedia article and as I've demonstrated, the target article is not being continuously updated with details about the presidential crisis. Does WP:ITN matter or not? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • And here I am, spending sunup to sundown updating about a dozen sub-articles. :) :) Seriously, this allegiance to "rules" could contribute to poor editing practices! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Sub-articles about the Crisis in Venezuela which has been "ongoing" since 2010 and of which the Presidential crisis is part of, not the cause of. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Serious broken record here. You can check contribs, right? Yes, the crisis in Venezuela is ongoing, and because the Presidential crisis is on the main page, I cleaned up the mess that was there, too. Here are some of the new sub-articles about the presidential crisis, mostly created to keep the size of the main article manageable: Venezuelan crisis defection, International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela, Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Roberto Marrero, 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts (if you don't understand how those relate to the Presidential crisis, please inform yourself), Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy, Troika of tyranny ... and more ... not to mention all the individual BLPs affected. Other editors have probably created at least a couple dozen BLPs to be used in the Presidential crisis articles. Seriously, I am wondering why you keep this up; my talk page is open if you'd like to spare this page the ongoing back and forth. It's pretty clear that most people understand that this is a rather significant, ongoing geopolitical matter, which is too much to be contained in one article. Seriously, I don't care if the article is on the main page or not, but your persistence in this matter is intriguing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • @SandyGeorgia: One of the problems we have here is that there is only really room for two items at a time in Ongoing, or three if they are all short (which this is not). When Ongoing goes over 2 lines, as it did for weeks until the recent removal of two items, it causes ongoing & annoying main-page balance issues, requiring daily addition of recycled DYKs, for example. There are two new proposals for Ongoing receiving support at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Ah, Espresso Addict, thanks for explaining! I'm not sure I have ever frequented this page, but I was beginning to think the only reason Laser was advocating for removal was that we have a well-oiled machine, dedicated editors, and a good structure of sub-articles, so that the main article is mostly used for summary and doesn't get hit with a gazillion edits! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • SandyGeorgia I would ask that you kindly never again, under any circumstances, comment on me or my motivations. You don't know me, or anything about me. Since you asked (without actually asking) I want this turd of an article off the main page because it goes days between updates and the sub-articles (talk about a broken record, we get it, you're updating articles in the Crisis in Venezuela) have absolutely nothing at all nothing in the slightest to do with the "Presidential crisis" which ended with Maduro keeping control of the military. That's why I wan't it off the main page. Full Goddamned stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • @LaserLegs: I think you missed the sarcasm in Sandy's comment. Sandy doesn't use the main page, didn't see the reason to not have as many articles in ongoing as theoretically wanted (when half your argument is "it's full"), and made a joke about herself not knowing that once it was kindly explained by someone else. I think you owe her an apology for that obscene last comment. Of course, you also overlooked when she listed a good half dozen or more articles with "presidential crisis" in the name that have been created and maintained. (It also seems most other editors disagree with you that other articles without the most explicit of connections are only Crisis in Venezuela-related. And I would side with their view.) Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • If the OP didn't want a caustic response, they should not have used sarcasm to denigrate me and utterly ignore my carefully documented position. Still I appreciate your response. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal It's not over, and the articles are being updated. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose removal If you take a look at any of the talk pages for many Venezuelan politics related articles, you'll see a great deal of organization in editing the daily updates of the presidential crisis across them efficiently. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Also, 8:1 for oppose removal, I suggest this be quickly closed as WP:SNOW Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          "Venezuelan politics" isn't in the ongoing box, the presidential crisis is, and it's not being continuously updated. It seems WP:ITN doesn't matter anymore. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

          Articles: NepaliSat-1 (talk, history) and Raavana 1 (talk, history)
          Blurb: ​Nepal's first research satellite NepaliSat-1 alongside Sri Lanka's first orbit satellite Raavana 1 launches into the space from USA
          Alternative blurb: Cygnus NG-11 launches satellites NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1 on its way to a successful docking with the International Space Station.
          Alternative blurb II: NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, respectively Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched during Cygnus NG-11
          News source(s): Kathmandu Post

           Abishe (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

          • Comment – Consider changing the blurb to "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose One article consists of 3 sentences, and thus is a stub, so ineligible for the main page. The other article, as of this writing, does not even exist. When there are two, well-developed and well-referenced articles, ping me to re-assess their quality. --Jayron32 12:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            One down, one to go. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            Support Articles are short, but still sufficiently past stub-stage for main page readiness. Good to go. --Jayron32 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • If the newsworthiness of this otherwise common occurrence is that it a first for Nepal, is it not reasonable to debase that significance by noting it was built in Japan and launched from the US? Surely substantial contributions were made by groups and scientists for whom this is old hat.GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment - I've expanded the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Awesome. Can you do similarly to the second (as yet nonexistent) article on the Raavana 1?
            @Jayron32: Yes i can, i will be working on it. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            @Jayron32: I've created the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            Danke schön. --Jayron32 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            Danke dir auch ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support original blurb and alternative by me. All three articles appear ready to me.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support nomination, Oppose blurbs – Blurb should instead be more concise and factually accurate. Coffee's blurb implies Cygnus NG-11 is a launcher. In actuality, NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1 were payloads of a mission called Cygnus NG-11. The blurb should instead be along the lines of "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched during Cygnus NG-11" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I added "respectively..." to avoided the impression of co-ownership of both satellites by both countries. I also stand corrected and have struck my alternative. Support Alt2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Oppose both these satellites weigh around 1kg, will be in short term orbit and use, and are minor payloads for the ISS resupply mission. Hardly their respective country’s entry into the space race. Stephen 23:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @
              Article: 2019 Iran floods (talk, history)
              Ongoing item removal

              Nominator's comments: Activity on the article has slowed down, with little new material added since 15 April. The floods are no longer in the news in the UK at least. (The last BBC website coverage seems to be 6 April.) Espresso Addict (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

              • Weak oppose. Wait a day or two. I can still see some updates dealing with information as recently as 3 days ago, it's certainly heading in the stale direction, but I'm not sure I'm ready to declare it dead yet. --Jayron32 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Weak oppose same as Jayron32, I saw updates a few days ago. Unlike political posturing, floods actually end, so either the waters will recede or the article will go stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Pinging @
                Proposed image
                Article: Helium hydride ion (talk, history)
                Blurb: ​Scientists announce the discovery of naturally occurring helium hydride molecules in the planetary nebula NGC 7027 (pictured)
                News source(s): The Guardian, Engadget

                Nominator's comments: Helium hydride is believed to be the very first molecule to have formed in the universe, ~100,000 years after the Big Bang. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

                • Comment. Not the paper from that issue of Nature I expected to see nominated here! (In fact, the BBC is currently highlighting two other papers from the issue.) While the article is updated, there is insufficient there or in the blurb to tell the reader why this is important. Also needs more clarity on the compound name; it's an ion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                I note the entire update appears to be "and its first unequivocal astrophysical detection was reported in 2019" +ref. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Support Bolded article is sufficient and well updated, item is a current event which has been reported in reliable media. --Jayron32 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Support per Jayron zzz (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Comment Potential WP:EGG should be sorted out, as Helium hydride currently redirects to Helium hydride ion. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Support per above.
                  Armed conflicts and attacks

                  Arts and culture

                  Business and economy
                  • Singapore's non-oil exports slumped in March, according to numbers released by Enterprise Singapore. This was the biggest year-on-year monthly drop since October 2016. The slump in the export of electronics was especially marked. (The Strait Times)

                  Disasters and accidents

                  Law and crime

                  Politics and elections

                  Science and technology
                  • Yale University researchers led by professor Nenad Sestan announce, through the Nature journal, that they successfully partly revived the brains of deceased pigs, four hours after death occurred. However, there were no signals from the brains that would indicate awareness or consciousness. (NPR)

                  RD: Mya-Lecia Naylor

                  Article: Mya-Lecia Naylor (talk, history)
                  Recent deaths nomination
                  News source(s): [2]

                  Article updated

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

                  Nominator's comments: She died on 7 April but it was not announced until yesterday (17th). One citation needed on the article that should be easy for someone on a desktop to verify or remove. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

                  • Oppose. It is tragic that such a young person has died suddenly but the article is only slightly above 1000 prose characters. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • What do you feel is missing from the article? Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Anything beyond the list of roles she performed and the fact of her death? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • Also reliable independent sourcing for all the material sourced only to her online CV [3], currently I think accidentally deleted, but I'm not prepared to restore it. Nikkimaria has replaced the Daily Mail source which was used until a couple of hours ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Support not a stub, well referenced, satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Support - The article is short, but I don't see any refs issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Support - short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Support Good enough.
                    Too soon, renominate in 2020. --Tone 20:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                    Articles: Christina Koch (talk, history) and Peggy Whitson (talk, history)
                    Blurb: ​NASA announces that Christina Koch is set to pass Peggy Whitson with a new record for women in space.
                    News source(s): Agence France Press
                    Nominator's comments: I was intrigued to read about these women when I read the AFP article. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • A new record for what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Women spending time in space, so "women in space" was what I thought of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • Well, according to the article, it's set to be the longest single stay by a woman at ISS. That's not quite how I read your explanation. And for what it's worth, oppose a "set to become a record news story". When it becomes the record, consider nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • Ok but the AFP article actually does say, "record for the longest spaceflight by a woman". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                            Alanscottwalker, when will Koch pass Whitson? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • She's in space now and the mission was announced today that she is set to make the record -- she is set to make it, next Feb, so the 'newsiness' is present and ongoing (also, I think they are interesting people, so there is that, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                              Alanscottwalker, thanks for answering that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose until this event is imminent. This event will not occur until February 2020. Our article on Christina Koch has some tone issues and other MOS issues which should be handled in the mean time. I recommend WP:GAC followed by WP:DYK. Close this nomination so we can focus on actually possible nominations.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose The record won't be set until February 2020. Consider renominating then. There are all sorts of things that could prevent her from making it that long, per WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

                    [Posted] RD blurb: Alan García

                    Proposed image
                    Articles: Alan García (talk, history) and Operation Car Wash (talk, history)
                    Blurb: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured) commits suicide following an issued arrest warrant.
                    Alternative blurb: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured) commits suicide following an issued arrest warrant in the Operation Car Wash investigation.
                    Alternative blurb II: Alan García (pictured), former President of Peru, kills himself to avoid arrest on corruption charges.
                    Alternative blurb III: ​Former President of Peru, Alan García (pictured), dies by suicide after a warrant was issued for his arrest.
                    News source(s): The New York Times The Washington Post AP The Independent

                     —Jonny Nixon (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

                    • Comment yes the article is an orange tagged mess. Lets give interested parties a few hours before piling on opposes. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose on quality. Both recommended articles are not in good shape, Garcia more-so with many many CNs tags. Op Car Wash lists a number of named individuals without a single source (no "overarching" one that I see either) which is a BLP problem. Clearly significant however, no question this should be ITN when quality is there. --Masem (t) 15:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support alternative blurb once the orange tags are solved. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose blurb; not convinced that he was a "major transformative world leader", and the manner of his death doesn't really make him one. Would obviously support RD once reference issues are dealt with. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                      No one would suggest that he was. There is a completely distinct criteria for the unexpected death of prominent figures by suicide. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support alt blurb when quality issues are fixed. The story is suicide when he was about to be arrested regarding corruption allegations. The allegations are a big story and while we would not normally post until the conclusion of the trial, there now cannot be conviction so this major change is when we should post. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support. The story is not so much that the person died but their manner of death was unusual and significant(suicide to avoid arrest on corruption charges). 331dot (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose for now. Referencing is dreadful and unacceptable for a BLP. Posting on the main page is out of the question absent major improvements in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose clearly way sub-par on a quality front. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Strong support. Alan García was an extremely influential figure in Latin America. Highly notable death. We've linked to far worse articles on the main page. --JECE (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                      Not as targets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support Tentative oppose Operation Car Wash is not too bad; I've added refs for Early Life on García's article, but for a vital article it is very poor, and too poor for main page at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) With article improvements, support; I've also removed the use of "suicide" as a verb in alt2, replacing with "kills himself". Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Strong Support Although you said that he did not die when I stated that, and I turned out to be right at the end.DoctorSpeedWant to talk? —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose. Two sections with orange tags at the top and citations needed elsewhere in article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support Support on principle, oppose on quality. Looks like a significant international story. Three citation needed tags in the first article, one citation needed tag in the second. The second article appears to be in much better shape than the first, although there are a couple of unreferenced paragraphs and lists; if the first article isn't fixed in the near future, we should just bold the second article and post that as a blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)) Article is improved. Note that I am supporting a blurb on the "unusual and significant manner of death" principle, not the "transformative figure" principle. It's a rare occasion when a fairly well-known former head of state living in a democratic republic kills themselves to avoid prosecution. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support, with alternate wording – I support this nomination, but omit the "commits" portion. Please use a more appropriate term such as "completed suicide", "suicided" or "took his life".----

                    ZiaLater (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

                    • "Suicided" is not a phrase that most native English speakers would use and I guarantee you it will not be used in the blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • @Pawnkingthree: I did not include "suicided", but thanks for the concern. I will include different blurb in this edit. Does "dies by suicide" translate well?----ZiaLater (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    "Dies by suicide" is technically correct, but uncommon. Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • "Suicide" cannot be used as a verb in English; replaced in alt2 with "kills himself", but "takes his own life" is another option. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose – The fact that he was president of Peru doesn't by itself make him significant, nor does the fact that he committed suicide. Lacks wider import. RD only. – Sca (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Oppose blurb - The ITN death criteria does state that a blurb may be merited for unexpected manner of death, but really, I just don't think that applies here because this wasn't a transformative figure nor a current sitting head of state. That might merit a change in the death criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • @WaltCip: I think this meets the death criteria: (emphasis mine) ("For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Comment - It is frustrating that such relevant news don't get quickly to the front page on quality grounds. Yes, I understand the reasons and I respect the rules. I understand this is English WP, and Alan García might not be quite as relevant for the English-speaking world, but as a non-native English speaker, I also see en.WP playing a global role. I mean, a twice-democratically elected former President (with both terms finished, totaling 10 years of rule) of a 30+ million people country with a fast-growing mid-income economy commits suicide among accusations of corruption. I also wish/hope that more committed, fluent English speaking editors were willing to contribute with their experience —and maybe even with the same time they invest in voting oppose— to improve one of the articles and make this happen. Cato censor (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Comment@Masem: @Awkward42: @Ad Orientem: @The Rambling Man: @Capitalistroadster: @NorthernFalcon: Tagging you all because there have been some updates to the article. It's not perfect, but there have been some improvements. I suggest supporting specific blurbs if you choose to support this nomination as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • I still feel the blurb needs to mention Op. Car Wash (that's a well-known term) but it doesn't have to be featured as long as Garcia's article is to shape. Understanding the scope of what the arrest warrant was for gives some idea to why he committed suicide. --Masem (t) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support blurb Article has been improved significantly. Not the best shape, but it is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support blurb This is obviously notable; few deaths per year get more notable than this. Former head of state, unusual method of death, and connection to a major scandal. This received significant coverage by all the news sites I visited yesterday. Article has been improved since yesterday. Davey2116 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Weak support blurb – Great work! @ZiaLater: can you check the sourcing in the Election history section. I am unable to verify that information. What is Infogob and Nohlen? It does not seem to likely to be challenged though. Oppose Alt0 and Alt1.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Support blurb per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Comment – Please at least post to RD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Posted blurb. Regarding terminology such as "dies by suicide", we don't want to use unidiomatic expressions just because they sound a little better. "Kills himself" is not really better than "commits suicide" and also sounds more informal. -- King of ♠ 22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Post-comment this should mention a connection to Operation Car Wash. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Comment. Agree with Headbomb; at very least the nature of the charges needs to be mentioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • Post-comment:Should mention the nature of charges, i.e.
                      Business and economy

                      International relations

                      Law and crime
                      • Five people are killed and 13 others injured in an arson and stabbing attack in an apartment complex in Jinju, South Korea. The attacker tells the police he was angry because of back pay. (The Korea Times)
                      • Eight families file a lawsuit against Washington Hebrew Congregation for allowing what they say was a lack of action over an assistant teacher who stands accused of sexually abusing several children in the day care program. (USA Today) (CNN)

                      (Posted) RD: Jörg Demus

                      Article: Jörg Demus (talk, history)
                      Recent deaths nomination
                      News source(s): BR and others

                      Article updated

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

                      Nominator's comments: One of the best-known classical pianists fron Austria right after World War II, and playing in concert in 2018! - Sad, also the state of the article when I found it, and still far from good, - there should be more on repertoire and recordings. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

                      • Support To me, the article is good enough now for the Main page - great work, Gerda Arendt! Zingarese talk · contribs 15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Support Article looks good, ready for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Support Article in good shape, key collaborator of Fischer-Dieskau and a pioneer in period performance. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Support - article looks good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Ping @Tone:.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • Posted. ETA I noticed when I came to give credit to
                        Article: Guro Fjellanger (talk, history)
                        Recent deaths nomination
                        News source(s): [4][5]

                        Article updated

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

                        Nominator's comments: Norway's signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

                        • Comment. Needs more detail on what she did, as opposed to what positions she held. Also generally more detail eg education; when (if) was she elected to parliament? did she marry/have a family? where did she live? (And I assume "gymnasium teacher" is a bad translation?)
                          Article: 2019 Algerian protests (talk, history)
                          Ongoing item removal

                          Nominator's comments: No longer frequently updated; events reported end in week of 5–12 April; no longer apparent in the news, at least in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

                          • Remove Was about to nominate the same myself for removal. Last substantive update to protest events was around April 9th, which included two very short sentences. There have been a few odd reactions and quotes added to the article since then, but this has basically been a week since any new developments. It's time to go. --Jayron32 12:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • Remove – Per Jay. Sca (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • Remove so I can stop maintaining my list of days where it's not updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                          I see you weren't kidding about your special zeal. What gives? Got a problem with Algerian protesters? ps... your list couldn't have had too many days on it, master Legs. ^^ SashiRolls t · c 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • Removed. --Tone 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • Comment -- Bravo! You pulled it just minutes after Belaiz resigned. Well done! SashiRolls t · c 22:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            Mind your WP:CIV. The article did not reflect Belaiz at the time (which you know, as you added it), and Tone was acting on consensus. Ongoing is not a permanent residence, and removal does not suggest a belief that the event is fully and completely over. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                            @
                            Arts and culture

                            Business and economy

                            Disasters and accidents

                            International relations

                            Law and crime
                            • Four people are killed in a string of shootings in Penticton, British Columbia, in what police are calling targeted killings. A man later turned himself in and was taken into custody. (CBC News)

                            Politics and elections

                            (Closed) Al-Aqsa Mosque fire

                            Thankfully trivial. Stephen 22:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                            Article: Al-Aqsa Mosque (talk, history)
                            Blurb: ​A fire occurs on the roof of the Al-Aqsa Mosque at Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites in Islam and Judaism, but is extinguished before any damage occurs to the structure.
                            News source(s): Times of Israel

                            Article updated
                            Nominator's comments: Obviously not as big as Notre-Dame but thought could be worth a nom since it's an important site; happened at pretty much the exact same time so don't know about order if it does get approved. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Oppose. "The fire was extinguished within seven minutes and did not cause any damage". Since we're never going to have an article on this, by definition we're not going to have anything to put on the main page. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Oppose even if we ignore the Notre Dame fire, this was a guardhouse that burned on the roof but the fire was contained within minutes with no serious damage to the structure. Extremely trivial event in the larger picture. --Masem (t) 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

                            (Posted) Boston Marathon

                            Proposed image
                            Articles: 2019 Boston Marathon (talk, history) and Worknesh Degefa (talk, history)
                            Blurb: Worknesh Degefa and Lawrence Cherono win the Women's and Men's foot races respectively in the 2019 Boston Marathon.
                            News source(s): [6], [7]

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

                            Nominator's comments: ITNR race. Coverage largely overshadowed yesterday by the Cathedral fire. Article needs some work. Women's winner has an article, so I've linked her, though Men's winner does not yet have an article. Would be good if we can get the article up to scratch. I may have time to help if not too busy later. EDIT: Men's winner now has article, so I've linked that here too. Kenmelken (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

                            I have added an article for the men's winner Lawrence Cherono.Trackinfo (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Comment I've done some work to expand and clean up. There are still some refs that need cleaning and more can be added, but have definitely taken it beyond stub. Don't have any more time to help today. A little more help though and I think this can be made ready. Kenmelken (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Support – There is well-sourced summary and this is ITNR. I don't see any contentious claims on Worknesh Degefa and Lawrence Cherono. Fine to link unbolded. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Posted Stephen 02:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                            • Comment - Its amazing how a major event like Notre Dame is pulled because of "article quality" while this WP:BLP article is posted as a stub after a single support opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                              • 1) It's not a BLP (unless you are talking the racers, but they are not normally the target article for race wins) and 2) the quality is equivalent to nearly all previous Boston Marathon articles. --Masem (t) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                              • This also stayed here while nominated for 12 hours compared to the less than an hour to post the Notre Dame blurb.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                              • And it's ITN/R so once the quality is up to scratch it can be posted without further supports. But some people will just whinge at anything.
                                Article: Les Reed (songwriter) (talk, history)
                                Recent deaths nomination
                                News source(s): BBC News

                                Article updated

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

                                Nominator's comments: He wrote "Delilah", what else can one say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

                                • That section could just be removed. I think we'd struggle to cite it any other way, we're not talking big hits here, and they're not what he was mainly known for. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                I was going to clean it up and replace it with a bunch of citations to the original singles (with publisher, serial number etc), but Black Kite's suggestion also works for me, and can be done in 15 seconds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                Probably worth doing for the time being until you have time to cite it properly. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                • OpposeComment. I'm uncomfortable with relatively uncontroversial material like this being bulk removed for no other reason than to facilitate mainspace exposure. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Well, if it can be referenced, you can put it back by providing the references. Easy as pie! --
                                  Posted and will remain so, improvements can be suggested at Errors. Stephen 22:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                                  Proposed image
                                  Articles: Notre-Dame de Paris (talk, history) and 2019 fire at Notre-Dame de Paris (talk, history)
                                  Blurb: ​The Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral catches on fire.
                                  Alternative blurb: ​The ancient Notre Dame cathedral in Paris is on fire, with the cause unknown (Cathedral pictured).
                                  Alternative blurb II: ​A serious fire breaks out at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.
                                  News source(s): BBC, Metro, AFP, AP, Guardian, Reuters, dpa

                                  Both articles updated
                                  Nominator's comments: Developing story. Article does not have a sufficient update yet. Davey2116 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Oppose until some context on any damage/death is provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support was in the middle of nom... edit conflict... think it's notable (The Notre Dame... is on fire!) without the damage information. It's, you know, the Notre Dame. Kingsif (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Edit conflict (x2) - was in process of nominating myself! "Developing story. May warrant posting depending on update and article quality and the amount of news coverage." Extensive damage would likely warrant posting. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Beaten to the nom with multiple edit conflicts support. Obviously a major fire, article overall not in bad shape. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Support is for original blurb atm. The article on the fire itself is still a stub and not ready for MP. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Oppose for now per TRM. I'm sure the context will become clear over the next few hours and we can post, but for now it's too early.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Edit conflict and support (x4) - Came her to nom. Clearly notable, based off of images and reporting damage is expected to be extensive. Most outlets refer to the fire as serious. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support this is going to be in the headlines/discussion for a few weeks at the very least in the European/American press. Sadads (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Slow the F down - As TRM says, plenty of time to wait for some context/information to this. We hardly know anything about it yet.--WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support - I am watching as the cathedral burns live out of control. This is the first time of a known fire on a world famous landmark that has stood for almost a thousand years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support - very clear that this is what's going to be in all 2019-in-review programmes in December... I prefer the original version over the alt (keep it simple...) L.tak (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support, seems fine by WP:ITN#Criteria. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support, but "catches on fire" is an Americanism (elsewhere we'd say "catches fire"), so I have given, and prefer, Alt2. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support I was about to nominate this myself, but yes, this is front page material. Either alts are fine. 'Catches fire/catches on fire' is too casual. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Rarely have I seen such a poor ratio of supports to article updates. —Cryptic 18:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    Quite. It seems the rules are being cast aside in favour of shouting sensationalism today...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  That is disingenuous. As stated below, I have been physically unable to update the article because the MediaWiki software has prevented me from doing so via continuous and repeated edit conflicts. I dare say I'm not the only one who can't do a major copyedit on it, because people doing small bits of gnoming will get in first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Posted There is general consensus to post. If another admin wishes to pull this, you do not need to ask for my permission. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Oppose the spire collapsed, this is a big deal, but those details are scattered around the article. Write one paragraph with the details, please. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pull obviously. There's nothing in the article!!!--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Could we change the image to one of the images of the fire now that they are available? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Not unless there's a free one available - I don't see one at the moment. No doubt there will be at some point. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  File:Fire at the Notre Dame de Paris cathedral in 2019.png is available. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Post Posting Support This is an "in progress" disaster. The article is being expanded rapidly. But there is enough to post this. [When I was growing up, I knew the Roman Catholic priest, Msgr Leonard Fries, who as an American Army Chaplain in WWII celebrated the first Mass in Notre Dame after the liberation of Paris from the Nazis. I think I am going to be sick.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pull per Walt, update is not there. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  I am trying to update the article, but can't because of continual edit conflicts. That gives me confidence it will be expanded quickly and diligently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Wait for what? Notre Dame isn't going to get better, and coverage is ongoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  I think that said Walt, not Wait. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pull Aren't the admins here to protect the hoi polloi from ourselves? GreatCaesarsGhost 18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support Maybe it went up a little quickly but it passes the significance test and will surely get expanded shortly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pull what a fucking joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  If the best response to my judgement is insults like "what a fucking joke", that suggests I was probably right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  No, it suggests the article was posted too quickly, and nothing is gained by putting it on the main page when by your own admission, no major copy-editing can be done due to the extreme number of edit conflicts. We look like a bunch of twits putting this bare skeleton of an article on the main page for all to see.--WaltCip (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  To me it suggests that despite 14 years here, including nine as an admin, we haven't learned WP:CIV. – Sca (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  The article appears to be larger in size and contains more sources than pretty much any RD nomination that I worked on recently that hit the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  How you managed to derive that from just four words is astounding. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  I know TRM and have worked with him for a while on ITN as well as his efforts to catch errors on DYK. I'm sure he'd agree that my observation jives with his.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Indeed, the rush to post was shambolic and unseemly, but apparently commonplace nowadays. And Sca, try as you might to goad me, please don't bother, CIV plays no part here. Try to learn more and speak less. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pull and Wait until the article is sorted out I'm trying to update it, but it's mostly impossible and people keep duplicating information or putting bollocks like YouTube algorithm fails in it. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Post-posting support, adequate update IMO, has the jist of what happened and is well-referenced. -- King of ♠ 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Don't pull, major event & article will develop rapidly. Renata (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Don't pull, I supported the inclusion and it got posted... my stance is against a pull due to the massive notability of the event and inclusion criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Don't pull it's not the greatest article in the world, but it's good enough given the enormity of the event. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Pulled per several !votes above. A one line sentence is not sufficient for an update, and while I See there is a separate article, it is far too soon for that to be created. ITN is not a news ticker. We should wait until we can report how massive the damage is, how many injured, etc. --Masem (t) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • We can report that most of this historical monument has collapsed in barely a few hours. That's a lot of damage. Like, it's not just news - it's the news. BBC have dedicated the entire BBC News channel to covering it. Nothing else is happening compared to this. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • But we are not a news channel. When we can report on that with some degree of quality, yes, then we can include it. Regardless what happens, I am 100% certain it meets the importance for ITN posting, bt right now it is a question of being of the right article quality, and we aren't sacrificing this for purposes of being timely. --Masem (t) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  So what is the "right article quality"? As stated above, the article is beyond the size of a stub, every claim is reliably sourced (or if it isn't, it seems to be sourced or reverted very quickly) and in general it seems to be a far better quality than many articles that hit the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  For example, right now, there are Twitter sources for this. There is zero reason to even touch Twitter for this type of event. It's getting there, I'm trying to help too here. But these also need to be reflected in the Cathedral's article too. --Masem (t) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • The last four !votes before you pulled were all clearly against pulling. But ok. Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                      • Lepricavark WP:NOTAVOTE. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                        • I know that, but he said he was pulling per several !votes above. And it seems like he ignored a sizable number of !votes to the contrary. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • This got more than a one-line sentence update. —Cryptic 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                      • There is more about the fire in the lede than the body. That's not appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                        • I don't disagree - and that was actually the basis of my first comment here, when Notre-Dame de Paris was the bolded article in the proposed blurb - but the blurb that was actually posted bolded the fire article. Both the new article and the update to the non-bolded article were in excess of our normal standards for posting to the main page by the time you pulled. —Cryptic 19:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore The pulling of the blurb appears to be contrary to a very strong consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Comment I'm concerned any admin reversing the pull would be wheel warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • (edit conflict) Most of the reasons for "pull" (where one was given) is that there was no update to the main Cathedral page; that update has happened in the last hour since those votes (still less than the number of "don't pull"s) were posted. I think it would just be following consensus to re-post. Kingsif (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • I concur with Ritchie; I'm not sure I would have pulled it as it being on the MP plus being such a prominent structure likely means it will get updated; but it's done, and the legitimate concerns need to be addressed. I'm not going to wheel war. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Would they just be enforcing the consensus? Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Under that logic this would never be able to get posted again. Masem's pull was clearly done without seeing the most recent few !votes, due to edit conflicts and stuff. -- King of ♠ 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Unpull (is that a word?) A general overview is better than none at all. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore - There are many editors at work on the fire article. I've tried but keep getting edit conflicts. Article is coming along, and it is clear that the building has suffered very severe damage. ITN worldwide, so should be on MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Change The title for the article of the fire has changed from 2019 fire at Notre-Dame de Paris to Notre-Dame de Paris fire so the link is going to a redirect page currently which should be changed to reflect the article title change. --Bluecrab2 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore The article is not that bad and is being improved minute by minute considering the number of editors working on it. The enormous notability of the news should prevail.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore Massive story, that we have reasonable coverage of, both for the current events and for history of the cathedral. Pull was against strong consensus. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore Masem went against consensus, mentioning the lack of an update to the non-bolded article, which is irrelevant, and claimed it was too soon to have a separate article on the fire, which is nonsense. We have a reasonable article which will only improve.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore. The article is rapidly being expanded, and at any rate it seems really bizarre for us not to have such an important event in the display. Gimubrc (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore – The article is rather basic but sufficient for a start on a major developing story. Notre Dame is instantly recognizable throughout the Western world. No. 1 story on main news sites. (Five sources added above.) Sca (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Restore. Pulling this was outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Comment - (edit conflict) The article looks a bit better now, although I must admit to laughing bitterly when glancing at the "Reactions" section and seeing a mention of the Orange One's whining about the fire messing up his precious plans for a tax roundtable (whatever that is).--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Reposted I now feel with the edits (including those I've cotnribted) have established sufficient quality to post (including the longer update in the cathedral's article). Yeah, the reaction section's unnecessary-ish but that's more a matter of taste, they are all sourced opinions. --Masem (t) 20:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    Thanks, I can now concur with this too. You reposted at About the right time probably. It seems people were confusing consensus with vote counting earlier, even though issues raised hadn't been addressed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Post-posting Restore I would have opposed a couple of hours ago on the grounds that it was a stub. It's being rapidly developed, and it's in a good enough shape. (This wasn't originally a post-posting comment, but thrice I've gotten into edit conflicts with other users !voting to restore.) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Post-posting Restore - Article is ready to be posted, per Brendon. Jusdafax (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Comment The fact that this was pulled is astonishing to me, Wikipedia is a work in progress and everyone knows that this isn't going to die in news coverage overnight in terms of article coverage depth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • For the specific purposes of In The News, we value quality over timeliness. We recognize everything is a work in progress, but this is the Main Page, not just Wikipedia's news ticker, so we want the article to be of a quality to show how well WP editors can corroborate to make a quality article in less than a few hours. We can wait the few hours to fix up refs, sort out details, etc. but being able to get something in anything less than 24hr is impressive. --Masem (t) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Post-reposting comment – Rather than the bland "A fire breaks out," suggest "Fire heavily damages...." – Sca (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Matter of timing. Fire is still going, no timetable on when it will be exitnguished if it can. When it is out, then switching makes sense. --Masem (t) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    Sca, I agree that the blurb can be improved by mentioning the spire and roof. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Yeah, just take a look at the Reuters story, not to mention the French agency AFP: "A colossal fire swept through the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral in central Paris on Monday, causing a spire to collapse and threatening to destroy the entire masterpiece and its precious artworks." This isn't merely a roof fire. Sca (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  Sca, I had deleted the word "major" from the blurb because it's WP:PUFFERY (so is "colossal"). We should focus on the specifics to get across how big a deal this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  IMO descriptive adjectives, however sweeping, aren't necessarily "puffery" if they fit the situation. From what I've read it seems the entire famed edifice is in flames. "'Everything is burning,' André Finot, a spokesman for the cathedral, told French media." –Sca (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  I didn't like the wording of "serious fire", but we can call a large fire a large fire. We don't need to go over the top with puffery, but it wouldn't be undue to use some adjective. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  On WP:ERRORS, I've also suggested "Fire heavily damages" as a fairly restrained preliminary description of what's extensively supported in RS reports already. – Sca (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  @Sca That sounds like a good next step in the inevitable blurb evolution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support - Even though the article has been posted. I think this is definitely for ITN. Historic event.BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support pbp 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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

                                  Post-discussion discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

                                  Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

                                  Article: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (talk, history)
                                  Blurb: ​The Council of the European Union approves the controversial Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
                                  Alternative blurb: ​The Council of the European Union approves the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, giving member states two years to pass laws to support the directive.
                                  News source(s): CNBC

                                  Article updated

                                   SoWhy 09:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

                                  • Oppose Article 17 (formerly 13) " new, conditional exemption to liability". Ok, how does that work? The section doesn't say, it just explains that special interests dislike it. A few CN tags should be fixed. No comment on "significance" (I don't live in Europe) but I don't feel the article is "minimally comprehensive". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • All CNs were fixed. And actually, there was nothing in that section about special interests; the worked "claimed" is coming from the directive in that ISPs that claim to have certain measures get the conditional exemption. That I've reworded. --Masem (t) 14:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                      • "As a whole, Articles 14-16 in the working version of the Directive, would improve the bargaining position of authors and performers, even though it set out systems that were weaker than some existing ones in member states." improve how? weaker in what way? What do articles 14 through 16 even apply to? This article isn't up to scratch. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support I point back to when this passed the EP that there was generally broad support but this member states vote was the last hurdle. --Masem (t) 14:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Oppose - Frankly the time to post this would have been when it had passed the EP. This is an intermediary step in the process between then and European states actually passing appropriate copyright laws.--128.227.165.102 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support We should have posted this back when the Parliament passed it, but now is also a good time to post. Clearly notable, and article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Strong Oppose The article is not balanced - the entire lede appears to be an attack on it, some in Wikipedia's voice. Some is also inaccurate (I've just removed a section saying that IMPALA opposed the bill, when they've actually welcomed it, but there's still very little on who supports the bill and why in the lede). One would think from the lede of the article that the EU has passed this against the objections of everyone else. Wikipedia should not be showcasing such an unbalanced article.Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • I have cut out a lot of the anti-stance that was in the lede; the anti-side still needs to be discussed since Article 11/13 were big concerns throughout the language developement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs)
                                      • No, I agree that there was major concern about it, but reading the article you got the impression that there was no-one who actually supported it, which is of course total nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support extensive, extensively sourced article about something that has been a major contention topic in the EU and elsewhere as repercussions are likely global. LjL (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Support - great sources, major story. changing the "internet world" we are currently having.BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Comment My other problem with having this on the fron page is that people are going to click on it expecting to read how it's going to affect them, a question which they're very unlikely to have answered unless they're very well versed in the intricacies of the situation. Don't get me wrong, the sections are well-written, but it could really do with a section on "OK, if this is passed, what will change?". Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Which is something we can't really answer, because the actual changes will be implemented at the various national levels over the next 2+ years, and exactly what is passed will determine how draconian this might be. We known that for the EU, they see this as boosting economics due to a more unified copyright system, but the impacts on users can vary greatly depending on how harsh the states pass language. --Masem (t) 01:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Oppose – Because of the controversy section and the word controversial in the blurb. I would prefer a more NPOV section titled something like "Campaigns for and in opposition" (or something better) with a more broader discussion of the responses to the directive. In modern political parlance, calling something controversial does not only mean just contentious; there is an inherent implication that the idea is bad when it is called controversial. (The meaning of words evolves.) Surely, some people must have been in support of the plan. Was there really no one publicly advocating for the plan? Even though I think the law is just nuts, we should avoid advocating for the position we agree with. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • There was very little campaigned "for" the directive, outside of position statements from those that did favor it, which is partially a problem to try to create equal weight here. Most of the news on this was "the users en masse hate it, tech companies hate it, we shouldn't pass it." and that ties our hands in terms of UNDUE. The section prior laying out position statements is about the best we can do to balance that. --Masem (t) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                      • The altblurb is better so I have struck my oppose. I don't think I'm ready to support but I won't stand in the way.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                  • Comment Why does the lead say the directive has "generally been supported by academics" when the Academics section seems to state the opposite? Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    Proposed image
                                    Article: Owen Garriott (talk, history)
                                    Recent deaths nomination
                                    News source(s): [9]

                                    Article needs updating

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

                                    Nominator's comments: Former Skylab astronaut. Death has been noted by Buzz Aldrin and the likes. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

                                    • Oppose with regret. Article is just nowhere near good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Comment I have it most of the way there for the citations, but am off to eat in case anyone can finish them up. Kees08 (Talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Support - the article is cited now; I added some information like when he was married and his parent's names. Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Support Article appears to be sufficiently referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Support – Ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Oppose nearly there but a few more cites needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                      • @Amakuru: I commented out the new unsourced stuff that drifted away from public domain bio from NASA. I also remove the shoutout of his family from the lead.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Posted. Looks good now, thanks for the updates.  — 
                                      Disasters and accidents
                                      International relations
                                      Law and crime
                                      Politics and elections
                                      Sports

                                      RD: David Brion Davis

                                      Article: David Brion Davis (talk, history)
                                      Recent deaths nomination
                                      News source(s): The New York Times

                                      Article needs updating

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

                                      Nominator's comments: Prominent historian; generally considered the preeminent historian of slavery. PaulKeeperson (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

                                      • Comment. Needs referencing. Also the lists turning into prose, especially to give a prose account of his career; the body jumps from 1946 to 1968. There's a lot of material in the lead that isn't in the body.
                                        Article: Gene Wolfe (talk, history)
                                        Recent deaths nomination
                                        News source(s): BoingBoing, Tor

                                        Article updated

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

                                        Nominator's comments: Science fiction author. Some of the collections need sourcing but surprising most of rest seems ready. Masem (t) 17:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

                                        • Oppose while not marked, much of it is unreferenced, not good enough for a BLP.
                                          Article: 2019 Western Libya offensive (talk, history)
                                          Ongoing item nomination
                                          News source(s): Time

                                          Article updated

                                          Nominator's comments: Some important things are ongoing in the Libyan Civil War and is getting international coverage. The elections are due and two sides are fighting for the capital city Tripoli. About 120 deaths and 560+ injured reported so far. About 13,500 people are displaced. It should be in the ongoing section. If someone else chooses a blurb for it, I am OK with it. I can not point specific blurb. Article is regularly updated and B-class. Nizil (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

                                          • Oppose adding items to Ongoing without an initial blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                          Espresso Addict, nobody was interested in nominating it for ITN when the offensive started but I think it is an important ongoing event so nominated. -Nizil (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                          • Comment – AGF on the sources and there are plenty of them, we have to admit this is a very informative and pretty well-written article on a significant and ongoing subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                          • Support, extensive and regularly updated article. It is better fit for ongoing than an independent blurb. --Tone 15:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                                          • Support, impressive work, & a talk page worth reading. The number of links to Twitter is concerning, though. Why not link directly to the sources?
                                            Proposed image
                                            Articles: 2019 Masters Tournament (talk, history) and Tiger Woods (talk, history)
                                            Blurb: ​In golf, Tiger Woods wins the Masters.
                                            News source(s): The Guardian

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

                                            Nominator's comments: Arguably the largest golf story in at least a decade, Tiger Woods wins his first major in eleven years. Articles need updating, but are ITN/R. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

                                            • Oppose Article needs expansion in narrative text and has significant gaps in referencing. Agreed that this is a huge story and on merits would likely support even if it was not ITNR. But the article needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Oppose due to current gaps in referencing especially in the composition and nationalities in the field. Narrative sections seem OK. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Oppose incomplete, and not updated in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Wait, not oppose outright for identical arguments above. The blurb can be posted if 2019 Masters Tournament is updated to the standard set out by other editors. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Oppose – there is a synopsis of the final round now but referencing is getting worse not better.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Oppose - I'd expect far better article quality from one of the most prestigious golfing events of the year, much less from an event won by Tiger. Article quality is why the Boat Race gets posted almost immediately. WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Improve - The bolded article has a few citations needed, a few two-sentence paragraphs, and copious amounts of red links. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Support Appears adequately sourced and updated now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
                                            • Posted
                                              Article: Bibi Andersson (talk, history)
                                              Recent deaths nomination

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

                                              Nominator's comments: Starred in more than ten Ingmar Bergman films such as Persona, The Seventh Seal, and Wild Strawberries. ---Bruzaholm (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

                                              • Support Sad news. Persona is one of my favourite films. I've gone through and found sources for all the CN tags. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                              • Support - per Lugnuts improvements and actress at the top of her field of work.BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                              • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                              • Support - A legend. Article is in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                              • PostedPaul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                              • Comment. Could some of the people who supported and (presumably) checked this article please provide sources for basic material such as her birth name, please? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                • Fixed Confirmed by authority control.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                  • Thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs. It looks like the variant name was introduced in an accidental edit by someone editing immediately after me on a mobile device. On a side issue, for the technophobes amongst us, what do you mean by "Confirmed by authority control"? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                    Espresso Addict, [10][11][12][13] actually only confirm her current full name and birth date from NYTimes. I am not sure if her full name was also her birth name.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                    There is also
                                                    Armed conflicts and attacks

                                                    Health and environment

                                                    Science and technology

                                                    (Posted) RD: S. K. Shivakumar

                                                    Article: S. K. Shivakumar (talk, history)
                                                    Recent deaths nomination
                                                    News source(s): The Times of India

                                                    Article updated

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

                                                     Nizil (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

                                                    • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                    • Support – good to go.--- 
                                                      Article: Neus Català (talk, history)
                                                      Recent deaths nomination
                                                      News source(s): y

                                                      Article updated

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

                                                      Nominator's comments: Just needs a little TLC to be ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

                                                      • Oppose citations required.
                                                        Proposed image
                                                        Article: Scaled Composites Stratolaunch (talk, history)
                                                        Blurb: ​The Scaled Composites Stratolaunch, the largest aircraft by wingspan (pictured), makes its maiden flight.
                                                        Alternative blurb: ​The Scaled Composites Stratolaunch, an aircraft (pictured) designed for air launch to orbit missions, makes its first test flight with no payload.
                                                        News source(s): Flightglobal

                                                        Article updated

                                                         Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

                                                        • Weak oppose uses Daily Mail and is a relatively small incremental change to the record. However, definitely saw it in the news and besides the DM clanger, the article is in reasonable shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • There is one DM reference, dating from before the decision to deprecate that source. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                            • Oh, so the DM was reliable before that date?? Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                              • In a word, yes, the DM was a reliable source once. In this instance, it should be replaced with another source if one can be found. That the DM is used here should not be a bar to the article appearing on the MP. There are a few minor faults, but it's not in a bad shape by a long chalk. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                                • The DM is not a reliable source, period. It didn't magically change from reliable to unreliable on the day we deprecated its use. As such, it had to be be replaced, as indeed it now has been.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                                • Indeed, the DM has pretty much never been RS, certainly not in an era when powered flight existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                        • Weak Support basically per TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                        • Support - I've fixed up the few citation needed tags in the article and agree that it's just about significant enough and interesting enough to post.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                        • Weak oppose – How can we promote a plane taking off and landing (intentional understatment) and not promote a mission that made it to lunar orbit and made contact with the moon (intentional euphemism). I also not thrilled by the blurb. I would be more receptive to a blurb that mentions air launch to orbit which is really the most notable thing about this project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Ignoring anything else, to answer "how can we Y but we didn't X" - because they're different things that have different standards of notability/impressiveness/aims. In terms of landing probes on the moon, by now it is fairly routine for all the people who do it, so someone not being able to is a non-notable weak failure. In terms of launching planes with massive wingspans, that's still dangerous, so a new record is a much more notable success. Kingsif (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                            • Forty-odd lunar-impact (intentional or otherwise) missions in seventy-five years -- half of them completed by the 1970s and more than half of them crashed -- is not fairly routine by my books. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                        • Support altblurb – Now thatBeresheet is post I have no objections except the boring blurb. I have suggested a new one.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                        • Posted with original blurb, as Coffeeandcrumbs' suggestion has not been discussed.
                                                          Article: Yvette Williams (talk, history)
                                                          Recent deaths nomination
                                                          News source(s): https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/112027465/olympic-gold-medallist-yvette-williams-has-died-age-89

                                                          Article updated

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

                                                          Nominator's comments: C-class article, updated MurielMary (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

                                                          • Support Looks good to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Support good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Support comprehensive bio, well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Support just coming to nominate this myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Ping @Amakuru:. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                                          • Posted. Thanks to

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

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

Original: Original:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates