Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Image protection (WP:CMP) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Current events noticeboard (WP:CEN) Archives (2008–11)
v t e

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Coronaviruses viewed under an electron microscope In China, a new strain of coronavirus (examples pictured) infects more than eight hundred people, killing at least twenty-five. Mikhail Mishustin is appointed Prime Minister of Russia following the resignation of Dmitry Medvedev and his cabinet. Scientists announce that presolar stardust grains in the Murchison meteorite formed five to seven billion years ago, and are the oldest solid material found on Earth to date. Ongoing: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests Lebanese protests Recent deaths: Morgan Wootten Terry Jones Wolfgang J. Fuchs Jaroslav Kubera Jimmy Heath Derek Fowlds Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Archives[]

January 24[]

January 23[]

RD: Jim Lehrer[]

Nominator's comments: Long-time American journalist and PBS news anchor, who moderated many presidential debates, dies at age 85. Davey2116 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Parts of 'Early Life' and 'Career' need referencing (tagged) Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. J4lambert (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  J4lambert, when you provide a reason, it allows other ors to try to fix the problem. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support pbp 23:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also, have resolved several citation-needed tags. pbp 23:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Doomsday clock[]

January 22[]

Ongoing removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protests[]

Nominator's comments: The last protests (this is an article about protests) were on January 17th with around 10k people. Since then it's been legislative wrangling and petitions. Time to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support removal - it's still in the news but it's ceased to be very prominent. I'm sure India remains captivated by it (and people are welcome to cite the well-known "please do not" statement above), but the rest of the world appears to have moved on. Banedon (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Removal. Tens of thousands (e.g. 300,000 on 21 Jan) of people are protesting regularly in several cities [1] [2] and today it is all over the international news due to the court cases. [3] filed by protesters and violence [4] The article is getting regular updates. I note, LaserLegs has nominated this removal a second time and without good reasons again. DBigXrayᗙ 23:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  The "updates" you mentioned aren't in the article, which is where they need to be to stay in the box. If you have commentary on me or my intentions, take it to WP:ANI --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Here is the diff of almost 43 KB of updates in the last one week, and they appear very much in the article to me. Are you sure you are talking of the same article titled "Citizenship Amendment Act protests". --DBigXrayᗙ 02:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal at this time. Topic is still being covered, article is in sufficient condition and still getting daily updates on latest developments. Checks all of the boxes.--Jayron32 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The latest developments in the article aren't "protests" it was a petition and lawsuits. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what beef you have with this article, but you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove. Here are a few major updates of past 1 week and clearly they are more than lawsuits and petitions. see below. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My "beef" with the article is that it is stale, none of the pertinent recent updates you mentioned existed when I nominated the article for removal, instead you added them [5] [6] [7] [8] then you call me a liar. Tell you what, I'll take it to WP:ANI in the morning. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

LaserLegs, The version you linked contains 7 updates that are common with what I wrote above. How does 7 equals "none" ? On ANI threats, sure and looking at your past experiences with ANI, due to your ITN behaviour I would advice caution on the WP:BOOMERANG. DBigXrayᗙ 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Remove I think we've lost sight of the purpose of ongoing with these perma-posts. We should consider both the duration on the main page and the relevance of recent events. 10K people at a protest is a Tuesday in many places around the globe. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "is a Tuesday"? Banedon (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

= "is routine." Very large protests have become extremely common in the last few years. I would speculate that protests of >10K people occur in multiple places every day. 159.53.174.143 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the removal, the event is still ongoing and the news are still covering the event e.g. [9][10][11]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

First link is about a court ruling, not protests. Second and third links are analysis, not "new, pertinent information" as stipulated Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section. Thanks for proving my point. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per nomination. Intensity of the protests is decreased and of course, relevance too. These protests have trivial mentions in the news right now compared to last month.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As updated here more than 300,000 people joined in a rally on 21 Jan. I would not rush to call that reduced intensity or relevance. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry for late reply, "....not prominent....rest of the world appears to have moved on..."- POV..on what basis. People in New Zealand day before yesterday protesting and lawmakers also participated, online campaign going on. We are talking about in the news, not how many people visiting. By the way daily article page views showing its more than 20,000. Dey subrata (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because follwoing the recent hearing on 22nd January, 2020 from the SC on this bill, there has been new developments on the protests across India. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment At the risk of this becoming an ad hominem argument... @LaserLegs: Please explain your continuous effort to remove items from the Ongoing tab on ITN. This seems like something you have made a pet project for a while now, and most of the time, consensus is fiercely against you, as it is here.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@WaltCip: we can discuss this at WT:ITN, at my talk page, or at WP:ANI if you think I'm not behaving appropriately -- I don't think this is the right venue. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#ITN_Ongoing_removal_nominations_by_LaserLegs as requested.DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This is still making a huge ongoing forever impact in Indian politics and the economy. It would continue for unforeseen future until the Indian government withdraw from legalising the citizenship act. Abishe (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal. Per nom and Banedon. Very similar situation to the Hong Kong protests, which are also still continuing. Spencer^T•C 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD or blurb: Terry Jones[]

Wikipedia has decided that it doesn't want any more Spam on the main page. Nevertheless, RIP Terry Jones.--WaltCip (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Terry Jones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Monty Python actor Terry Jones (pictured) dies aged 77.
News source(s): BBC
Crs:

• Updated and nominated by SchroCat (talk • give cr)
• Updated by Ritchie333 (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: There are couple of gaps that need sourcing, but will work on these now. (Addendum: I would also support the addition of a blurb for this: he's a member of one of the world's best known comedy troupes) SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support blurb - A prime example of a comedian and writer who was absolute tops in his business. Definitely on the same level as other blurbed persons we have posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD only Neither the manner of his death nor the events surrounding it need special explanation; as a result there's nothing to say in a blurb other than "he died". Such types of death are what RD was created for. --Jayron32 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A person need not die in an unusual manner in order to be blurbed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The guidance listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Blurb? tends to disagree with that, it notes "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." Several people, yourself among them, have asserted this is an exception to that rule, but have provided no evidence this merits an exception. That is, where can I read in sources outside of Wikipedia that his death is of such significance that it merits a blurb? Anyone can assert anything. It just requires one to type things. The real kicker is how can one show evidence that ones assertion is valid as supported by reliable sources. I've looked, I'm not seeing the sort of reliable sources coverage to indicate this merits a blurb. --Jayron32 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your second comment is well-stated and valid; I'm wondering why it was not your first. It would simplify matters if ors commented on the obvious criterion for which the blurb is being suggested, rather than oppose an argument that no one is making. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I only made one point: We should follow the guidance based on existing standards already and long since written down, unless people can provide clear evidence that an exception should be made. Normal operating procedure is to post deaths to RD, and where we post a blurb instead, there are criteria for that. My objections directly address the reasons people are giving for posting this as a blurb, which is that Jones somehow counts as an exception to the standard " 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." which I quote a second time. People have asserted his career is itself meritorious of a blurb. I have merely noted that such assertions should carry little to no weight without evidence that sources outside of Wikipedia are treating it with a similarly elevated level of attention over the normal obituary cycle. No one, has yet, provided such evidence. --Jayron32 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Standards can change. Consensus can change. If the standards do not agree with the process that we have been undertaking for the past two years or so, that does not inherently mean all of those past actions were mistakes. It could mean that the standards that we came up with years ago no longer reflect the orial consensus on ITN/C. I am arguing from the standpoint of overall notability, recognition, and how news sources have responded to Terry Jones's passing. Several notable people also in Jones's field have spoken out on social media, as per the BBC article. It would not surprise me if there were further news coverage even after today.--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dozens of dead celebrities have been eulogized by their peers and inspirees on Twitter this year, with quite a few mentioned even one day later in the news. That's a low bar to crawl over. Keep the higher standard, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support blurb per WaltCip. Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per WaltCip. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) - Having said that: minor improvements are still wanted, example ref 26, which is a bare url, and positioned after "Medieval" about which it says nothing, while it would rather support "Barberians" which has no ref at all. - The image - sorry - is awful, at least in that size, looking as if a hand grew at a strange place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead image has recently changed. to Spanish Inquisition character Cardinal Biggles, but not many close-ups to choose from. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The image really needs to be of TJ as himself, rather than playing a character. That said, there is a better one, so I swapped the image in the nom. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the swap, but it's not a great image, so perhaps blurb but no image. If we need to show this one, it might be cropped bottem and right, to have his face more in the centre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This might upset the purists, but how about a crop of this image? It shows him performing the "Spanish Inquisition" scene, and would be a good way to pay tribute to his comedic genius!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hell yes Well what you got? Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and blurb; egg bacon and blurb; egg bacon sausage and blurb; blurb bacon sausage and blurb; blurb egg blurb blurb bacon and blurb; blurb sausage blurb blurb bacon blurb tomato and blurb; blurb blurb blurb egg and blurb; blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb baked beans blurb blurb blurb or Lobster Thermidor au Crevette with a Mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and blurb. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Eughhh! Have you got anything without blurb in it? I don't want any blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's egg, bacon and blurb, that hasn't got much blurb in it, Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

At least on this nomination, I think we can afford a bit of Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam....--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, Please unbold the comment.DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD only per User:Jayron32. I know he is a popular actor and have seen Monty Python films. The subject lacks major awards that UK confers. I am not convinced that a blurb is merited here. DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Blurb discussions may continue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  @MSGJ: Is there a reason you moved the blurb criteria to an information page off the main ITN criteria? As says the legend, info pages are not policy and not vetted, where I believe the blurb criteria is. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb not Mandela or Thatcher --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

No, but he's Terry Jones.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor were Prince or Carrie Fisher, but there we go. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that we are not required to repeat past mistakes forever. If something had been done in the past that should not have been, it doesn't mean we must continue to do the wrong thing forever. At any point, we must make our decisions on what is the right thing to do, not on what we may or may not have done before (each of which in retrospect may be judged as having been a bad idea). --Jayron32 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Prince's death was a complete surprise (rather than old age), and was a top recording artist in his field. Fisher is the type of blurb case we want to avoid. --Masem (t) 16:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb The crowd here skews both nerd and British, so I think we may be overstating his importance. The Pythons are big, but does each get a blurb? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

We have a Wikiproject WP:WPSPAM. We have a content guideline about WP:SPAM. Who is a key person who caused the word "spam" to mean other things than food? Terry Jones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support blurb - on balance, yes I think so. I had a "wow moment" when I saw the news, and it's front page on the websites of the New York Times and Le Monde, so is a global story already. I would also support WP:IAR (if there is any rule on this) and use a crop of the Spanish Inquisition photo, as mentioned above, as it is a fitting tribute to him.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't expect a picture of the Spanish Inquisition! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody expected it :O Tone 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Amakuru, then I hope you are going to invoke this WP:IAR for every artist across the world. If you aren't going to do that then your acts are actually reinforcing the opinion that the ITN is biased in favour of American and British personalities. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: my mention of IAR was related to the choice of image, not the decision as to whether to blurb or not. As for ITN being biased in favour of American/British personalities, that's not actually the case. It's actually biased in favour of things that are in the news. And that people want to read our articles about because they're in the news.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Amakuru, then I stand corrected. I got an impression that you are using IAR for the blurb. Which news ? The British and American news sites will obviously give a disproportionate coverage for their domestic audience, passing the buck wont help reducing the bias. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. Popular and influential, but not at the level of global importance at which we should be setting a blurb. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb Yes, I think so. You can usually tell by the amount and level of reaction to a death and I believe this clears the bar. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - I may be a huge MP fan, but we have to recognize that few of the individual members had a significant impact "top of the field" contributions for entertainment beyond Python (Cleese and Gilliam, they are different stories). His health issues were documented so this death was not a surprise, either. We want to avoid the fan-driven impulse to post this like what happened with Carrie Fisher. RD is fine enough. --Masem (t) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Much as I enjoyed his work, he died of dementia in old age, and the reaction to his death has not been a major news story in itself. Very sad, but exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius ^talk 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb - I definitely think this passes the bar for a Blurb mention. Has received massive amount of attention.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Fond of the man's work as I am, I don't see why this is blurbworthy. He was old, it was well known he was gravely ill, and he's not as well-known outside of Python as Cleese/Gilliam/Idle, which limits his influence. (Not dismissing his comedic skills, more than Python as a whole deserves some group cr.) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb as per statement of WaltCip Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per WaltCip --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Look, I love Monty Python as much as the next person, but this is not a blurb worthy death. It strikes me as systemic bias at its core to think of one in this case. He was not a Bowie / Mandela / Thatcher type, and his death wasn't as shocking as Prince or Carrie Fisher. I don't see the level of tributes coming out for TJ as did for those deaths, which is what made those blurb worthy. RD is fine here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup - I've seen comments from the other living Pythons and some other significant writers, but this is not "shocking" the world that we'd normally post blurbs on. The battle with dementia made his death a matter of when, not if, and everyone had been ready for it. --Masem (t) 17:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb agreed that he was a comedic genius and a step above a lot of the people on RD, but still not former U.S. President/British PM tier. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Blurb please As someone not of the US, the UK or the Commonwealth, I'd say that a Python deserves a blurb. As to the actual blurb, I think Jones' legacy other than being "one of the pythons" would be being cred as director in two of the greatest comedy films of all time. Be best if "director" could be inserted somewhere. Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb It's a common name and so a blurb would provide some helpful context for the reader. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb it's there if I look for it, but other topics are dominating the headlines. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• No blurb The proposal is a shorter version of his existing line at Deaths in 2020, and his bio's opening sentence. Clearly cooler than Thatcher, Franklin or Prince, but that's irrelevant. Slightly complicated stories are what matter here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb RD is fine for a not-unexpected death from natural causes. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb – beloved comedian, yes, but not top of his field as far as I can tell. His death was also long expected. Falls short of the importance for a blurb, imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb – Regardless of intense cult following, Terry Jones isn't a generally significant household name, IMHO. – Sca (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb -- Not a household name. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - per the above opposes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

January 21[]

(Posted) RD: Morgan Wootten[]

Nominator's comments: The greatest high school coach in the USA. Added refs to coaching record but some parts there need refs. ミラP 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I expanded the lead. Good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

January 20[]

RD: Jō Shishido[]

Nominator's comments: Internationally famous Japanese film star most renowned for his work from the 1960s and 1970s. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang J. Fuchs[]

Nominator's comments: Writer of first German standard book on comics, translator of Garfield and Mom's Cancer to German, among others - I translated the German article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Seems well-documented. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019–20 Lebanese protests[]

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment In the same article, Al-Jazeera says "dozens" injured and Reuters says "370". Which is it? And how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  "dozens" were injured in the protests near Martyr's Square. More than 370 were injured during the whole day. I don't see a discrepancy. The Reuters article was published the day after, so it is not surprising that they have a better handle on the figure. I don't understand what the question "how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place?" has to do with the blurb suggested. If you can find out how many, feel free to add it to the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that this be placed under "ongoing" instead since it is ongoing. It could/should replace the protests in India which hasn't moved in three days. I wonder if either is worthy of the front page though. -- Tsukide (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You might consider nominating the CAA protests for removal --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Either blurb or ongoing. Article quality is in good shape, it seems to be actively updated, and the topic is being covered by reliable news sources in sufficient depth. I would be good featuring this article on the main page, and it could either be as a blurb or ongoing. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Article is ready now. BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to ongoing as there doesn't seem to be a significant event that would have made it as a blurb in it's own right. Stephen 01:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaroslav Kubera[]

Nominator's comments: president of the Senate of the Czech Republic, long-serving Czech politician — Draceane ^talk_{contributions} 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support – I found no reason to oppose. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Admins willing to post ITN: - porfa. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 19[]

(Posted as blurb) Ongoing: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus[]

Nominator's comments: The outbreak of a new type of coronavirus has been making headlines over the past week or so. The daily update from China shows 139 new cases (compared to a total of 62 up until yesterday), so it's probably going to get even more coverage now. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support ongoing because there are many case about coronavirus that can be spread into another country. It is highly notable to included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing elderly people dying of pneumonia is hardly unusual, and human to human transmission has not been established. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's in the international news right now and is provoking a government response. If it proves to be less worrying than expected, we can always take it off ongoing then. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I change my mind, support blurb per Spencer. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb only. This is the type of item that would be great for a blurb: posted once and ages off, and then won't be stuck on the template indefinitely. Items like these are hard to pinpoint since it takes time to isolate the virus and there's a lot of looking back to see when the first case started, so I wouldn't have a problem posting a blurb "late" per se. Example wording: A new strain of coronavirus infects over two hundred people in China, killing three. or something like that. Then if it gets drastically worse to an ongoing-level item, then it can roll off the template onto there. Spencer^T•C 05:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support its being a public health concern and it seems that have high chances of spreading, even more since cases with people that dont visited the origin place of the virus were confirmed, rasing the chances of concern about human spread, i think that would be good to be on current events area of front page Meganinja202 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per Spencer. -Zanhe (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Posted. El_C 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posted comment I think it is reasonable to posted it as blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.31 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment – Ongoing seems more appropriate at this point. It is in the news [14] [15] [16] but so far fatalities are reported at three. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support blurb per above, it's an international story. If it proves to be long-lasting, with daily updates over months, we can move it to ongoing after it slips from the bottom of the blurbs.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, although even some RS reporting seems rather hyped. But deaths have risen to six. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing With confirmed deaths, and word that this is human-to-human contagious, this is going to be a big medical story for weeks as they try to contain it. --Masem (t) 15:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • And to add, there's a reported case in the US too, though CDC has it at low risk. [17]. So very much should stay ongoing once it falls off since more cases likely to arise worldwide. --Masem (t) 19:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I have left a hidden admin note next to the item stating "if updated, consider rolling to Ongoing". Spencer^T•C 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • We've actually discontinued that practice. If someone wants it in ongoing they'll need to nominate it as such (this was an OG nom but consensus was blurb). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing that out LaserLegs, I wasn't aware it had changed. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing similar to Kivu Ebola epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yet for me if the number of casualties was changed, it is no longer used as blurb, but it is more like ongoing section, like India CAA protest, which on 29th December nominated as blurb but posted as ongoing instead because that original blurb was different than actual situation.

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Heath[]

Nominator's comments: Influential jazz saxophonist and composer. Prose looks fine, discography could use some references shoy (reactions) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Very long and productive career (reads like a Who's Who of mid 20th-century jazz). Performed on more than 100 albums, including 7 with Heath Brothers and 12 as a leader; also wrote more than 125 compositions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Grammy noms need references. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  Support job done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Nice article and it is now well referenced Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 18[]

RD: Gordon A. Smith[]

Nominator's comments: Influential British-born Canadian artist; centenarian 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:9C2F:D4F1:3:574F (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Article is in good state. I've tagged a couple of sentences where references are needed. Otherwise it looks good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Afgooye bombing[]

January 17[]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Kay[]

Nominator's comments: Canadian professional wrestler; member of the Cormier wrestling family -- one of Canada's best-known wrestling families GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support decent article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted by Amakuru — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hwang Sun-hui[]

Nominator's comments: A North Korean politician. ミラP 02:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I just oppose it if it have non-english source. I rather support it if there is a English-language source and change it from Korean language source because it would not understand for speakers who use Latin alphabet. Where is English-language source of death of Hwang Sun-hui? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  There's no requirement that mandates article sources to be in English. Naturally someone from North Korean must have majority or even all of sources about them to be in Korean. Sources are not meant for everyone on earth to be able to read them, just that somebody (in this case one who can read Korean) should be able to verify them. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks Okay to me. Well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lead tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Issue addressed. ミラP 04:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is without information on what she did once appointed to any role. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support appears well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Although InedibleHulk makes a good point about lack of what she did in her roles (and it being in essence a resume/CV in that respect), it seems that she was notable for her public image (as described in Hwang Sun-hui#Public image. Based on the descriptions there she was more of a propaganda poster child and her role on the committees was "ceremonially important", and goes to a greater depth than a resume-article. Given that it's North Korea and not a politician in a democratic country who has more of a role, I would consider this meeting a minimum standard of coverage for RD. Spencer^T•C 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - article is well sourced and I agree with Spencer's argument. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terence Hallinan[]

Nominator's comments: The DA of SanFran. Neutrality in politics section needs some sorting out ditto some small paragraphs but every paragraph is referenced. ミラP 02:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose tagged per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I have pulled the section tag after review. The article in general and section in question is well-referenced, in my view, and the article is front-page worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Interesting story, too, especially relative to North Korean "politics". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Glass[]

Nominator's comments: He died on January 9, but the death was just announced today. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose bare URLs are a no-no for me. Rest of it seems ok, Bueller notwithstanding.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, I just ran reflinks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Cool, it's not working for me right now. I'll take another look tomorrow, sorry it's late for me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Grr stupid time zones. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just one cn left. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support now, as last cn is fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019–20 Australian bushfire season[]

Nominator's comments: Yes the fires are still ongoing, yes the article is still getting updates. Those "updates" are ref improvements, copy s, and low grade wars. The most recent "new, pertinent information" is a note on January 6th that "Premier Andrews said that bushfires had burnt through 1.2 million hectares" and on the 5th a fire near Voyager Point that was "containing the fire to 60 hectares". Since the 14th of January the only new information I see are a few bits of proseline about international support. What was burning on the 10th? I have no idea because the article has no new information. Same for today. The requirements for ongoing are "continuously updated" not "continuously ed" and the updates simply aren't happening. LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per OP, who's clearly showed the article is being continuously updated. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? I carefully explained that the article is being "ed" not "updated" with "new, pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITNC#Ongoing_section. Did you read my comments? Or the article? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Australia is a big place, with different climates across the continent. While the bushfire season is easing off now in northern parts, with the expected tropical influence at this time of year, further south things are just warming up. (A semi-deliberate pun.) Historically, the hottest and most severe fire weather in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania comes in February. The two fires with the biggest death tolls in Australia, the Ash Wednesday bushfires and the Black Saturday bushfires, both occurred in February. While this or is naturally hoping nothing of the kind happens this year, saying this is all over now would be just a little premature. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Think positive, dammit! A natural lack of hope is not enough. We sometimes need to actually want things to end, before they really do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll think cautiously thanks. The fires in both those earlier events came within about four kilometres of my house, which would be regarded as being in one of Melbourne's (outer) suburbs. I'm still watching out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have picked a good place to live, my upside-down friend. I got smoked by a record-breaking blizzard yesterday, but it only broke records four provinces over. Still turned the sky almost pure white for a few hours, then the deepest, darkest blue after the hydro went out. One witness described it as "Heaven on Earth, but not in a warm way." That old man then prepared to die regretfully, but it turned out alright, because that old man still is me. May you continue to shine on through what clouds you're shown this "summer", because you're unforsaken, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose it's the weekend! Wow. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Like a diamond: Ongoing is forever.™ GreatCaesarsGhost 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. The next ongoing item on the Main Page right now is Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. While it feels to me like that's been going on forever, I know rationally that it will stop at some point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now It seems like need more update about impact of bushfire itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Meets the definition suggested at WP:ITN#Ongoing for what is "continuously updated". For example as it relates to the fires in Tasmania. Figures are been updated with new totals frequently enough. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Jayron32 is right. There has been no significant updates. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove If analysis and reaction are all that's new, that's aftermath for you. Aftermath actually does trickle on forever. We're still learning new things about several mass extinction events that happened before Australia was even a thing, doesn't mean we should alert the general public about these latest geological developments. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Still in the news (BBC has quoted authorities saying "bushfires far from over") and readers like me would be interested in this topic. 2401:4900:330D:19A2:E9D:46AF:B0B2:2F16 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. The only event in the past 4 days mentioned in the article text is a benefit concert from the Wiggles on 18 January. Any other recent additions have been updates to old information. There have not been substantive updates with new information for quite some time. --Jayron32 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Removed. While not unanimous, consensus is that the article has not received constant updates, which is needed to keep the article in Ongoing. Arguments reporting that the subject is still in other news sources were considered, and if the article is updated with new information, should be renominated for ongoing. Best, Spencer^T•C 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derek Fowlds[]

Nominator's comments: British entertainer and actor. Minor referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose career section and crs unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, sources have been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Admins willing to post ITN: Very short but I think this meets our minimum requirements. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References[]

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: