Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2020

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Closed) Spinosaurus, revised

 * Oppose good-faith nom. Not particularly notable, and I'm not sure whether any other studies have confirmed this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does something like this ever truly get “confirmed”? Zagal e jo^^^ 13:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, there's no such thing as absolute certainty in science. However, I think John M Wolfson is justified in wanting to see more than one study about this. — Matthew  - (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and I was using language loosely in that sense. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems better suited to an alternate portion of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * RD? – Sca (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's better suited for ongoing first, we've had staler stories in there.--LaserLegs (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article is GA, is updated, is being reported by WP:RS, the box is painfully stale and my six year old has informed me that this is a really big deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That the box is stale is not an argument for inclusion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, just let me know where the list of approved arguments is and we're all set then. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is an excellent argument for inclusion. Whenever the oldest story is of no interest to readers (because anyone who is interested read it weeks ago), substituting a new one serves 3 of the 4 stated purposes of ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a rather awful argument. I agree that freshness is good, but we must also have significance. The fact that nothing is happening in the world right now (except for a really big thing we have a special box for) does not mean that a insignificant niche event somehow becomes magically notable enough for the Main Page. I agree that the staleness is frustrating, but the proper response is to look for better news stories than some dinosaur fact (not to put down palaeontology, as I have a background in biological sciences) rather than loosen our standards. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already seemed pretty aquatic to me. Dimetrodon, too. But if it's later discovered to have used the fin to generate wind, I'm all aboard! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has anyone seriously proposed that Dimetrodon is aquatic? I’m honestly curious what you’re getting at. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, barely a student, just my gut feeling. Reminds me of a beaver, iguana and sailboat; not exactly a marine creature, though, a casual swimmer. And yes, hunches have a poor history in paleontology, so no, don't cite me on this or illustrate anything accordingly! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A case of the tail wagging the dino. Meh. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I actually expected to see this in ITN already. It’s a cool science story that even children can understand. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Coolness' is not a criterion for ITN. Significance is. Whatever significance this 'discovery' – "suggesting" a fin-like tail in a species thought to have lived 100 million years ago – would be limited to a niche audience; ergo, it lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's at least a significant story within paleontology, and it did appear in mainstream news services. We're not talking about some arcane argument about phylogenetics. This study suggests that one of the best known dinosaurs looked and behaved in a different manner than we thought. There's a large audience of casual dinosaur enthusiasts throughout the world who would understand and appreciate this story. I don't think the story is fundamentally less significant than the Hugo Awards, or the World Snooker Championship, or various other things listed at ITNR. Not everything that goes into ITN is a disaster or an election.
 * And I don't know why you're putting "suggesting" in quotes. That's as much as we can expect from paleontology. Zagal e jo^^^ 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I was quite enthused by this news and Spinosaurus is way cooler than protozoa or elections. It was a damn good nomination! Just not blurb material, if I put my curator hat on. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please curb your enthusiasm. – Sca (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Support In a busier news cycle I'd probably give this a pass. But it is interesting. It's relevance in a world dominated by politics and body counts might be debated, but I think it passes muster. The article quality is GA and yes, it would be nice to get something new up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is still up for promotion to the Main Page, but whatever happens can we please spell "theropod" correctly?--Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuni Goswami

 * Looks close to being ready, the formatting of the tables is messy and there are a couple missing references though. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks to be a nicely referenced article now Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The "Other activities" section should either be supported with references or removed (it can be transferred to the talk page temporarily) in my opinion, otherwise looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved "Other Activities" to article talk page as suggested Joseywales1961 (talk)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kundanika Kapadia

 * Comment a few statements at the start of 'Biography', in the middle of 'Works' and some in 'Awards' should be sourced before this article is ready for RD Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rishi Kapoor

 * Comment The reference is for Irrfan Khan (already in RD), please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed Sherenk1 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose quite a lot of unsourced material. No blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated -- (Replacing my two previous comments) I believe it's ready. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly looks good, there are just a few unreferenced awards, which I've tagged. I'll support RD once those are addressed. Definitely not blurb territory. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , those were left uncited because it was cited in the lead or the career section. I have now added inline. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's worth citing the references in the list too, as that wasn't obvious. Thanks for adding them. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — good to go.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - references added, clean-up done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Icheon fire

 * Oppose for now, needs a bit of expansion as it's very stubby at the moment Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article is improved. Currently only 4 sentences total, still a stub as Joseywales1961 noted. - Indefensible (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're half way there. News sources are covering the story in sufficient detail, which is good, but the article is a stub right now, and contains almost no useful information beyond what can be said in a blurb.  Needs considerable expansion.  -- Jayron 32 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, although the article is currently stubby. No flag for image, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is appropriately expanded. Would change to support when this is done. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Consider it Support when the article reaches Start. Ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ideally, this should have been posted three days ago. (Bleve AP and Reuters had stories.) Now it's getting rather stale. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very unfortunate event, but the article is not in main page form at all. Juxlos (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Lovett

 * Support Looks good.130.233.2.13 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maj Sjöwall

 * Comment I have added a bibliography. TompaDompa (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Updated and expanded. Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Trevor Cherry

 * Weak oppose massively improved from when it was nominated, mainly thanks to, good work. Some stuff to reference in the International section, please don't hesitate to ping me when it's good to go, and I'll revisit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you reckon? Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support No issues. P-K3 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Jānis Lūsis

 * Oppose - Not ready yet per above comment. - Indefensible (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose far from ready. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giacomo dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto

 * Support - Good work with updating the article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support where are those "knight grand cross" honours referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added citations for those honours. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note Should probably be piped to Giacomo dalla Torre when posted, the rest is a title (and it would take up ridiculous space!). Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hope no one has any objections to my marking this down as ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexander Fernando

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irrfan Khan

 * Comment - Article has uncited sentences Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Career (uncited paras), filmography (expansion), award section (expansion) - all need work. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb — Important personality. His films grossed $3.643 billion. Has been awarded fourth-highest civilian award Padma Shri. Died young and non COVID related death. It's a huge shock for everyone. CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - A lot of references have been added and clean-ups have been performed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD: good to go as an RD, unsourced sentences have been taken of. --Titodutta (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denis Goldberg

 * Support in principle, but his death needs to be written up in the article (Later life and legacy section perhaps?). The citation for the death date can be removed from the first sentence, but his death should be noted in the last paragraph of the lead, and properly written up in the body, with the citations. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Laterthanyouthink, I've expanded the Death section and his introduction. Is there anything further that urgently needs changing? --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,thanks. It looks mostly fine now, although the citations are not needed in the lead (supplied in the body), so I'll remove those. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - There are still a couple references needed and the Awards section in particular needs better support, but overall I think it is sufficient. - Indefensible (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indefensible, I've added a number of more references to the Awards section. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk)
 * Good job Elinor.Dashwood, thank you. Marking as Ready, this deserves to be posted. - Indefensible (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment  Yes, I tweaked the sections and improved some of the citing too - but just noticed above that you wrote in the nomination that he was imprisoned on Robben Island with Mandela... He wasn't; because of the racial segregation, he went to a prison for Whites in Pretoria. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Robinson

 * Support - Seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynn Harrell

 * I believe the article is wholly referenced now and ready to go. If someone has the time, possibly adding a lede to the article would be of great benefit. Thanks Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  02:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks much improved now, good work on the updates. Still has one cn tag but acceptable for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Fails MOS:OPENPARABIO with a one-sentence lead. What is he notable for?—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the lede; please let me know if this is satisfactory now. (Also please ping me next time, so I could have done it myself and sooner. I had already expressed concern above about the lede!!) Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  16:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose.  I typically don't ping on !votes, but would if I was rebutting or seeking a response. I didn't see your comment before (and probably would have assumed you didn't have the time if I did) Reagrds.—Bagumba (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and understood. I will try to check on nominations I post more often in the future. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  02:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm with Bagumba on the opening, the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * " ditto. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  16:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved to April 28 per date of death announcement and Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Marty Smith

 * Weak oppose pretty stubby for a "legend". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Mohammad Shariff

 * Weak support There a 4 tags for self-published sources, otherwise looks ok Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. Sort those tags and good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramon Jimenez Jr.

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald S. Gann

 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James B. Adams

 * Support Checks out.130.233.2.206 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is mediocre but what's there appears to be satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short article but sufficient Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Sparse but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T• C 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcel Ospel

 * Support 1.7 kB of prose is a little thin for such a giant in his field, but otherwise OK.130.233.2.206 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support mediocre but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Sparse but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T• C 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gideon Patt

 * Weak support really bare bones coverage of his life but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Refs spot checked. This article contains even less personal information than the nomination immediately above and borders on resumé. It nonetheless ticks the boxes.130.233.2.206 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erin Babcock

 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Thin. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, it's short but well sourced Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Abel

 * Support, short but solid, and unusual --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not going to go up in time ahead of other more recent RDs that are ready to be posted to the Main Page. Even though the press was late to report this, it's still stale. WaltCip (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about that unfairness last year, if Márta Kurtág had been an American man, she would have appeared, but she is an Hungarian woman., but nothing changed. We do have IAR, no. Our system promotes those who get the press, thus those who will get the attention anyway, while we could do something for those who deserve attention also and will not get it per the press. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Marino Casem

 * Just needs refs for the coaching record, and any highlighted stats and achievements in the infobox. Stephen 01:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a few refs to the infobox. The championships have Wiki links which go to articles with the particulars for those years listed, hopefully that works. - Indefensible (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that I checked a couple and the team or his name were not mentioned in the linked article (and then there's a secondary issue in that even if they were mentioned would they be referenced). For example, 1967 does not mention Alcorn or Casem. Is there a website that lists all his career coaching stats we could put at the top or bottom as a source? Stephen 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Black college football national championship article has the 4 championships listed, upon closer inspection the SWAC years listed were for winning their conference and not necessarily a championship. We can probably strip all of the years out except for the championship years if needed, as those seem to be the most notable ones and have supporting references. - Indefensible (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose head coaching table unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zarina Hashmi

 * Support Looks to be well sourced and long enough article Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yevgeny Yuryev

 * Support - Sufficient for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gunnar Seijbold
can perhaps give some insight.BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support fairly well sourced if it is long enough for RD Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1240 bytes of prose, criteria I usually see for non-stub status is >1500 bytes. The article was created the 26th, and I am unfamiliar with the notability requirements for photographers (I know GNG, but the citations do not have published dates, so I do not know if they are all obituaries which may mean article does not meet notability requirements; I don't have the time to go through them all right now). Removing ready tag, would like an article expansion and someone that has more time to analyze to comment on notability.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The time limit issue is not an issue the last article is from 23 April. I have expanded the article. The sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article is succinct and well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Per Olov Enquist

 * Comment – Looks a bit thin; documentation is minimal. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sourcing. It could be that Biography paragraph is supposed to all be sourced from the Dagens Nyheter obituary, but I can't tell because it's behind a paywall, and the Recognition paragraph isn't sourced either. Support - a bit short, but acceptable now - good work. Black Kite (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Needs better referencing per above. - Indefensible (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I added a bunch of references and removed the stuff I couldn't find proper sourcing for. TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per User:TompaDompa's updates. Good work. - Indefensible (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing is much better now. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Nice work on the referencing.  Spencer T• C 03:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James M. Beggs

 * Ready I think &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements, however the article is almost entirely supported by a few NASA refs which are probably primary sources in this situation, so it would be good to get additional 3rd party reliable sources I think. - Indefensible (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Brennand

 * Support - Article is new, but seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Lead identifies him first as a businessman but there is only 1 sentence about what he did as a businessman in the article. Insufficient depth of coverage in that part of his life. "Weak" since the art collector side meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some improvements related to his business coverage from a new source. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No issues, ready to go. P-K3 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Reported death of Kim Jong-un

 * Comment. The NYP says that he could also be in a vegetative state; this is going to be difficult to determine given the opaqueness of North Korea. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. The state media might lie about a lot of things, but it isn't going to lie about his death.--WaltCip (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – information is all over the place. Reports vary from he's dead to he's fine. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fake news and death to the Western pig-dogs!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - until confirmed. Then consider it Support.BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per all; then support if confirmed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We post confirmed facts, not rumors. Suggest speedy close pending some sort of official confirmation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose without confirmation. NY Post and TMZ are not paragons of journalism. J Post is speculating he's in Wonsan. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – All primary Eng.-lang. RS sites ignore, downplay or characterize as speculation this so-called report. In the absence of credible information, suggest CLOSE before we waste any more time on this. – Sca (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grandma Lee

 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 deaths in the US surpass 50,000

 * Oppose blurb as the target article is not present in either. Additionally, I don't think a "total deaths" blurb will be necessary unless we are looking at worldwide numbers, as Wikipedia is not US-centered. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is an arbitrary milestone and people are dying all over the world. These developments are adequately covered in the various links within our COVID-19 template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * worth noting this is front page news around the world currently, because the death toll is so much greater than every other country (maybe this should be included in the blurb in fairness) - I'm a Brit and saw it initially on the BBC, but it's being covered as well on the front page of RTVE's website as well as El País etc. It's not just a US news story by any means, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it at all - though I appreciate your point. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting such a benchmark for any single country; perhaps a worldwide figure. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, it's a worldwide phenomenon, but the U.S. is also the first country to hit this number of deaths, and accounts for a quarter of deaths worldwide. BD2412  T 21:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added altblurb2 here with a worldwide contextualisation of just how significant this figure is in international terms. As mentioned above, the figure is being reported on the front pages internationally - I wouldn't have heard about it at all otherwise. Here in Europe, we're used to hearing about how bad the situation is in Italy and Spain, so these figures are really quite shocking. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Country with bigger population has more deaths. You could equally make a case for blurbing Belgium, with the highest death toll per capita of any heavily populated country (four times higher than the USA). Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The US population makes up under 5% of the global population, yet accounts for more than 25% of all COVID-19 deaths worldwide now. I don't think this argument really fits. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the reason for that particular statistic is not really because the US figures are ridiculously high per capita, but because there are many heavily populated countries (i.e. most of South America, India) with very small death tolls, plus dubious (at best) data from China. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An argument against the validity of the statistics is a question for somewhere other than Wikipedia; reliable sources show the statistics to be what they are. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but you could equally say that the UK has 1% of the world's population, but 10% of the deaths - a far higher death rate. Is one statistic more notable than the other? Plus we're here for the long run - do we post to ITN every time a country gets to an artibrary figure? - the UK will probably get to 20K tomorrow, and that will be covered in plenty of reliable sources too. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic, but why pick out an arbitrary threshold in one particular country? There have been almost 200,000 deaths worldwide. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that one particular country is now more than a quarter of the entire worldwide deaths. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the highest death toll of any country brings notability, but it's an arbitrary threshold and we have the huge infobox already. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a worldwide event, focusing on any single country for ITN is completely inappropriate. I would be willing to support - if it got there - a worldwide death toll hitting 1M (based on WHO numbers). --M asem  (t) 23:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the Olympics postponement, but for pretty much everything else there's the infobox. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for a worldwide figure - has the global total hit 100k? RIP. Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is like posting the half time score in a football match as it happens. Sure, the US is doing tremendously, but it's just the overtaking of an arbitrary number. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynn Faulds Wood

 * Comment short but just about long enough article, a few citations needed, will support when these are added Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me. I have added sources so that each individual paragraph has at least one source, and so there are no cn tags.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough now, good work Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- marked as ready. I added a reference for the last citation needed tag. Would be great to expand the lead and early life section. TJMSmith (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted by Spencer. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; computer had some issues right after I posted.  Spencer T• C 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has an orange banner currently, probably should be addressed per the guidelines. - Indefensible (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As it's an expansion tag I'd probably just remove it until it cycles off RD. It's not a "something is seriously wrong" tag. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kumiko Okae

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -barely but is Start class now. Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sad that there is more about the death and her whole career. Hopefully people will expand it now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred the Godson

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as creator. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norbert Blüm

 * Support. I saw the article in the morning and was afraid it was too poor, but Grimes2 worked miracles. I did a bit, also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fknisel should also be mentioned. Grimes2 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Goodfellow

 * Oppose Patchy referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrodvarsson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose just a few citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added references, and each section now contains a source. If it needs more sourcing, could you let me know exactly where? Thanks! PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. I don't see anything in the article I can't confirm from the sources in the article.  -- Jayron 32 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Kennedy

 * Support pretty well referenced article Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - decent enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks OK. Notable person. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron 32 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Sir John Houghton

 * Support - seems to meet the requirements. COVID related. - Indefensible (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this one looks ok Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Stale, older (April 15) than the oldest RD we currently have posted (April 16), no extenuating circumstances (death was reported immediately). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale. Death was 15 April, and was reported on that day too. RD uses the date death was reported, and it in older than 16 April 16, so unfortunately this is a stale request. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudratej Singh

 * Support but quite short, but enough in there and well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - short but sufficient for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tom Lester

 * Weak oppose two or three places need a citation. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - a couple of citation needed tags give me pause. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noureddine Diwa

 * Weak support just about long enough, plenty of references (mostly in French) Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is new but well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ronan O'Rahilly

 * Oppose - Needs referencing improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for citation needed tags. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ramos v. Louisiana

 * Oppose It doesn’t seem earth-shattering to me; it just requires two states to follow what the other 48 are already doing. P-K3 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, I think the effects on criminal law are significant as it's enshrining a fundamental principle as opposed to merely "yeah, it's the law of the land in almost all of America, except when it isn't." However, given the messy verdict the article needs to be expanded to explain why the justices !voted the way they did. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having expanded the article, the decision affects all of 2 states (Oregon and Louisiana), and even then, only will cause review of OR's and a portion of Louisiana before 2019 (LA had amended its constitution for unanimous jury convictions now). All other states had cases of unanimous convictions on the books long before this. It is a landmark case in US law, as it is another incorporated Bill of Rights against the states, but its impact is minor relative to the big picture that it is not ITN appropriate as it mostly affirms the status quo. --M asem (t) 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Milestone court case that has everlasting effects on the United States' entire criminal justice system. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, and not seeing this "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely in the news, its not hard to find coverage, just that its net effect has little change on most of the US, much less the rest of the world. --M asem (t) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose as someone who's personally interested in this, this is nominally a big deal that overturns a precedent from the 1970s, the "two states" thing notwithstanding . Having said that, I'm not sure if this reaches the level for a blurb that is expected of court cases that aren't directly notable due to the persons involved. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've given some more thought about this, and I've decided that posting this without the context that only two states still allowed non-unanimous convictions might give people a POV view of the United States. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support This case is a rare one, because it makes formal changes to criminal cases; but I take the point most states had already moved in this direction. Nonetheless, it prevents states from exercising their own discretion as to proceedings in their own territory, and it prevents a (granted small) amount of venue shopping. Added LA Times source to the nomination.130.233.3.157 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose hyperlocalised minor amendment. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A key decision in the question of states' rights vs federal rights, which strikes at the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the criminal law system. (It might be difficult to appreciate its scope from within countries which have a stronger federal system of government -- which the U.S. emphatically does not. The best way currently to appreciate the differences is to look at the vast differences in COVID-19 governmental response between states -- inconceivable in most European and N/S American countries -- and to look at how reviled Obama was for centralizing response to swine flu and Ebola a few years earlier. The battle cry of "states' rights" has not tempered much since the U.S. Civil War.) Essentially, this decision tackles the question of the extent to which states have the ability to interpret the U.S. constitution (see Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). It is in that sense specifically that the wider ramifications make this decision notable, by changing common practice to federal dictum. Although this does fall within the wider spectrum of Supreme Court cases (after the state courts were given the right to hold jury trials) which have generally determined that Bill of Rights amendments (ie. federal constitutional rights) apply to state trials, very few decisions in this millennium have had comparable weight. (Most of this was ironed out in the 1970s civil rights trials or earlier). Certainly none have had equivalent weight in both the legal sphere and public perception. The right to trial by jury is dear to American hearts. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Some non-US interest I think. Where I'm from (England) 10-2 is sufficient and I wasn't aware of the US situation. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local issue with no clear significance.– Ammarpad (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too local, too minor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Minor import in the context of general U.S. jurisprudence. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A handful of judges make a decision that affects a subsection of a subsection of one nation's population. Definitively parochial.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is prime for a DYK which I plan to sumbit (if no one else does). --M asem (t) 15:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as this changes an obscure legal point in only state-level courts in Oregon, and historical cases in Louisiana. Whilst some convictions will now be overturned or require a re-trial, that does not seem significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. The article has nothing on implications. I agree it would make a good DYK entry and is new enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Price of oil is negative
Price of oil just became negative in the US. That's a giant abnormality, as instead of a commodity, "black gold" is a liability/toxic asset. CNN, NYT. 2601:602:9200:1310:31C4:B759:FF29:594C (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As with the previous stories on the market turndown, we should wait for a trend. If this lasts for a few days, that might be an issue to post, but a daily blip in a financial market should not be an ITN as proven out from before. --M asem (t) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But NEGATIVE prices is an extreme aberration. It's like having news of a large asteroid with uncertain orbit being predicted to hit Earth, even though later orbit measurements proves "just miss" status.  Difference is that this has not happened on the NY Mercantile Exchange since its inception in 1983. 2601:602:9200:1310:31C4:B759:FF29:594C (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We tend to judge blurbs here, which means you have to have one first. Most of the ideas I have would be greeted with either "trivial!" or "Coronovirus 'impacts' cover this."  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, there's blips in markets. The media jumps at those, we are looking at the larger picutre. A sustained negative price would be something. But even with that, I would expect a more narrow focus article on why it got to negative like this (is this an extension of the russia-opec price war earlier? is this COVID related? etc.) --M asem (t) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose this is one specific type of oil (West Texas Intermediate) for a specific futures contract (May delivery in Oklahoma, and today was the last day trading was allowed for this contract). All the other major oil indices are still positive. Juxlos (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak Support based on media coverage. Juxlos (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support big deal in business news today, article is decent. Weak because of the one sentence update and because the target it "proseline-y" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, this is far crazier than a big one-day drop in stock indices which we routinely post. Needs expansion though. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A huge deal and a milestone on the way towards severe economic downturn. It's not just the government anymore; private companies are willing to pay their customers to stay in business. Contra Juxlos above, this did not just impact WTI; the majority of US-domestic crude went negative. WTI is just the "benchmark" which is reported in the popular press; TX sour was even more negative at ca. -50USD/bbl.130.233.3.157 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Arguably, a negative price on a core commodity rather undermines the entire concept of industry development, challenging a few other dearly held economic beliefs in the process. (And the prize for the best-timed single commodity trade war ever goes to ... Russia and Saudi Arabia!) No question that the issue has been exacerbated by a sudden sharp drop both in discretionary spending and in demand due to COVID-19 (both possibly ongoing: no job or perma-home job leads to a sharp reduction in travel and industry electricity use, and there are already fewer heating days each year), but that should not make a difference to its ITN notability. As one political cartoonist put it: such cheap gas prices ... and nowhere to drive. That kind of death spiral can be hard to escape, to the point that the phrase "economic black hole" comes to mind. Time to review some of the patterns of the Great Depression; it took a rather large war to fully lift us out of that one, and the emergence of the military industrial complex to maintain a new western pattern of war = prosperity. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the price of oil per se that's gone negative, but the price of contracts for delivery in the near future. Basically, traders are saying "I'll pay you to figure out where the heck to store this stuff".  What you're describing would be the spot price, not the futures price going negative. --Carnildo (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps a superlative would highlight imptact better. Added altblurb.130.233.3.157 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - We can safely say this has never happened before in the history of global economics.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Sensational spot coverage internationally April 20, but suggest waiting a few days to ascertain extent, longevity of this possible watershed development. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to wait. The news is all around you.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The price is positive again now. "Yesterday's price action is best understood as a quirk or peculiarity of futures trading," said analyst James Trafford of Fidelity International." (BBC). Also, just one line mentioning it in the target article. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In NY Tuesday, crude futures were in positive territory but showed volatile fluctuation up & down. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The newsworthiness is not diminished simply because oil futures are currently back in positive territory (after OPEC rapidly cut yields). It is not even in the aberration that, at the end of one market day as May futures were expiring, some oil prices dipped below zero. It is simply in the fact that, for the first time ever since oil became something useful, no one wanted oil. Did you ever think anyone would ever say that as fact? At this point, there is so much oil in storage that there is literally no place left to store it! (Some countries have been using the tankers themselves as extra storage.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's many many footnotes to explain why oil was negative, that it is too simply to say "because no one wanted it". The cost of oil accounts for what people will pay (revenue) against the costs of production, processing, transportation, and storage (costs). There are so many levers on this calculation that a temporary drop into the negatives in one area is just a blip, and any statistician will tell you is something you routinely would ignore if it doesn't sustain a negative value. --M asem (t) 15:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on this Guardian article, which makes it clear this applies only to one oil market and is expected to rebound quickly. That makes our blurb misleading, and the article has only a single sentence on this topic, providing no more information. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Even with the caveats, I think this is still extremely noteworthy and historic. Davey2116 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very notable event. It would be good for people to know.Rooves (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This kind of blip is fairly routine in commodities markets. The only reason the price briefly showed as negative, rather than zero, is that environmental legislation mean oil can't be dumped or stockpiled in the same way one can dump unwanted grain or leave coal piled at the minehead until the price goes up, and consequently when the May options expired the traders who'd overpurchased had to pay facilities to store it. &#8209; Iridescent 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There isn't much to it when you look deep enough; not doing so would be a disservice. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a note that West Texas Intermediate, 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war, Corporate debt bubble, and Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic all have multi-sentence updates on this topic. Featous (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. And too many media outlets proceeding with the clickbait simplification when the single futures market was the one that turned negative. ITN should not sink to their level with atrocious blurbs like that. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 03:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment So, I woke up today to find that oil is Asia is fast approaching 0, the June futures contract is dumping, and oil derivatives are closing. The notion that such is "fairly routine in commodity markets" is very false; what commodity has ever gone negative, let alone "routinely"? The notion that environmental regulations lead to this is also false; uranium is traded on the open market, has suffered a terrible bear market for years, and it also cannot be "dumped" - it never touched zero or below.130.233.3.91 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb. If it becomes a worldwide phenomenon, then change the blurb to reflect this. Otherwise, not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iri, Black Kite and Modest Genius. An interesting little quirk, but not right for ITN at present. Should this be the start of something larger (i.e. it spreads to most markets and shows longevity, then the question could be reappraised, but not yet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oil futures opened around $14 Wednesday and closed at $14.23. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Prime Minister of Israel

 * Comment I nominated this and pointed to PM, but it could also go to Netanyahu or Gants. I do think this is notable because Israel had three elections in one year and had a caretaker government for 17 months and almost had 4 elections in one year until they finally got a coalition agreement signed. That seems notable in itself. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think there should be a separate article to cover what's been 17 months of stalemate. It might require more digging into regional sources for development. --M asem (t) 18:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one, 2019–20 Israeli constitutional crisis. As for Prime Minister of Israel, it has no updates – in fact it's had only four edits to it this year.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That article was for a specific moment in time, not necessarily on the whole shebang, so not sure if that would be a good article for this. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , We have articles on the individual elections, for example, 2020_Israeli_legislative_election. We can also blurb it to Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz form unity government after 17 months of stalemate. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly some summary-level article, maybe looking at it from a timeline POV, could be made. At that level, you don't need the details of the elections, just net result and how one election came out from the previous, etc. Just something to give a better history as a summary style article. --M asem (t) 19:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The story is certainly covered by major news outlets to sufficient depth, but that's only half the necessary bits. We also need a quality article with a sufficient update so readers can get a full story from it.  It doesn't have to be specifically about this event, but it does have to have enough information to place the event in historical context and provide enough information to give readers a good understanding.  What article are we assessing?  The Prime Minister of Israel article does not have a sufficient amount of updated material yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC) (post ec note): The altblurb bolded article is also not updated.  It states the crisis ended on March 26, and contains no information about the current news.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment added less colorful alt-blurb feel free to tweak it in place --LaserLegs (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment what changed? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, Sky are now reporting this as a "unity government" in the face of Covid-19. Not quite what I'm seeing here.  In any case, not really interesting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Three elections in one year with a caretaker prime minister, and heading to a fourth election, now the country will have a unity government with a PM and a vice PM and an agreement to split up and then have the PM's swap position. That sounds like news to me and certainly interesting. I don't know of other stable democracies that have had three elections in one year, so that in itself is interesting. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you say may be true; but there is no properly written and sourced text in any target article, so what exactly are we supposed to assess for quality? Instead of spending all of your time arguing with people here, you could be off expanding and referencing an article we could post to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. It sounds more like some Trivial Pursuit question ("In 2019–20, which country had three elections before ending up with a unity government?") but nothing more.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale? The article on the crisis says that Gantz was chosen as speaker of the Knesset almost a month ago. What about this agreement is new? The article is not particularly clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't put that alt-blurb in and the constitutional crisis was only a specific point in this whole 17 month timeline. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , okay, but I still don't understand the timeline here, and the JPost article didn't help me. I want to support this, but I'm not clear on what happened in this agreement that didn't happen last month. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's definitely events today that establish a deal (see NYtimes + Guardian), which appears to be giving Netanyahu 18 add'l months as PM, after which he is to turn it over to Gantz for the rest of the term. --M asem (t) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that news I can support, if there's a sufficient update to post in an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I expanded the article mentioned in the third blurb. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I found an article Thirty-fifth_government_of_Israel that has a good background to the whole mess that should give readers a good primer on this, I added a blurb. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Expand details on today's (20 April) agreement and I'd support this. This is the type of timeline/summary article I spoke to earlier. --M asem (t) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , done, I am working on more, but I started it.
 * Support - I think alternative blurb III is the most thorough. TJMSmith (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think alt 3 is the best. Not sure if I can undo the other choices, or my nom for my blurb, but I Support alt 3 blurb. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose absolutely no clarity over what is making this in any way significant. Some fluff about a deal,  some  sharing,  some Covid-19,  nope, nothing  that an encyclopedia should be promoting, perhaps a  tabloid.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, nothing very encyclopedic. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support As was noted earlier, ITN habitually posts election results, and this is of at least comparable notability. Israeli politics have been a mess of late, in part because of changing demographics. The only western country with comparable instability is Italy; but for Italy this is a "normal" state of affairs. For Israel, it emphatically is not. Consider that if Netanyahu had been re-elected or become PM as a result of replacing a previous party leader, ITN would automatically have posted that (given adequate article quality). Sometimes such postings include the party details, but more often they do not. ITN also does not normally include the details of power-sharing in minority results. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: For whatever it is worth, I did add a fourth blurb, emphasising the amount of time involved and Netanyahu's continuance in the post. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – but only for a blurb containing the names of both men, preferably with some minimal indication of their political orientation. (How long it's taken is a side issue.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: One possibility (call it Alt5): "Following the Israeli parliamentary election in March, the Benjamin Netanyahu-led Likud forms a coalition government with the Kachol Lavan led by Benny Gantz." (The introductory clause could be replaced by "In Israel," ....) – Sca (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think alt-III is fine, it has the details without getting too detaily for the blurb, it does mention names, and then the government, which is linked. I think that reads better than alt-IV. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - while the formation of a new government after 3 deadlocked elections is significant enough to warrant posting (I dare even say it's ITNR-level, if not in letter then in spirit), this hasn't happened yet. The coalition agreement between Blue&White and Likud does not automatically mean a new government - the government still needs to win a vote of confidence from the Knesset. While this is a likely outcome with the coalition parties seemingly controlling a majority, a lot can happen between now and the vote. I'd support posting a blurb only after the government is sworn in. <i style="color:black">Rami</i> <i style="color:red">R</i> 13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-3 is my first preference, with Alt-2 as my second preference. The key element of the story is the power-sharing agreement between the two men.  That needs to be mentioned in the blurb.  The story is in the news prominently, AND the article that is now highlighted in those blurbs is in a good state.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb 3. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: in principle, I think a new government after three elections is important enough to post. However, the nomination is a mess, all five(!) of the proposed blurbs are poor, and it's very difficult to work out what is going on from the numerous partially-overlapping articles. There needs to be an accessible top-level summary somewhere, and the blurb should keep things simple without casting judgement on either the participants or the time taken. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk
 * Oppose per Rami R. Once the Knesset votes to confirm the unity government (a mere formality, which I assume will be in the next couple days?) then this is ITN/R, since it establishes the final results of a general election.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s ITN/R. The elections themselves are, but not the formation of a government. P-K3 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think that formation of a government is more notable than the election since that is when the prime minister is chosen. I don't know what ITN conventions have been lately, but it makes more sense to me to post government formation rather than election results when there is no majority in a parliamentary system, if I had to choose one.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be notable news that deserves to be posted. Another possible altblurb could be: "The 2019–20 Israeli constitutional crisis results in the Thirty-fifth_government_of_Israel after negotiations between prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset speaker Benny Gantz." Does not seem to fit in the box currently though. The Prime Minister of Israel should not be the target/focus article though. Alternatively, could be posted as ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that a ("unity"-?) coalition govt. was finally formed by by avowed adversaries certainly is ITN-level news, and should be posted now or it'll seem stale. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There is still some uncertainty, as described here, as to whether the new government will be approved.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted a tweaked version of Alt3. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Beard

 * Needs references for the filmography. Stephen 05:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen, forgot about that. Removed the section for now, put a copy on the talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noach Dear

 * Posted Stephen 04:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Nova Scotia killings

 * Strong support as nominator. 142.122.141.211 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW as nominator, it is presumed you support posting. --M asem (t) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT and article seems to be in shaped for ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article covers the basics, and with the perp killed, its determining the why which will take take. I offer Alt2 as to note it was in rural NS as Portapique is a bit tooo obscure (but identified in the article now). --M asem (t) 00:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And to note for others, it was a combination for shootings and arson, to the "13 people die" is the right wording here. --M asem (t) 00:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in acceptable condition and is being worked on. Huge loss of life for Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose / Wait the article is still lean on details, and while tragic this isn't important enough to rush to the main page. I'd like to see a full paragraph on the perpetrator and given the nature of the spree a timeline and some details about the victims. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Proving to be one of the deadliest shootings in Canadian history, and has made international headlines. Article has enough information to inform, and is being updated as details are released. Sportyguy03 (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either alt. Making international news, and the article is decent enough. Natureium (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with preference to alt2. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You made up your own instead of posting any of the options above? Natureium (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Natureium, that doesn't seem right. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would have at least liked to see that particular blurb proposed here instead of having the nominator's disregarded. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging Stephen. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe there should be reference to it being the deadliest mass shooting rampage in Canada.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We usually don't include such superlatives in blurbs. In the article it is fine. --M asem (t) 03:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Mass shooting is more common and understandable than spree killing. The current blurb seems fine. Gotitbro (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with previous re "mass shooting," which is the usual term. "Spree" connotes an element of enjoyment or fun – highly inappropriate for such events. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what spree killer says, it merely defines it as the killing of two or more people in a short space of time in multiple locations.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Stephen knows what he's doing. Let's not jump to premature conclusions.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.  It's obvious that mass shooting is the common term.  It's also clear that the blurb was reworded so it didn't mirror (and thus clash) with an existing blurb.  This really is nothing to see here territory. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Wot other blurb does it clash with?" asked William. ——  SN  54129  14:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Thirty-eight people are killed in ..." The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Check. Well, that's certainly an argument for keeping them apart, but I don't see how calling this a mass shooting or a spree killing makes a difference; the tornado blurb uses neither. Still, I'm more interested in 's supervote than anything else. ——  SN  54129  14:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support current blurb as nominator. 142.122.141.211 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant avoiding the clash of the portion of the blurb I mentioned, not that the tornado blurb mentions spree killings. And it doesn't take a genius to see that "mass shooting" is about 20 times more common than "spree killing" for this specific news item.  We all already know that admins are able to make changes to blurbs to better suit the main page and our readers.  This is no different.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When they're misleading, absolutely (as opposed to, making them misleading!) ——  SN  54129  16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Spree: "A merry frolic; especially, a drinking frolic." – Sca (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC
 * Per MW "an unrestrained indulgence in or outburst of an activity" which is probably more the origin where "spree killing" comes from. --M asem  (t) 15:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget, it's also the name of a German river that flows through Berlin and empties into the Havel (not to be confused with Václav). – Sca (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: François Lafortune Jr.

 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucien Szpiro

 * Comment – Rather stubby. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – French mathematician with no article in French. Nigej (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found that quite strange. He has a lengthy one on the German Wikipedia though. — MarkH21talk 21:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article was recently expanded and is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abba Kyari

 * Comment just a couple of refs needed (cn's added), will support when addressed Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Hunter

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Govvy (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nigej (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jane Dee Hull

 * I'm getting "access denied" on the source for her death &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's odd. It loads for me. How's this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work from the EU, it's a GDPR thing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Found an extra reference, which worked for me. And &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Althea McNish

 * Support I'm no expert on textile design but seems ok. Nigej (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ulrich Kienzle

 * Support - Good work. RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Copy-edited to Eng. syntax. – Sca (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * . El_C 07:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Deitch

 * Support Article in decent shape. --M asem (t) 20:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even without being in RD, this got more than 20,000 page views yesterday (more than what many articles get when listed at RD). Notable subject, good enough article, would be a pity to let it become "stale" for no good reason. Fram (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks very good. He was a major figure in animation world. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  15:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Added references for the last two CN tags.  Spencer T• C 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Luis Sepúlveda

 * Comment Support in principle but needs some refs. Kingsif (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely unsourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) South Korean election

 * Support Well sourced, good length. At least non-coronavirus stuff for a change. TuorEladar (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article. The table in the section on political parties needs to clarify its source. I think it is cited in the text above but it's not completely clear. Otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Worth adding. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Election with decent article. Kingsif (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment though I question our obsession with a prose update for election results, we do tend to require one and this article seems to be lacking it --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I don't think it's ready yet . <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a high-quality image of Lee-Hae Chen. Do we have any better ones? Rockin 04:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the still-present shortcomings noted by the nominator. Also, the Opinion polls section contains only a link, which I consider to be an empty section.130.233.3.31 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R, though a lot of commentators on media noted that the party's popularity soared due to COVID so this is somewhat related, but alas. Juxlos (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary to say "support per ITNR" as being ITNR means that the merits are not in dispute; only article quality is at issue(and the blurb). 331dot (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per, needs sourced prose update on the results. Preferably, include a gist of what the reaction is.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Articles, whether about elections, tornadoes or sports events, that rely too heavily on tables, charts, etc., don't serve readers very well. If we're an encyclopedia we should be presenting mainly prose. Undecided about this one, mainly 'cause it's ITN/R. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Being on ITNR does not supersede the page meeting quality standards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated: I've added a section on coronavirus impact, a prose summary of the results, and copyedited the rest of the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready thanks . --LaserLegs (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Keiji Fujiwara

 * Weak Oppose The article is (gasp!) reasonably well sourced. But it consists mostly of tables. Once you take them out you have very little left. Needs some text. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Long list of "Filmography" but the "Biography" is just a series of bullet points. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is very close (surprising given the enormous amount of 'ography), and at 1.5 kB of prose, it's just there. If a Japanese-capable reader could fill in the current disjointed prose with a few more sentences it would pass.130.233.3.31 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous three. As noted above, articles that rely too heavily on tables, charts, etc., don't serve readers very well. If we're an encyclopedia, we should be presenting mainly prose. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Howard Finkel

 * Oppose The vast majority of statements in his bio are unsourced.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Would need a significant rewrite/sourcing Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently in the ring, weighing in at "immovable object", from Shark Lick, Wyoming...Lethal Lockdown! Seriously though, nothing's getting out or in. For a while, apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still largely unsourced, and four of the cites are from IMDb as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment - This article is fully protected, and the content dispute may well carry on in two days when it's unprotected. This has prevented the sourcing from being anywhere close to ready, and I understand that this nomination will go stale. So it goes. Can't blame a guy for hoping. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ranjit Chowdhry

 * Oppose at the moment. First half of the career section and the filmography are unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Brown (climber)

 * Support Looks good to me.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks quite complete & well-referenced. Subject apparently had an international reputation. (German Wiki's RD lists him.) – Sca (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Nigej (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Lee Konitz

 * Oppose Poorly referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adam Alsing

 * Support good work turning this article around from a stub, decently referenced Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Tom Moore (soldier) charity

 * Oppose good faith nom with regret. It's a great human interest story but there have been a lot of people stepping up during the not so great pestilence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This would be a good DYK candidate, I'm not sure about ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, better for DYK I know "better for DYK" is often seen (rightly) as a sarcastic put-down, but this is genuinely better for DYK and does meet the eligibility requirements AFAICT, so I encourage the nominator to take it there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While some major news outlets are carrying the story, I'm not seeing its appearance in the context of those outlets (i.e. the section they put it in, the depth and breadth of coverage, etc.) which indicates to me that the story has the level of significance necessary for an ITN post. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margit Feldman

 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kerstin Meyer

 * Support - Good to go for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dmitri Smirnov (composer)

 * Support, per nom. Sad. As he died 9 April, I am afraid this should be moved to the date, and is probably too late. Can we make an exception for one of us?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, his death was in the news on 9 April, this is not the case of a death notice postponed by family/etc. It can be posted if it can be brought to quality but we're not about to make exceptions because someone was a Wikipedian (that's terribly nepotism, the last thing ITN should engage in. Signpost or other WMF venues, sure). --M asem (t) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh. "I'm not absolutely opposed to a little nepotism, as long as you keep it in the family." -John F. Kennedy


 * Oppose Referencing is dreadful. Willing to consider an IAR RD exception per Gerda if the article can be brought up to speed in a timely manner. But it's going to need some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral for IAR, but oppose for the reason that he was a Wikipedian per Masem. It's navel-gazey to do so; if there's another reason for IAR I'd be open to it (pending quality, of course) but we shouldn't be giving ourselves preferential treatment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Virtually no referencing; it's a massive BLP fail. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What a shame.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Life is a never ceasing string of nonstop disappointment until you die. You should probably learn to expect nothing except such disappointment for every second of existence, or you're in for a long ride.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hank Steinbrenner

 * Oppose for now. Article quality is not great; while referenced, it basically consists of a series of random and contextless quotes by the subject without much narrative flow and leaving huge gaps in his biography.  Not really a high-enough quality article for the main page.  If the article was expanded and given more narrative structure, I could support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I cut some of it, but the thing is... his time as managing partner of the Yankees was spent, publicly at least, being a big mouth. Then he stepped aside and let his quieter brother run the show. I can add more about his business interests in Florida to balance it out, but lots of the stuff about Red Sox Nation is key to his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cutting wasn't the issue. You don't make this any better by removing anything.  I don't mind periodic quotes and paraphrases and the like.  The issue wasn't removing those, it was adding more text around them to build up a narrative.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, there isn't much text to add around it. His big time in the public eye was 2007-08. Per ESPN today: "While Hank was in his 13th season as a general partner and 11th as co-chair, he did not appear to have much involvement in the team's operations in recent years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not wowed by the article quality, but I think it meets our customary standards for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While I agree that the composition of the article is not optimal, it contains that essentials of the subject's life, establishes the basis of notability, links out to other articles sufficiently and suitably, and everything is referenced. The Controversial statements section I take in the same manner as the ubiquitous Philanthropy & charity sections in articles about living royals; it just comes with the territory.130.233.2.77 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article meets the RD requirements on length and sourcing.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Long article, good sources, but do we need a Controversial Statements, though? Also, good linking and has the basics. TuorEladar (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacques Blamont

 * Suppose, good to go, although I must say that it's so full of awards and honours that I was struggling to find out what he actually did. Nigej (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Abraham Pinter

 * Oppose, orange tag (about notability), extremely short, outdated (nothing about his life is shown), etc. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just a stub. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little point in nominating an article in this state if you’re not going to expand it. P-K3 (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC) I should add, though a thanks to User:Headhitter for at least cleaning it up. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Short stub. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not comprehensive enough. It's basically a lead paragraph without an article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - at this time a stub.BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moraes Moreira

 * Support Refs spot checked. Added El País ref to the nom.130.233.2.209 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could somebody give me the "credit"? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * doneJoseywales1961 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Easter tornado outbreak

 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, and news sources are covering the event showing a sufficient level of significance. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, notable event, and "storm during storm season does storm things" is posted all the time anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Though not unusual this time of year, mortality is high and may increase from present 20. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: AP sez toll up to "at least" 30. – Sca (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Only as a comment though, is that the article could use a map that has a better visibility of the US under the cloud cover (maybe needs to be a more traditional meteorological map). A USian can see Florida and Texas to get a sense, but a non-USian might not. Alternatively, an overlay of this with a better map would work. -M asem (t) 22:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, notable and of sufficient quality. Can we please just get the over-two-week-old painting story off. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 00:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tarvaris Jackson

 * Support Article quality looks quite good. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently referenced.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequately cited. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now that sourcing has been improved. P-K3 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support improved enough. Nigej (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Landelino Lavilla

 * Looks fine to me. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ted Evans (public servant)

 * Oppose The paragraph Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Evans held various positions in the Australian Treasury in Canberra and in several overseas posts. Between 1976 and 1979 he was posted as a Treasury representative to the OECD in Paris. Upon return to Australia, he was promoted to the Senior Executive Service in Treasury becoming a branch head for Fiscal and Monetary Policy and then, in 1982, moving to become head of the General Financial and Economic Policy Divison. In 1984, he was promoted to one of the deputy secretary positions. Later, between 1989 and 1993, he was posted as an executive director to the IMF in Washington. is uncited. Consider this a support once that's fixed. Support fixed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Short but decent article now following recent fixes Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Can we move this article to the more accepted and WP:NPOV disambiguator "politician"? "Public servant" is too euphemistic.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "public servant" is more accurate since he never held elected office and the phrase is common and NPOV enough; "(civil servant)" might be better as he appeared to be in the civil service more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doing a bit of research, it looks like the position he held was a non-political one, as noted at Departmental secretary, and it also appears that the term "public service" and "public servant" is used in AusEng in the same way as "civil service" and "civil servant" is in other countries. I withdraw my original point.  Carry on.  (as an aside, elections do not a politician make, and appointed politicians are still politicians, political appointments are also a thing.  But it is clear from the relevant articles that the office he held was expressly non-political, so that doesn't apply here.)  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron

 * Oppose Referencing is quite poor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much of this is unreferenced. I tried to fix up the language but the sourcing needs a lot of work. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until Cn's are addressed and more referencing added Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CN tags, and Oppose blurb if those ever get resolved. There are clear criteria for RD blurbs, and I can't see this fulfilling any of them.130.233.2.114 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glenn Beckert

 * Weak oppose Referenced but seems very thin for a significant baseball player. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll work to expand it today. Still, it's longer than a stub already. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly not a stub. Others make think it's long enough. Perhaps it is. Nigej (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support I think it is just about long enough, it certainly is referenced well Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Peter Bonetti

 * Oppose Large sections unreferenced. Three iconic Britains dying on the same day. Nigej (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, unfortunately The Cat's article needs lots of referencing Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edem Kodjo

 * Weak support mostly well referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose article ok, but worried that there isn't sufficient interest in him. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If notability or interest was the relevant criterion, most Anglo-Saxon people would not be cited in the RD. Here the important requirement is the quality of the article, which is indisputable in this case. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true. Stirling Moss has had over 200,000 hits in the last year, Tim Brooke-Taylor over 100,000, Edem Kodjo less than 5,000. Clearly hits aren't everything, but it does reflect interest on the English language Wikipedia. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-04-11&end=2020-04-10&pages=Tim_Brooke-Taylor|Stirling_Moss|Edem_Kodjo Nigej (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is immaterial. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Appears fully sourced now. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article well sourced and comprehensive. Additionally, Togo is already mentioned ITN. Droodkin (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tim Brooke-Taylor

 * Oppose with regret. Nowhere near close at this time. RIP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere near good enough. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose paragraph after paragraph of career with no source, many looking like commentary/anecdotes on his performances. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Stirling Moss

 * Oppose as it stands . Opposite problem this time - awards, results etc. are all sourced but the main text isn't.  Some of the trivial intricate detail could be pared down.  Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose once again with regret. Prose is almost unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One wonders just how and why so many BLPs are so sub-standard in terms of referencing. It’s depressing to see just how many people are not posted at RD because the articles are so poor in this respect. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I had begin to work improving existing BLPs from my home country. :S robertsky (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Doubly unfortunate in that Stirling Moss was, arguably, so notable as to merit a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Level-5 vital article, and the article has improved a lot. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , Can you have another quick look at the article. This is now there or thereabouts, but please flag up anything that still remains unsourced. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks much better sourced than earlier today. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Reference 62 (supporting the second sentence of the Post-racing career section) is marked as permanently dead, but that's not a particularly contentious thing so I'm happy to support this in its current state. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Considerably improved. Nigej (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support much better, well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Ditto – although the 60-year-old dangerous-driving incident in the "Personal life and death" section seems irrelevant at this point. Still think he's worth a blurb, and the stolen Van Gogh blurb in the box is quite stale. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. I don't have strong feelings either way about a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, discussion can continue on a possible blurb. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Although he was one of the greats of motorsport, I'm not sure he rises to the level of a blurb (that's just going on some of the other people I've seen turned down for blurbs). - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb no where near Thatcher / Mandela --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per SchroCat –&#32;not anywhere near the level of a former POTUS/UKPM, or other similarly revolutionary figure. (As for motorsport, I might have voted for a Dale Earnhardt blurb back in 2001, but that would be due to his cause of death, which isn't anything out of the ordinary for Moss unfortunately .) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that Moss' long life and not dying in a horrific accident are fortunate things, rather than unfortunate! — MarkH21talk 12:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is very true! :P I meant that Moss has no qualifications for blurb status, and that the misfortune was the blurb's rather than Moss's, as you said. Either way, RIP Moss. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb His lead is clear about how he won zero championships. Still a damn fine driver, apparently. But obviously not one of the best (seems Lewis Hamilton is the best). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb he's a highly respected driver and probably one of the best in his time, but clearly not someone who's had a significant influence on the field (again, zero championships). "29th best Formula One driver of all time" is... not really that high, all things considered. Juxlos (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Abdul Majed hanged

 * Oppose requires significant expansion to merit consideration. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The original conviction was in 1998, and one could argue that this may have been reconfirmed in 2009 by the Bangladesh Supreme Court. This was just completing that sentence. Basically, something we typically do not post. Now, as a strict RD nomination, that would be possible but the article needs to be cleaned up to better explain the case around it. --M asem (t) 23:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Majed had already been convicted and sentenced, and as repeatedly established by precedent we don't post expected "routine" post-conviction trial matters. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not routine at all, but our article doesn't tell the tale well. It needs a full rewrite.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stanley Chera

 * Weak support It's a decently referenced but very short article Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colby Cave

 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written, referenced, and unexpected death. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Stats and info box details lack references. Stephen 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference has been added to support both. Aria1561 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per reasons above. Aria1561 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Horton Conway

 * Oppose - the article still says he is alive.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  21:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks a bit premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another source. Count Iblis (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A colleague of Conway's has confirmed the death; according to him it's a COVID death. I agree that we should wait until an RS reports it; perhaps the obits will help with the missing cites. When that is done I will support blurb as he was at the top of his field and the current blurbs are very stale. Davey2116 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He may be one of the most recognizable mathematicians in the field, but he doesn't met "top of the field" considering few awards and the like he had won. He does not compare, for example to Stephen Hawking, so this is not a real case for a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would definitely consider him to be "top of the field". Awards just aren't that big of a thing in mathematics (and no, Stephen Hawking's Awards section isn't that much longer). Note how many broad-scope articles link to his article - he basically invented at least one mathematical field (combinatorial game theory) along with a lot of other important concepts Pseudorandomnickname (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact no mainstream paper has picked up his death is a very strong indication that a blurb is not appropriate here. --M asem (t) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose firstly issues on reliable sources for his death. Secondly, lots of unsourced content. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lack of citations in the "Early life" section has since been addressed, so this is no longer a valid reason to oppose. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A major German publishing house has confirmed --M asem  (t) 14:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (wait for article cleanup): I couldn’t find an RS on the day of his death and I’m glad that someone found one now. — MarkH21talk 20:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support blurb. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. WaltCip (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For those that are arguing for a blurb, there needs to be much much much more coverage about his importance from RSes in his article. You can't wave your hand and say he was important to justify a blurb. RD is assured after a few more references are fixed, but the article and current coverage of his death no way supports a blurb. I'll point the article on Sterling Moss above, which is much more fleshed out and demostrates a clear likeliness for a blurb, and even these, the importance is not as great as to need one. We need this to be a significant tragic loss to the math community, which is not demonstrated. --M asem (t) 03:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Sources clear and reliable enough, article in good shape. Neutral on blurb leaning oppose - if he's super important in maths surely we would've seen more articles about his death. Juxlos (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blurb per Masem.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not to get all OTHERSTUFF-y, but if Freeman Dyson doesn't warrant a blurb neither does this person. We ran a blurb on John Nash in 2015 and might run one on Terence Tao when the time comes decades from now, but Conway is nowhere near as famous or otherwise noteworthy outside of mathematics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Conway was a very large figure within the mathematical and broader scientific community, and mainstream press coverage in the days following his death reflects this (e.g. New York Times, CNN, The Telegraph, Ars Technica). — MarkH21talk 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enrique Múgica

 * Oppose stub with several CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because of article quality (needs some more citations and if possible, please add more information to the article) - RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good enough. Redlinks have been sorted. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nominator's comment his article has been improved by other users and I added new citations. Maybe it is ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment @Alsoriano97, I've added citation needed tags where these would greatly improve the articles chances of making the grade if you can help Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Joseywales1961, done! Check it out and see if everything is in order now. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Sourcing has been sorted by Alsoriano97 Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Rifat Chadirji

 * Support - once citations are added to unsourced info (like the statement that he taught for many years). Meets notability and article looks detailed enough. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Nice work on the references.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shanti Hiranand

 * Weak Support Very short article but probably meets the standards, barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Hilary Dwyer

 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently tagged with "more citations needed" &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tom Webster (ice hockey)

 * Comment A few paragraphs in the playing and coaching career require sources, as does the entire statistics section Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Nobuhiko Obayashi

 * Update: Each item in the article's Partial filmography section is now sourced. — Matthew  - (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support article looks up to standard now, good work Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Phyllis Lyon

 * Commenting as I see no issue to be using the couple's page for the RD, both are discussed briefly as individuals and then their relative importance as a couple. I do Oppose only on some weak sourcing issues. --M asem (t) 00:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added a number of sources. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Sourcing issues addressed.  Spencer T• C 18:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Mort Drucker

 * Appears to be non-COVID related but not known for sure. --M asem (t) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there something against posting COVID deaths in RD, even of prominent persons? Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is only presently for tracking purposes. There is currently nothing for/against COVID related deaths, only that per discussions on WT:ITN if there may need to be methods in the future to manage RD postings during this period during COVID, and hence I'm adding whether deaths were COVID related or not simply for ease of tracking for this. --M asem (t) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on sourcing - a few para needs closing CNs, and the bibilography should include ISBNs. But otherwise its close. (Notably, he worked for MAD Magazine.) --M asem (t) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I sorted the ISBN's, but still oppose for now until sourced Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor understatement. He was the "MAD caricaturist" for decades. In a 1985 Tonight Show appearance, when Johnny Carson asked Michael J. Fox, "When did you really know you'd made it in show business?" Fox replied, "When Mort Drucker drew my head." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support now that sourcing has been improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourcing is fine. Jusdafax (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting, even if it only stayed up for five hours. P-K3 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Te Huirangi Waikerepuru

 * Weak oppose seems to be limited coverage of his life. What's there is satisfactory but not enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment decently referenced but very short article - I will add support if the article were to be expanded a bit by someone who knew more about him Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - just past stub status. Article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. But somewhat limited coverage of life, though. TuorEladar (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per TRM.  Spencer T• C 22:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Linda Tripp

 * Comment I cleared up three of the CN tags. There may be other details that need in-line sourcing. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A long way to go with the referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of CNs. --Rockin 02:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This goes beyond the usual poor referencing. This is a controversial person and there are multiple unsourced controversial claims of fact in here. Potentially significant BLP issues need to fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nipper Read

 * Support per Alec Eist. ——  SN  54129  11:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Coronavirus pandemic in Ecuador

 * Oppose A shortage of affordable and biodegradable coffins or new cemeteries being delayed would be unusual issues to face. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every country or locales of countries are dealing with overflowing morgues. Some are able to handle it more humanely, some not. This is all covered under the COVID header banner. --M asem (t) 04:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not a major thing in any way. Many countries are doing unique things regarding handling the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, like Indian railway coaches and British exhibition centres being converted into quarantine sites and so on. The only good reason I can think of for posting this would be that no other country has a coffin shortage (but I don’t know if coffin shortages are notable enough) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage, I invented it for rhetorical purposes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I meant shortage of ordinary coffins (and sensible places to bury/cremate the deceased, though I didn’t mention that) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are ordinary coffins. You're probably thinking of the $5,000+ fancy caskets. You don't expect luxury from the Ecuadorian government (if you're poor, I mean). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nomination. This is truly appalling. But it's a sign of the times. In New York City they are talking about turning one or more municipal parks into mass graves as a temporary measure because the mortuary people are so swamped. Kyrie eleison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Former Ecuadorian President arrested

 * Support in principle, this is the point of conviction, though apparently Correa will be able to appeal. I added altblurb2 as there were 19 others also charged (appearing to be part of his administration). There are some CN and similar tags scattered in his article so its not quite ready. --M asem (t) 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most important part: in absentia. Pavlor (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In absentia, yes, but more importantly his article has two sentences about the issue (in the lead) which doesn't really explain it at all. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous two. Murky, prolix. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In absentia issue. Which is very important here – Ammarpad (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignoring the quality/update issues (valid points), the in absentia I don't get. He had his lawyers in court (see NYTimes article) it wasn't like a mock trial, and he has the right to appeal. If he steps foot into the country, he'll be immediately arrested. It seems a fully valid trial result. Compare this to, say, the US trying to put a foreign president on trial without being able to extradite him to the US; that's just more an empty result. --M asem (t) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In absentia apparently has different meanings in common law vs. civil law systems: trial in absentia. Given that I strongly advise against putting that phrase in the blurb because it's very likely to give many a false impression. How many average English-speakers can tell you off the top of the head what legal system Ecuador uses? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very good point, and enlightening for above commentators, but I don't think it makes a difference. One reason in absentia is shunned in Common Law is that it precludes further action at the moment of conviction; that is, convictions can be meaningless. Before this conviction, Correa would have been arrested. After conviction, Correa could be jailed. Changes to Correa's status don't actually depend on what happens in court; they depend on whether Correa makes himself available. Traditionally, ITN has posted convictions because that is the moment when impact in a case is realized, in part because the cases covered are usually Common Law cases. Should the conviction carry no impact, then I can see a reason for posting when sentencing is carried out. If so, perhaps this distinction should make it's way into the ITN instructions.130.233.2.71 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Charlotte Figi

 * Delete (thus Oppose) This was a perfectly fine redirect to the story about her wider impact for six years, only got kneejerked to a stub because COVID was briefly suspected, should go back to normal instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just want to point out that about half of the sources out there on the subject are from before her death. Just because WP:RECENTISM happened doesn't mean she is not notable. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't already a bigger and better article about her bud encapsulating her notable parts, I'd vote Keep (and Support). Not everyone who deserves a standalone bio needs one. It's a redundancy thing, always has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You should nominate at AfD if you have doubts about the topic being a standalone article. ITNC isn't the venue to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't paste, AfDs need pasting. Do you want to help me start? If you also have doubts, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Twinkle can be used to open Xfds, such as AfDs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I use Javascript as a last resort. Remerging this offshoot isn't that crucial. But thanks for trying! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced. Her medical case seemed to be well known in the medical marijuana movement. Could probably do with additional edits, though, since it was recently created. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Leib Groner

 * Oppose Many unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PK3. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Allen Garfield

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs a lot of references Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Prine

 * Oppose Terrible referencing. Stephen 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Working on improving references, let me invite interested parties to help. KConWiki (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support edits have greatly improved the references since this morning. † dismas †|(talk) 20:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still got FOUR citation needed tags, and there are other bits that need addressing too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Four remaining cn's addressed by adding citations Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the additional cn's added since my vote have now also been addressed. Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Referencing issues have been fixed and the article is well cited. Jake (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted great turnaround on quality. Stephen 23:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yaakov Perlow

 * Support I made some improvements to the article, including removing dead links and making it more Wikipedia-quality. I hope that I helped! --Rockin 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support One or two spots that could use a cite but overall it's in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Could of inline citation needed's tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your objections have been fixed. Everything is now supported by a source. Kalimi (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article made by Yoninah. Kalimi (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, saw myself pinged here. I added some more sources and fixed the citation-needed tags. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Cardinal George Pell's Conviction for Child Sex Abuse is Quashed

 * Support: I agree; this is very clearly notable, and has been updated to note the quashing of the verdict. Is the article good enough, though? This is my first time here, so I'm not sure... &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support though I feel there's probably a bit more reaction to be had on the quashed verdict to be had base on the Guardian's running timeline. But yes, we can post these types of reversals of major cases that we've posted the convictions before. --M asem (t) 01:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and think it would be a good idea to let this develop a bit while the reactions come in and the article is updated. This basically happened within the last hour or two at the most so there is no rush. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This case has attracted international attention since the beginning. This major development seems worth posting, especially, as you point out, since the original conviction was posted here. Bnng (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not comfortable with seeing Pell described as an innocent man. A large number of people have come forward over the years and claimed he assaulted them, including a couple more only last week. They are unlikely to all be lying. This trial was on only one charge in the end. So, not legally guilty of that charge, but no evidence he is an innocent man. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is, pending the lower court's submission of the acquittal verdict, is innocent of this crime. And he hasn't been proven guilty of any other crimes, so we're not going to consider him guilty of other crimes that people believe he might be guilty of. --M asem (t) 02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just saying that (probably like all of us but more so in his case) he cannot be described as an innocent man. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Anglo-American legal tradition, a person has an absolute legal presumption of innocence until/unless convicted in a court of law. There were five charges on which he was convicted. All five have been quashed and the High Court has taken the extremely unusual step of stating that there was a serious possibility that an innocent man had been convicted. Of course we are all free to form private opinions. But as a matter of law he is innocent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Biggest Australian legal case in 30 years? I think that's hyperbole. Bigger than the cases of Ivan Milat, Bruce Burrell, Gordon Wood, the so-called Bowraville murders, the Snowtown murders, the death of Cameron Doomadgee, the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy, Mabo v Queensland (No 2), Wik Peoples v Queensland etc...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Since we posted the conviction we have the moral obligation of posting the acquittal.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this "moral obligation"? As far as I can see, it's just news.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the argument, which is fair, is that if we posted a person's conviction at ITN, and that conviction was overturned (and in this case, in such a dramatic manner, quashing is not just a simple overturn), we are obligated per BLP to make sure to post that as well, assuming article quality is to par. --M asem (t) 16:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How far does this obligation extend???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the question. If we post at ITN that someone was convicted of a serious crime, and that conviction is later overturned, or in this case actually quashed with not guilty verdicts entered, then I see no "limit" to our responsibility to post that news (assuming article quality is up to scratch). IMO the obligation is first and foremost, moral. But I also believe that the obligation is at least implicit under WP:BLP. Worse, failing to do so could expose the project to accusations of editorial bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the same concept, I would say this does not extend beyond BLP. If we happened to post about the conviction against a company (for some reason), and not directly against any individuals, and that was later over turned, I don't think we would be as morally driven by any policy to post the reversal at ITN (in the article on the situation, yes). --M asem (t) 03:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What about a civil case? What about a story that did reputational damage?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we ever posted such a civil case, which would involve fines, and later it was reversed on appeals, we'd do the same. But I have a feeling we'd never post such a civil case, the way things go here at ITN. --M asem (t) 04:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support While Wikipedia does not have the "moral obligation" to post anything on ITN, this is a big deal, unlike stuff such as the Delhi hangings. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support purely as we posted the conviction and for no other reason. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * alt1. Will get an image up shortly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Mild BLP implications for posting the acquittal if we posted the conviction. WaltCip (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this nom, but I agree it's appropriate to post as we covered the conviction. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: internationally high-profile case. Also agree with wording of the posted blurb. Blurbs should be for a general audience and avoid jargony words like "quashed". If people want to learn more, that's what the article link is for. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well now someone changed it back. "Quash" is legal jargon that doesn't aid understanding for most people. I think the general public, to the extent they even know the word at all, only knows it means something like "overturn", so why not just use the latter, which is a familiar word? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eli Velder

 * cause of death not give, presumably non-COVID --M asem (t) 00:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be too blunt do you have something better than a short form obit (which clearly came from a loved one, not the paper itself). This doesn't pass ITN. Even a statement from one of the Universities he taught at would work. --M asem (t) 21:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go, from Goucher College link. PotentPotables (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That works (already posted but just acknowledging) --M asem (t) 00:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

RD: Radomir Antić

 * Oppose for now. A major figure in Spanish management, but there are large numbers of uncited paragraphs right now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Black the Ripper

 * Weak Oppose Discography needs some referencing. Otherwise article is not in bad shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The lead needs a bit more about his music career, a couple of cites missing, and as AD Orientem says, more refs in the discog section. After that, good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Discography page has been created which is adequetely cited, more info about his music career has been added in the lead section and the article overall has been heavily edited. Good to go? TwinTurbo (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Discog remains partially unreferenced, as well as several refs to primary sources (such as the artist's Apple Music page).  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added more references, and replaced the apple music references for secondary sources. TwinTurbo (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Kaline

 * Support, Hi, how are you. Hope fine. I support it, mostly referenced. I'll try to find sources for some gaps, but the gaps don't influence my position. Regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to post, but there's a couple of outstanding inline CN tags.—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've resolved the tags.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support too many see also links, but the rest is satis. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Burbidge

 * All tags fixed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Willing to help -- I'll try to find some sources, I actually love to source ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, please cross out my opinion of wiling to help to switch to support, I don't know how to do that. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * adding a comment with support as you did works for this. If you want to visually strike out your old comment, use . ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Harold

 * Support. Looks ready to good. --M asem (t) 19:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As one who has been recently updating the article, I say it's quite well sourced and everything we can possibly know right now is inside the article. Hurricaneboy23 (Page)
 * Support Im working to expand and tidy up the MH as we speak but otherwise its good to go!.Jason Rees (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely the most impactful storm of the season.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

RD: Jay Benedict

 * Oppose Too much unsourced material. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Honor Blackman

 * Oppose Too much unsourced material. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My Oppose still stands: there are still several unsourced paragraphs or statements that need sorting. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Everything seems to be sourced now.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Waiting for a few missing citations &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - I think I've sorted all those. Ping me if I've missed any! Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Mitchell

 * Weak support just one cn in there as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref added and minor copyedit here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RD: Shirley Douglas

 * Non-nominator's comment She was also Tommy Douglas' kid, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the usual reason per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Re-closed) Boris Johnson in intensive care; Raab to lead UK

 * Strong oppose We already rejected when he was diagnosed . If he does die from this, that would likely be a blurb, but not just being put in serious condition to be hospitalized. --M asem (t) 22:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Masem. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. If he is forced to stand down or (God forbid) he should die, then that would be something we would almost certainly cover. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reopen based on the development Monday night; Johnson has been moved to intensive care and first secretary Raab is to lead. Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Still oppose Raab is only in charge temporarily. If Bojo recovers, this is a non-story. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless Raab take over full time, or something more serious happens to Boris.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Continue to Oppose. Still basically a COVID story and does not need special highlighting. --M asem (t) 19:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We're not there yet. Let's try and back away from minute-to-minute coverage of COVID-19. It's easy to get swallowed up in the news cycle. --WaltCip (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I hope we never have to post anything further about this, but now isn't the time to post it. 331dot (talk)`
 * Oppose unless he's officially replaced as PM on a permanent basis, or if he passes away. And reclose. This isn't going to fly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (still). - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait for something more concrete. This is a breaking story Nigej (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (ec) I still remember where I was when I heard that Kennedy had been shot and this news seems similar in impact. The current blurbs at ITN are all quite stale and unimportant by comparison -- the painting theft was a week ago now and the other blurbs are even older. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is too much of a rush to close this. Is there any other world leader in intensive care because of Covid 19? Dominic Raab is running the UK now. This is a huge story.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if Boris dies, then we can post. Until then, he's poorly.  Next. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is systemic bias in action. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What a horrible discussion, he's a human being. I'm not saying the users are horrible, just the discussion. I'm sensitive, pardon me. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with closure pending further developments. [Prayers for his recovery.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tim Robinson (cartographer)

 * Some more citations needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahmoud Jibril

 * Support Article looks good. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 16:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pentti Linkola

 * Support Article has been polished since his death. The exact death date is now also known. --Pudeo (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the list of Works is mostly unreferenced.  The rest is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Works section now referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Forrest Compton

 * Oppose career section unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article too small with most of the readable prose being a list of works (as it's not in a table), and not much else about their career.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Dempsey

 * Support Well-sourced. Spengouli (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath

 * Support Was just about to nominate this myself. Well written and good quality. Though shouldn't it just be linked as "The Marquess of Bath"?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - was also going to nominate, but got beaten to it. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  support for now. A few CN tags in place and some unsupported material towards the end of the article. I'll sort shortly if no one else does, but my missus has a list of things for me to do in the garden while it's sunny... - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment CN tags all gone, and media appearances all sourced. PotentPotables (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting full name and title. This is a noble. We should pay all due respect accordingly. WaltCip (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting, I'll just use the name, we don't add titles. --Tone 16:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Grand National

 * Oppose should link to 2020 Grand National which is barely a stub. Unlike the template, it's not updated.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not sound like it is an official "result". There have been actual athletes competing in video game equivalents, but no league is yet considering this as equivalent to the actual physical play, and this even more so. --M asem (t) 22:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose just a fundraising gimmick. Stephen 22:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A real stretch to call this ITN/R if it’s just a computer-generated version. P-K3 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No Chance in Hell WrestleMania is objectively realer, for once. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was no event, this was a simulation of the event.  The "Virtual Grand National" is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Resolute sinks Naiguatá

 * Oppose I had to dig to find any WP:RS actually covering this (doing a search for a topic doesn't count, I want to see it featured), the article is stubby and light on details about the incident itself. The owners of Resolute say it was "purposeful" but the Venezuelans haven't confirmed the same and only they know what their captins intent and motivations were. Non-event on a slow news day. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, however I think this might be post-worthy if the articles are improved. Probably pretty embarrassing for Venezuela. - Indefensible (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This kind of thing is surprisingly routine; the sea may be a big place, but the places where shipping wants to be are small. Even US warships—which presumably are equipped with better sensors than anything Venezuela has to offer—regularly collide with commercial shipping (example, example). &#8209; Iridescent 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If this turns out to have been intentional though, that would be pretty atypical, right? - Indefensible (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If that turns out to be the case (akin to 1988 Black Sea bumping incident), I'd support. Brandmeistertalk  20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose so what? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On both significance and article quality. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't the Titanic. "Boat sinks" isn't really the sort of notable world event that we should be featuring.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Interesting, but the only thing notable about it was how weird it was. Consider the source. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Verdonk

 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. Non-COVID. - Indefensible (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Satisfactory, decently sourced. Spengouli (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Constand Viljoen

 * Oppose a cn and unreferenced awards section. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Go take a look now. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All good. Support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Fully referenced now. - Indefensible (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - fully referenced. ^_^ -- --CoryGlee (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Withers

 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting he did die on March 30 but only now his family made news of it. With rate of RDs, would be buried in the current list. (See WT:ITN for ideas/suggestions for trying to deal w/ situation) --M asem  (t) 15:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNRD, we should use the announce date in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nearly all refernced; the remainder should be finished shortly - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Referencing looks complete, nice work.  Spencer T• C 22:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Giménez

 * Comment Still a few CNs but I've expanded and sourced it much better since nom. --M asem (t) 14:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed remaining CNs, should be ready to go. --M asem (t) 04:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Logan Williams

 * Oppose. With all respect to his recent death, this teen is not notable in the WP:N sense. All coverage of him is about his recent death, not about his life or short career. He shouldn't even have an article, never mind be featured on ITN. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think he doesn't meet notability, please go ahead and PROD - but since the career section is longer than the death one, and there's sources from 2014, and he won awards for acting, and literally every major film and TV news outlet in North America reported on his death... I don't think it will go very well. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to AfD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose echoing Chaos - while he is "in the news", the article was just created today and has a total of three editors. While that isn't an absolute negative, it's a major contra-indication, and unfortunately when over three-quarters of the sources regard his death, that's not a good sign either. -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  09:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ITN/RD doesn't really care how old or under-edited an article is. If it's satisfactory and the person is notable, it can be posted. I was expecting more arguments about privacy of a teenager's family than about newness. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, I was going to comment about that as well, but every source in that article that's actually about him is about his death (WP:BIO1E), so I'm sceptical as to whether he passed WP:GNG as well. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of them. Most of them, but not all. Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louis J. Gill

 * Support - Article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL to me. Only two sources about him are local paper. Notability tag added. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , he absolutely meets NPOL as a U.S. state legislator. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the bit about the New Jersey state legislature. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Patricia Bosworth

 * Oppose - Not ready per nominator. - Indefensible (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aaron Rubashkin

 * Comment: Article needs to be updated.  Spencer T• C 14:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no mention of death in the article, which itself is just about passable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted death with 2 refs, moved from April 3 to April 2. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Goyo Benito

 * Weak support what's there is fine, but what dismal coverage of such a huge career at Real Madrid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short but well sourced - agree with The Rambling Man we have vast pages on the likes of Reality TV "Stars" and an icon like gets a brief mention. Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernardita Catalla

 * COVID-related death --M asem (t) 14:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - still on the short side, but article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Reads like WP:PROSELINE, but seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie Large
====
 * Comment wait and see what the current 'Heavy Editing' does, currently 3 cns and 2 orange tags Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be easily sourced when the obits come out. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All cited now. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Properly referenced now per Black Kite above, seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now as per User:Black Kite Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. Great work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Great loss. +Great work all round. ——  SN  54129  16:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Frankland (allergist)

 * Oppose not updated, death not referenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Joseph2302, what on earth makes you think of all things is a reliable source for anything, let alone something as sensitive as a death? &#8209; Iridescent 10:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB, although I notice now it wasn't a post from their own Twitter, so that doesn't apply. I'll work on updating and wait for proper confirmation. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question actually. The Tweet is from the verified account of Dan Snow, who is a notable historian. Does that qualify as a reliable source? If the same author wrote about the death in the Guardian then we would count it, but maybe not on Twitter? I actually don't know the answer to that question. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is pertinent. We have no reason to believe Snow's tweets are checked by anyone, and while online sources can sometimes be described as "published," tweets clearly lack the permanence implied by the word.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps five years ago I would have agreed with you, but with our current administration in the U.S. having a penchant for announcing policy decisions via tweet, and with of course the unwritten credo of the Internet being "what you put on the Internet stays there forever", it's becoming more and more difficult to characterize tweets as ephemeral.--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even when Trump makes declarations via twitter, we have third-party RSes that pick up on it to confirm/corroborate. That's what we'd want here. --M asem (t) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Added a source confirming death. Updated article with a few refs, should meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now we have a source confirming the death, I don't see any other issues.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edward L. Feightner

 * User:TJMSmith, please review if you are available. This subject meets notability and the article is well written. Feightner's death was on the 1st but source was published on the 3rd, it would be a shame if he missed the list by a day or few hours. - Indefensible (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- Article is in depth but seems sourced. Rated B class. I added one inline citation needed tag, but it's a strong article overall. TJMSmith (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent quality. The New York Times also published a news obit today. Connormah (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * using April 3 announce date.—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Cristina (singer)

 * Weak oppose needs one more ref. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref added (The Times!). Fram (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Her full name should be used I think, "Cristina" is a very common name. - Indefensible (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Opened a move request to Cristina Monet-Palaci. - Indefensible (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be moved, but in terms of posting to ITN, based on the Cristina disamb. page, definitely use the full name. --M asem (t) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, her name at the time of her death was Cristina Monet Zilkha, not Cristina Monet-Palaci. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahmoud Zakzouk

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bucky Pizzarelli

 * Weak support just a single citation missing there... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced the cn tag w/ a ref. - Indefensible (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting Amakuru, sadly it looks like Pizzarelli was only up for 5 hours. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zoltán Peskó

 * Support – Copy-edited. Looks OK. Notable musician. – Sca (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage unfortunately. It meets bare minimum standards describing some of the works he conducted through 1989, but after that it's basically a list of positions he held ("resume in prose format").  Spencer T• C 14:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At 330 words, it's just enough for an RD of a non-Anglo musician. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - per, most of the article currently is resume-style, with no discussion of the significance of the work he did. Just a bit more detail on the later part of his career and it would be OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit frustrating to read that now, instead of yesterday. Instead of expanding "him", I put effort in what I hoped might become GA, but no (and I knew it), and in Hertha Töpper for whom it's too late anyway. Looks like it's almost too late for him as well. A bit frustrating, but I'll try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's really no point in postponing this one any further. These days, no single RD is worth nitpicking ... er, to death ... if it's reasonably informative and documented, as this one is. – Sca (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. I've added extra detail to his roles at the Rhein Oper and at the Lisbon opera so it's fine to go now. There are now eight RD entries, but none have super-long names and all posted within the past 24 hours so seems OK to WP:IAR on that. Apologies to Gerda for the late opposes a day after the nomination, but just because these are strange times doesn't mean the main-page standards have changed. Rather than dismissing Spencer's concern above, it's better to just resolve the issues as I've done. Many thanks Gerda for another informative article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ellis Marsalis Jr.

 *  Oppose  Some unsourced prose and large discography is largely uncited .—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've sourced the discography.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support r.e. notability, once sourcing etc. is resolved: Once the article is in good enough shape to address concerns, I think the patriarch of the Marsalis jazz family is certainly RD-worthy. KConWiki (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that, per RD policy, having an existing Wikipedia article is enough to be RD-worthy. All that matters is that article quality (especially things like comprehensiveness and referencing and not having any major issues) with regards to posting in RD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I added 2 refs for 3 facts, and don't see anything missing now. Please check, Bagumba, TRM, all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Influential cultural figure. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A Cn tag was removed without explanation by . I've restored it, as it's still unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a ref saying something similar, - perhaps someone who knows the subject better rephrase what the article says? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Remaining issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Kevin Duffy

 * Oppose Multiple cn tags. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready yet per above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Adam Schlesinger

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still needs referencing improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Whiting Petroleum Corporation

 * Oppose lots of businesses going out of business at the moment.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not notable enough and should be covered under 2020 Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war, which is linked through the coronavirus banner. But good nomination, glad to see more coverage of companies. - Indefensible (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub, small company. We posted a painting that was stolen because of COVID-19 so that excuse has been exposed as utter horse shit, but this article is not really main page ready. Thanks for the nom Elijahandskip I too appreciate more business news. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per most large companies, declaration of bankrupcy, while still a bad sign, is a means to be able to releverage debt and other financing and at least continue to operate. --M asem (t) 22:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Branislav Blažić

 * Weak oppose still a [cn] in there but mainly okay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, cn tags have been addressed on this article. - Indefensible (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) April 1 cancelled

 * Oppose - nom needs a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a formal event such as Wimbledon or the Olympics, so it can't truly be "canceled". If this is intended as an April Fool's Day thing, please do realize that we don't do April Fools (EDIT: in the mainspace) outside of DYK. I thank you for your nom but please really think of notability before nominating more articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's patently untrue. We often have spoof AFDs (e.g. delete the main page) or RFAs.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, POTD ran a humorous entry last year, and I'm sure if someone had a true but funny TFA then that could be run as well. The pages linked below are not policy either. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misspoke. I meant, and thought I had implied, that we don't do such things in the mainspace ; humorous stuff like spoof RfAs and AfDs are in projectspace. In any event we don't ever do outright spoofs in the mainspace (other than possibly deliberately-misleading DYKs); that POTD is funny but true, so isn't what I had in mind. A spoof TFA that combined Harry Trumans was voted down in 2018, and given that we didn't cancel the DYK April Fools my oppose still stands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But like the other jokes, this is being conducted outside mainspace and would never impact mainspace as it's absurd. I think a little chilling out is required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did not know about the WP:APRILFOOLS policy, I appreciate Count Iblis's joke though. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actual policy seems to be at WP:FOOLS. - Indefensible (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some yrs ago I nominated my 'Van Gogh' (see end of Nom. 7.6 below) at WP:FPC, but it failed to fly, verdamme! – Sca (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not even kidding. Cancellations based on fear of spreading a disease are a dime a dozen, but companies and governments agreeing with the Internet about avoiding jokes is seriously new and unusual. This goes beyond the standard respiratory infection logic to something way more deeply wrong with the virtual human condition (though there are fortunately better sources than The Verge documenting this global buzzkill). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, target article's unupdated. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Wimbledon cancelled

 * Oppose And there will be no Major League Baseball games in April for the first time since 1883. We're not posting all of these cancellations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose With the exception of the Belarus Premier League who have announced an intention to soldier on, virtually every major sporting contest in the world has been cancelled or postponed. Why should we single out this one? &#8209; Iridescent 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not obviously more significant than many other cancellations. Nigej (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose would be more significant if we posted something that wasn't cancelled by the virus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nur Hassan Hussein

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article. Adequately sourced. No issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Support per above. TJMSmith (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)