Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2021

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.

(Posted) RD: Anthony Payne

 * Support: meets criteria. Grimes2 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eli Broad

 * Support Looks good to meJackattack1597 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Inline tags should be addressed, especially in the "Early Life" section. Joofjoof (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Remaining citation tag at Eli Broad. The page needed tags should not be a show-stopper.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. CN tag addressed.  Spencer T• C 04:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Soli Sorabjee

 * Weak oppose. I had a crack at cleaning it up, but some citations are still needed and it could use a looking-over for any remaining WP:PROMOtional language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Now cleaned up sufficiently. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the article is quite clean. He had quite an impact on law and politics in India by appearing in multiple major constitutional cases in the courts, some of which even have their own wikipedia articles. This one for instance basically defined that certain parts of the constitution are not up for debate or changes. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work by, and others in getting this article to homepage levels of hygiene. Marking this ready. Ktin (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CV in prose format; limited depth of coverage. It seems like human rights is an important aspect of his career, but the article only devotes 1 sentence to it (He worked on the Citizen's Justice Committee which represented the 1984 anti-Sikh riots victims pro bono.). Rm ready.  Spencer T• C 18:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Concur with Spencer, article could use a few more sentences that give background on his receiving the Padma Vibhushan "for his defence of the freedom of expression and the protection of human rights".—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: K. V. Anand

 * Support Sourcing looks complete and tone is neutral. Joofjoof (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - sufficiently improved for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Israel stampede

 * Support With 44 deaths and rising, this is Israel's deadliest non military event and is breaking news in most major US outlets. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  02:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is currently well short of meeting WP:ITNCRIT. —Cryptic 03:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose at present Awful prose, awful infobox, awful suggested blurbs. Maybe once more of Europe is awake, this will be a decent article. -- Kicking222 (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak support The article still isn't great, especially the Reactions section, but it meets the bare minimum for posting. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose At a minimum, needs a bit more expansion at only 1379 bytes readable prose. —Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Page since expanded.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support awful disaster. The article has been cleaned up and expanded. Blurbs ALT2 and ALT3 are good, though ALT3 is a bit wordy.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  07:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT IV, as mention of religious aspect is significant background for the gathering. Showcase new dedicated article of sufficient quality on notable topic in the news.—Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is there, good work all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Picture? Some pictures here if anyone is creative enough to incorporate it into the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hebrew Main Page currently using this one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can someone suggest an italicized (pictured) parenthetical for the blurb and a caption for the pitcture itself?—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That picture is from 2016. It would probably be misleading to post it in association with this year's situation.  -- Jayron 32 11:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It says it's people "dancing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That picture very well might be dancing, singing and dancing are often done at Lag BaOmer celebrations. -- Jayron 32 11:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be a picture, particularly one from a different year and particularly not one showing people in the usual celebratory. This is a disaster story, and we don't usually post pics unless there's a very obvious encyclopaedic and not-too-gory shot of the incident itself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the picture shows people so crammed together than any dancing is not easy to infer. My point was more that an image of people dancing would be singularly inappropriate for an event with mass fatalities. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I lead you to believe that I disagreed with you on any of that. -- Jayron 32 14:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not. I thought you might have read my comment as disbelieving that dancing occured. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We now have a photo of the aftermath. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * also, both this photo and this photo illustrate how crowded the event was, although neither appears to have been taken after the incident. dying (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – AP says at least 45. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So corrected. -- Jayron 32 14:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Madeline Davis
[fixed nomination heading. dying (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)]
 * Support. Comprehensive and all grafs of prose fully referenced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is good enough, deaths was announced 6 days ago- less than a week, so fine to post this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Billie Hayes

 * Oppose – unreferenced. Still an orange tag and cn tags that need to be addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Byron Seaman

 * Support Would like to see maybe a little more about his role as an owner of the Flames, but meets minimum standards. Marking ready. ping me in about 24 hours if this hasn't been posted or received any other comments.  Spencer T• C 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mantfombi Dlamini

 * Support Could use some minor copyediting, but referenced and article describes her role in sufficient detail.  Spencer T• C 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)s
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Buydens

 * Thank you for the nomination, I believe it's ready now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 20:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Slavin

 * Support Sufficient quality and referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Could use a little more info about research career but meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 20:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Chelato Uclés

 * Oppose Lots of referencing to be done, lots of short stubby paragraphs to be fixed, and not sure about the illustration in the infobox either (looks odd).-- P-K3 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Govender

 * I have added some sources from the frwiki version. Joofjoof (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As Ktin says, a nice C-class biography. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Re-posted) Tianhe launch

 * Support Nice article, well-referenced, definitely ITN-worthy. Wikipedia seems to be chock-filled with space-related news this week, doesn't it? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "the launch of a space station or a major component thereof" is considered ITN/R, so this automatically passes the notability check. However, the article is missing a couple of citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I guess Spring 2021 is Space Season. Definitely ITN-worthy --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose With an article this short, no CNs can remain.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No CN's remaining as of now JW 1961 Talk 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is in good shape. STSC (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The CNs are now fixed, article was improved from start of day. Albertaont (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The "structure" section remains largely uncited. It appears someone removed the tags without adding citations, but there is still significant material there with no references.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Per 's comment above, the Structure section was nowhere near ready here, and it doesn't look like it was at the time of posting either. Quality issues need to be addressed before posting. Once these are sorted out, it can be re-posted. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have cleared all the CNs. STSC (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not just removing the tags, but providing references to the material. A single citation has been provided for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, but it only covers the material in the second. The third graph topics (history of docking ports, service life of TCM, benefits of modular stations) are not in that ref.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into it. STSC (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, I believe the article meets the "minimum standard of quality" for ITN. STSC (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-posted Adequately referenced now.  Spencer T• C 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * question: i admittedly don't know what the protocol is for nominations reposted after they have been pulled, but should STSC receive some kind of credit, considering that STSC was largely responsible for getting the article up to posting quality after it was pulled? dying (talk)
 * Anyone is free to give credit to anyone they think deserves it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, i had not realized that. thanks for letting me know.  dying (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Shunsuke Kikuchi

 * Comment The "selected works" section needs sources, but the other parts look fine. Joofjoof (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * question: should this nomination be moved to the date of announcement, four sections above? dying (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved nom to date of death announcement (4/28).  Spencer T• C 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article looks to meet hygiene expectations for homepage / RD except for "selected works" that is missing sourcing. Please can someone knowledgeable on the topic work on this? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict

 * Support Article has undergone expansion since nomination; meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major fighting between the 2 countries with a significant death toll for its short duration, as well as thousands of people displaced. Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major improvement in article quality over past 24 hours. 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Albertaont (talk)
 * Comment No opposes. Being marked as ready. Albertaont (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the large majority of new entries are put at the top of the ITN section. Why is this at the bottom, to be moved off when the next item is added? Jim Michael (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One solution could be to refactor the blurb to be about the 1 May ceasefire, using that date would place it higher in the section - Dumelow (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Items in ITN are placed in chronological order of occurrence, not of posting? Jim Michael (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, i believe that is correct. dying (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas R. Berger

 * Think cites are OK now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – three paragraphs in the "Legal and judicial career" subsection still unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Each graf in that section has at least one citation. Is there anything in particular you think needs to be cited? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment above was in reference to the three paragraphs that you removed with this edit. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is more or less ready to go; however, I'm confused by the edit linked by Bloom6132 that removed referenced content (e.g. that Berger was chair of the Vancouver Election Commission in 2003). Shouldn't that content remain in the article?  Spencer T• C 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I removed that because I couldn't verify anything else in the paragraph. The only thing I could verify was that he was the chair of an (apparently non-notable) commission, not any of the relevant details about said commission. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it's a local political issue, it seems like a notable part of Berger's career and a quick google search found several references that could be used to substantiate the information that didn't have sources:,   Spencer T• C 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Ah, problem was the article originally cited an incorrect name for the commission—it was the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission, not the Vancouver Election Commission. Now added back. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Strum

 * Support Short but sufficient for RD, decently referenced JW 1961 Talk 21:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: El Risitas

 * Comment Section on his death needs some major copyediting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The last CN tag is now resolved and the article might be ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I'm gonna miss his laugh....AKekekekekek. otherwise there is no tags in the article --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral References check out. However, I oppose the current inclusion of seemingly random political examples of the meme just citing an unrelated article and a Youtube video. 130.245.192.7 (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The paragraph about KEKW has poor sourcing. There is plenty of RS coverage about it, eg, , . (I cannot fix the sources; the article is semi-protected). 130.245.192.7 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tentative support, if it is not removal, but addition. Because what is "RD"? Is it so hard to write out somewhere what "RD" means?? Therefore, if it's about including the note regarding the death of El Risitas on the frontpage, then I support that. - Mardus /talk 06:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is written out somewhere, on the top of the page: Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", that being inclusion in the "recent deaths" section on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the explanation really were at the very top of the page, then it would have been positioned before the table of contents, which contains so many entries with "RD", that it discourages further searching. - Mardus /talk 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but you're literally the first person I've ever seen have an issue with this. I intend no disrespect by this: if you are in the process of !voting on something that you aren't sure what it is, please try to figure it out before you press send. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hold Why has the article been moved to his legal name? Doesn't WP:COMMONNAME apply? Joofjoof (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that the name has been fixed. Joofjoof (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Adding Support again, given that my vote was put into a side discussion, and hidden from view. - Mardus /talk 14:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks satisfactory. Rest in peace to Mr. KEKW himself. Mlb96 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) Michael Collins

 * Support blurb Definitely influential and notable for a blurb. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Strong support blurb, concur with nominator that the death of an Apollo 11 crew member is significant enough to warrant a blurb. Nonetheless, we should still wait until the article gets cleaned up. osunpokeh (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Revised to Strong Support, since now it's all over the media. osunpokeh (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Although he was relatively unknown, he still deserves blurb --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bruh. The only reason we're putting deaths of people on a blurb is because the person is notable. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb although the article should mention his death somewhere. Clearly notable as the "one who didn't set foot on the Moon". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I think the article looks pretty good, actually. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article in excellent shape, Armstrong and Aldrin couldn't have done it without Collins. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly oppose blurb I work in the space industry, but Collins unfortunately "didn't set foot on the Moon" like Armstrong or Aldrin. Besides, we can't be posting blurbs of every astronaut death. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if Chuck Yeager didn't get a blurb, neither should Collins. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)'
 * Yeager should have had one. But that's a whataboutism reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's not my only reason. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD It's an FA and I don't see any quality issues. I usually only support a blurb for people where the death is not the story in very rare cases. He's by far the least well-known of the three Apollo 11 astronauts and while I won't shout for this to be pulled if a blurb is posted, I am unconvinced that he really deserves one.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment photo added to CMP ready to be used when blurb is posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, sooner the better. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need for haste, especially when a few people oppose the blurb at this stage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Article quality is good, but his death does not need any explanation other than that he died. That's the type of deaths RD was created to handle.  A blurb is not an "honor" bestowed on worthy people, it is a way to provide context for deaths where something unusual or noteworthy happened that needs extra explanation.  Dying at an above average age is not one of those situations.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Obviously he is notable, that's not an argument to have a blurb. But while what he did was remarkable and impressive, he isn't the one who really mattered in this story and who became the household name for 50 years, unlike Armstrong. He was "near" the top of his field (astronauts), but just not important enough for a blurb IMO, considering that "astronauts" is a fairly narrow field anyway. Fram (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * to RD, blurb discussion is ongoing, do not post a blurb until more consensus arises. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Acknowledging that he might not have been the most well-known figure involved in the Apollo 11 landing, being the least famous of three still means that he is a core part of the first crewed landing on an extraterrestrial body. Certainly blurb-worthy. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb pointlessly, I know, but not Thatcher/Mandela --LaserLegs (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Two space flights in his career. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How many space flights have you had? WaltCip- (talk)  17:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How many will it take for me to get a blurb at ITN when I die? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Maybe somebody should make WP:MINIMUMSPACEFLIGHTS. WaltCip- (talk)  17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - featured article, definitely not as iconic in the public eye as Armstrong or even Aldrin but still a crew member of the first moon landing mission. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  17:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - FA, definitively an important achievement despite not being the most well known. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. If we were to post Collins, we'd probably be saying we'd post all Apollo astronauts. I don't think every one of them can be regarded as transformative and of the outstanding calibre required, as much as Collins is a household name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I think RD is suitable. He had very little public profile after Apollo 11, and his role is not especially well-remembered. There are a number of other astronauts who are much better known, some of whom didn't even fly to the moon, and some of whom have been posted already and were not blurbed (I think of John Glenn). Nohomersryan (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - I feel like the notability line goes between Aldrin (yes) and Collins (no). Piloting a spacecraft is spectacular, but he was far from being the first to do so. --LukeSurlt c 17:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regrettably oppose blurb - Not his choice, but he was in the CM and not the LM.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notable, well-written article + featured article Vacant0 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I think Apollo 11 was historic enough that this should be posted as a blurb; his role in the mission was important even if not the most visible. The fact that his article is a FA should be another major point in favor of a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * THIS. Visibility ≠ significance. osunpokeh (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Davey2116 and Mjroots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not particularly bothered either way, but ... what on earth has Collins' article being an FA got to do with anything? There are a number of comments here giving that as a reason for posting a blurb.  It's completely irrelevant and those comments should be discarded. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably it is to argue that In_the_news is met, given that some disputed that above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article quality is irrelevant, though. Either it's good enough for RD and/or blurb, or it's not good enough for either. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There had been a comment that we need to wait to post until the article got "cleaned up". —valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree. If an article far exceeds the normal quality threshold for posting, then that should be something to consider. The purpose of ITN is partly to showcase good articles, and in this case a blurb accomplishes this better than RD does. Of course I'm not saying every FA must be posted, but it should be a point in favor when there's disagreement about whether the subject is notable enough, as is the case here. Davey2116 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Surprised that this is being opposed. How old are the opposers? I asked a friend recently how his generation felt about humans walking on the Moon, and he kind of brushed it off and said it was before he was born. Normal for him to grow up knowing that we've been there (done that). Collins, the first human to be out of sensory communication with the Earth, was in those ticker-tape parades for a reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in my early 20s, part of a generation where spaceflight is becoming more normal and not blurb-worthy (think the Shuttle/ISS astronauts). That might explain at least some of my opposition, but I would still blurb Aldrin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering a more-or-less rhetorical question. Please take a look at the point-of-view from 1969 (a few people from then are still alive). Apollo 11 ranks with the greatest human explorations and accomplishments in history, and Collins was essential to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A blurb is not a special honor bestowed on people who are more worthy than others. A blurb is there to explain extra information about a death that needs elucidating, like a person died by assassination, or by suicide, or in an unusual accident, or that there was a state funeral, or something we need to tell someone about rather than that just "they died".  ITN is not an award, and blurbs are not recognition.  They are sources of information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To me this class of blurb is an honor, and find it odd that the likes of John Glenn and Chuck Yeager didn't receive it. Am glad Collins' has. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Anything less for this Featured Article is quite frankly lunarcy...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As Black Kite said above, being a Featured Article has no bearing on blurbworthiness (Main-Page quality being a rather bare minimum); only whether Collins was significant or "important" enough, which is being debated now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, don't get me wrong, it's great to have FAs featured on the MP (I often fiddle about with OTD templates so that FAs appear), but it shouldn't be a reason why a certain person gets a blurb whereas others don't. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Not only A11 but also instrumental to the Natl Air + Space Museum after his astronaut career. Plus, the overall quality of the article is extremely helpful to show why he was top of his field and leaves little to question. (this is where being an FA helps, to demonstrate why he was top of field (and not just as a reason to post) per the debate just above this post) --M asem (t) 18:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb We posted blurbs for the deaths of Neil Armstrong as the first man who stepped on the Moon and Alexei Leonov as the first men who conducted a space walk. I don't think being on board of the first spacecraft that landed on the Moon is significant for a blurb. There are other more important and influential cosmonauts who would deserve a blurb such as the first woman in space.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Collins was not just a passenger. He was the pilot, an integral part of the mission.  331dot (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll support a blurb for Valentina Tereshkova when she dies. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Apollo 11 was historic for humanity in general, and the three people who were on it merit blurbs. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The first to do what Collins did (orbit the moon) were the crew of Apollo 8. No doubting that Collins was crucial for the A11 mission, but so were lots of others like the mission commander back on Earth and other support people. John Glenn as fist American to orbit the earth was also of significance but not blurbed. It's ridiculous to be singling out Collins in particular in this instance. Blurbs are extremely rare and this doesn't meet the bar. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apollo 8 did not land on the Moon. Glenn was not the first human to orbit the earth. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Article was of a high enough quality for a feature and Collins was part of the famous and influential Apollo 11 crew --reallylazy (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as I would for any Apollo 11 astronaut. The moon landing is one of the most significant events in all of human history. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Agreed. Landing on the moon is something we haven't done in almost 50 years - having someone from the FIRST EVER successful attempt at doing so die is definitely worth it. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, per 331dot. The fact that it is a featured article must also make a difference if we remember what ITN is actually for. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb per Masems reasoning JW 1961 Talk 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The only NASA missions where random people on the street know what they are notable for are Apollo 11 and Apollo 13. I was surprised to see this name in RD only at the moment. Connor Behan (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Apollo 11 was a historic milestone. Connor Behan is correct in that it is probably the only space mission that is remembered.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's pushing it. Vostok 1 is certainly on the same level, and Apollo 13 for the wrong reasons. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb a rare instance where I would support all members of the crew as blurbs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Being part of the crew that made the first moon landing gives inherent notability. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Aristóbulo Istúriz

 * Oppose missing refs, also shorter than I expected for Istúriz (accounting for most Venezuelan politician articles being short). Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I was able to fix one ref, and the remaining 'citation needed' is explicitly mentioned in In_the_news as not prohibiting the entry from appearing. I note that two projects have marked the article as a stub on the talk page, but quite a while ago. The article is short given the subject, but better than a stub IMO. AntiVan (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Added a couple more Cn's. An article this small should not get an exemption for a few Cn's. It also needs prose about his death, not just solely in the lead sentence's life span.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: David Beriain

 * Comment. This will need a copyedit by a native English speaker, but is pretty much there. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — I have provided copyediting to the article. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insufficient depth of coverage. One well-formed paragraph about his career does not meet minimum ITN standards.  Spencer T• C 17:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miroslav Fryčer

 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support meets RD requirements. Although it's a sportsperson, so maybe the talkpage will kick off about it.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well cited Vacant0 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk)

(Posted) RD: Leela Nambudiripad

 * Support RD Seems good enough on quality. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright for RD Vacant0 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jagdish Khattar

 * Support RD Seems good enough on quality. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems fine. I hate the "Recognition and awards" and "Industry and government assignments" sections, but they are probably acceptable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 in India surge

 * Oppose I think nom says it all Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing much difference between this and the initial surge of cases in parts of Europe like Italy, for example. --M asem (t) 13:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that was a year ago, when there wasn't a vaccine, and the new case load in India is setting records? I guess that's a few differences --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also affecting younger people much more than in Europe a year ago.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. The situation in India is extremely alarming, but it isn't the first to undergo a second (or third) wave. The US and Brazil have both experienced higher peaks in absolute numbers of deaths . There are many other nations with higher per-capita peaks. I think we should wait a week or so and reconsider then. If things continue to shoot up then I could imagine a blurb, but so far it's not enough to justify highlighting just one country IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we highlight India, then we'd have to highlight several other nations as well. reallylazy (talk)
 * Support - This is more than about COVID-19; India the nation is in a serious crisis. STSC (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's certainly notable, but my issue here is that the current blurb will date very quickly, requiring a recommendation on WP:ERRORS every day. It may also need to be removed/replaced if there's a single day without record number of cases. I can't think of any other phrasing that wouldn't just make a precedent to post every country that gets a record number of cases. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Lazy, Uses x. The situation in India does seem dire, but it remains part of the overall Covid story, which has drastically affected many other countries as well. – Sca (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a billion people live there, the number of cases is hardly surprising in any sense.  It's tragic, that's for sure, but in no sense worthy of this kind of tabloid headline. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tamara Press

 * Oppose The gender part isn't bad if we strike the "Press Brothers" clause. The career section needs filling out though.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kent Angus

 * Comment: Would be preferable if we didn't have LinkedIn and Facebook as sources. Otherwise article meets minimum standards for RD.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The sources list leaves a lot to be desired. But other than the one remaining Facebook ref, there's nothing preventing this from going up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Facebook ref has since been removed. It was used to source a minor fact about his high school, whose text was also deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is sourced primarily to International Ice Hockey Federation, with whom he had a working relationship. The other sources listed are trivial mentions. I've tagged the article for more third-party sources.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vassos Lyssarides

 * Comment per request from nominator, I have done a whole-article CE, and language and MOS issues should now be resolved. Consider this a Support once these two CNs are resolved.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per below updates.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. Comment. Attention required Thanks User ID. I just finished updating his article and it looks like is now ready for publication. Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Solid start-class article, well referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

PM of Albania is re-elected

 * Nom. Comm. It seems that the results have not yet been published by the Central Election Commission, but it will be a matter of days, or hours. Even so, journalistic sources on the latest vote counts give a more than evident victory. Right now I'm finishing fixing the election article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did create this article, but I hardly updated it after doing so. There are a few election articles where I put in a lot of effort; this isn't really one of them. Credit for updating ought to go to someone else, I think. jp×g 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The counting of party votes is over but they are being recounted again due to preferential votes for the candidates. Exceptions are invalid votes that will not be recounted if there are no complaints from parties. Also from the recount may emerge other invalid votes that may have escaped the first count. According to a press statement (and its account in Twitter of the commissioner, the turnout is 46.32% but does not match the 46.29% presented on the official website of the CEC for very little. Anyway I would suggest expanding the "Background" section based on several different articles and the OSCE-ODIHR preliminary report. Bes-ART Talk  18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment general elections are ITNR --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, same general problem with many of these articles as being long on tables and light on readable prose. General expansion of actual text is needed, especially in areas of background and of results, as well as the lead, which is basically nothing.  As a side comment, the blurb should mirror in format similar parliamentary elections that we have posted in the past "In such and such election, the so-and-so party, led by Prime Minister Whoever, retains a majority in the parliament" or whatever.  This is not an election of a President, it's a parliamentary election.  But the article needs a lot of work before it is main page ready.  If it gets cleaned up, and we get a proper blurb, then we can post it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denny Freeman

 * Support, seems fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum standards for depth of coverage and is referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 21:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Good, not great. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harry Setyawan

 * Perusing the sources here, it does not seem the target of this newly created article passes WP:1E. I understand there are prior sources cited, but not the sort that would pass WP:BASIC.    GreatCaesarsGhost   18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you feel that the article fails WP:1E please nominate it for deletion. Let us discuss it there. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate and standard to discuss the notability of newly created articles in this space. I prefer not to AfD an RD nom, as it can have the effect of killing it with bureaucracy. If others here disagree with me, the can support the nom and it will be posted.   GreatCaesarsGhost   10:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered by the blurb. In_the_news/Recent_deaths: "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb". Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't being nominated for a blurb. As per policy, if it passes GNG, it can be posted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote I gave is an 'or' statement - it can either get a blurb or an RD, and his death is already covered in an existing blurb. The blurb was promoted to the top of ITN when the deaths were confirmed, so de facto a blurb has already been given. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The policy you're quoting is explicitly on "blurbs for recent deaths." Setyawan was an individually notable victim of a high-casualty incident that was posted without reference to him. This is not what that policy was meant to entail, and trying to make it fit here is quite a bit of a stretch. I do not think your reading of this policy should supersede the RfC on recent deaths. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be more clear: that policy is supposed to explain why when, for example, Prince Philip's death was given a blurb, his name should not also be listed among recent deaths simultaneously. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you quote that in the RfC? From the closure (and as I already quoted above): "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link." (emphasis not mine), and he is not only notable for what he did alive. It's an odd one, but I think it's clear and necessary to avoid duplication of content. Anyway, I don't think we'll change each others minds on this, and we've made our points, so I won't reply further. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply this: that all people are eligible for RDs if "not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion" and "of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is a precedent for this. Mulyadi Tamsir was a victim of SJ 182 and both appeared in Main Page as RD and blurb, respectively. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape and gives a good overall summary of his career. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Rare case of arguable BLP1E with article created after (presumptive) death. The event that killed him is currently a blurb. There is glancing, local reporting of him before his death. Much of it reports unremarkable actions of a commissioned officer. "Seaman seafares". Being colonel at 45 is not an effusive statement from his own navy. However, the BLP aspects of the article are very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Again, as Jeromi Mikhael said, if you believe it fails BLP1E then AFD would be the appropriate place to raise that concern. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose If a missile were to hit the U.S. Capitol and kill hundreds of people who have articles, would we post every single one of them as RDs? Probably not, we would just post the event as a blurb and leave it at that. Same principle should apply here. The fact that only a single person on that submarine has an article shouldn't change the calculus. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your hypothetical case might be a plausible WP:IAR reaction to having, say, 30 RD candidates all at once. In this case, it's only one RD.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as already covered by the blurb. Didn't we use to have a rule that an article had to exist prior to the death to be eligible for RD? Or was that just ITN/C convention? This was moved to article space on 26 April. Either way, I suspect this doesn't meet WP:BIO1E (which is distinct from WP:BLP1E). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We allow articles created after death to be nominated for RD, but it should be clear the person was notable before their death and we (wikipedia editors) failed to have created that article prior to that point. That is, there should be a decent amount of secondary sourcing beyond obits to support that newly created article. If we're mostly using obits and weak primary sources, that's likely more a BLP1E, notable-only-for-death situation. --M asem (t) 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as already covered by the blurb, and repetition in WP:ITN is not warranted. This was a mass casualty event.  Suggest that this new article would be a great WP:DYK.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This definitely feels like a BLP1E issue; if the sub hadn't sunk, we'd likely not have an article on him in the first place. --M asem (t) 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment And FWIW, we have posted the names of notable individuals that have died in mass casualty events in the past, but usually when those number from 1-3 (top of my head: that S.American helicopter crash that killed three soccer players; a Middle Eastern military aircraft that killed a civilian leader that was also on board) And on LaMia Flight 2933, we just noted that the crash killed the Chapecoense team without naming individuals. But again, these are usually integrated with the blurb and not made separate. --M asem (t) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn this. Sorry for creating and nominating this in the first place. I have wasted my own time for creating this and wasted your time for commenting here. I shall proceed to AfD. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Konrads

 * Support article appears to be quite well-cited, and meets the quality criteria for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 93rd Academy Awards

 * Wait until the awards are actually over and the blurb can be filled. Don't know if there's precedent for the Oscars to make ITN though. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's listed at ITN/R. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Nomadland won as predicted. Showiecz (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a bunch of uncited info in all three bold articles, and one valid [needs update] tag on the Chloé Zhao article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I've added altblurb 3 which is acceptable for me. I'd like Zhao's article to be bolded, but there are a few uncited bits. The bolded article is fully cited and has the necessary info, anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP user in scrapping "the first woman of color to do so", instead because it's just trivia, and her skin colour isn't relevant to her winning the award. She's not the first woman to win, and she's not the first person of colour to win, so there's no reason to get specific just to invent sensationalism (that's not what ITN is for). Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But nearly every major publication focused on her win as a woman of color, moreso than other facets of the awards. If they weren't making a big deal of this, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place and just go with the standard Best Picture win. --M asem (t) 04:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Masem It's safe to say those publications are getting more clicks (and so, money) with that headline, which is why they chose it. There's precedent for avoiding "the first ..." in blurbs, as anything can be phrased in a way to be the first in whatever region/event/time; to phrase it differently, "Woman of color Chloé Zhao wins Best Director" is just off, which I hope emphasises why her ethnicity or gender shouldn't be the focus.
 * Instead, I think the space is better used focusing on her work, or just left free. People who are genuinely interested will figure it out from her name or just read it in the article. A suggestion I have is making it clearer she is also the director of the Best Picture rather than them being two separate things, as it appears right now. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * However the phrase "woman of color" could be redone is one thing, but I will point out, back at the Nationals, when the jockey that won was the first female and news sources focused on that, that was made a significant enough detail to be part of our blurb . Now, I don't know if news sources at the BAFTA's overlooked the same point then as they are making (the same "first" does apply), and I would agree if the news around the BAFTA's mentioned that and we didn't include it (we didn't, I checked), then we can drop that first. But as long as the film won best picture, there is zero harm to also mention her as best director alongside it. --M asem (t) 05:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For The Masters recently, we didn't post that the winner was the first Japanese male to win, when it was in every major headline. It doesn't appear the demographic of editors here is too comfortable mentioning race.  For BAFTA, we just parenthetically mentioned that Zhao was the writer and director and included her photo.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be simply that in terms of the media, the Oscars have been having problems in the last few years with proportion of awards to non-whites, and so the media's focus on a race-based first makes sense. I can see that for WP, its far easier to definitely call out a first female win (gender biases transends all racial bounderies), while first racial aspect can start getting nitpicky and something ITN's not well suited for, as a possible rule-of-thumb going forward here. --M asem (t) 12:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. The event is ITN/R; we would have posted it if it was another white man, the notability is already agreed upon regardless. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose including racist trivia into ITN. It would be weird to have ITN devolve to endorsing racist language that denotes "of color" anything that is "not white", although black is not a color, and plenty of people "of color" have lighter shin features than a good chunk of "white people". 205.175.106.86 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC) - It's fair to oppose blurb wording, but not with the argument that it's racist merely to call a light-skinned WOC a WOC. Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: the IP user above added the Alternative Blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "woman of color" is the language being used by sources, rather than "non-white". --M asem (t) 04:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike "colored person," "person of color" isn't considered derogatory in its usage. Wouldn't you know it, but this encyclopedia has a page on exactly that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is trivial hair-splitting which looks extremely weird, almost fetisch, from non-English speaking perspectives. Putting a blurb up with "colored person" is racist but "person of color" is celebratory. Truly Kafkaesque.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't make the rules, society at large does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in rural high-speed internet communities, it dunnint! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It likely depends on one's view of white privilege.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Awards article as target, fixed blurbs. Also added alt2, since the "trivia" of Zhao winning wasn't included in the BAFA blurb and we can at least have consistency for two weeks, regardless of whether the mention is appropriate (though it's obviously not racist) or not. That said, article is in fine shape. Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, article is in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with a mention of "woman of color". The BAFA situation is somewhat different because "woman of colour" (sic) isn't really a common term in the UK as opposed to "black and minority ethnic". It is WP:NPOV to reflect the WP:BIAS of US sources because the Oscars are and have been a US-centric event. feminist (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb3 withour mentions "first woman of color" or "first woman of Asian descent". The main article is looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting standard blurb we use for the oscars (Movie wins X awards including best picture). When it is time to change the image, we can add Best director Chloe Zhao pictured. --Tone 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added 2019 pic of Zhao. The pic in her bio lead is from 2015, was already on the MP for BAFTAs, and anyways looks less like her now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, the 2020 blurb mentioned Best Director as well: "South Korean film Parasite wins four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director for Bong Joon-ho (pictured)." However, Frances McDormand also won Best Actress for Nomadland. I don't see Zhao's award being that much more notable, so we should either mention both awards also or just stick to Best Picture only.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The American media evidently consider Zhao's award to be much more notable, highlighting her identity as a non-white woman. feminist (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Zhao's "first" is a story, I just don't see race being billed as "the" story, like it was for The Masters.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Highlighting her as a woman of colour rather than Sino-British doesn't remind anyone of the Anglo-Chinese genocide news this is smokescreening. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that was straightforward Chinese genocide of Muslins Muslims? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * China's cleansing Muslims, screen's maybe muslin. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And, if I'm reading your veiled question correctly, the hushed genocide news is Anglo-Chinese; the news is not about Britain going full Sinophobe (or vice versa). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alber Elbaz

 * Support. The references are in every imaginable format but I do think everything is referenced now. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Everything is well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Article meets the criteria. AntiVan (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Armenian PM resigns

 * Oppose if he's the interim PM it means he's still exercising executive authority. We can post his replacement per ITN/R, or his resignation if it's a big deal but it looks like he just wants to trigger a snap election. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still intends to run, too, so might be succeeded and replaced by himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * His resignation was one of the goals of 2020–2021 Armenian protests, so I'd say he doesn't hope for re-election. Brandmeistertalk  11:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's standing on faith alone, beats me, but he's reportedly eligible and willing. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe this sort of thing is SOP in some parliamentary systems. We can post the election results. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we only posted election results. 36.65.44.76 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait for the result. In systems with prime ministers (i.e. there is another HOS) it's fairly standard to do this or something like it, e.g. how the UK stands down the whole government, as part of the process. It's not something we ever blurb. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Baghdad Hospital fire

 * Wait please fill out the disaster stub template with filler sections "background" and "reactions" and add a map. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the boilerplate responses from the article. If most responses are the same, please sum it up in a sentence or something, just as in Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Friendly reminder that you are not obliged to follow the unilateral disaster stub template. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Many thanks. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and added altblurb2. As for the other alt blurb, I don't think we should focus on the health minister, the real news is the fire. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with caveat Given that the story here is the staggering death + injury toll, I would only support a blurb including that information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2. Easily important enough. The cause of the fire, the suspension & the injuries are significantly less important, so leave them out of the blurb to keep it short. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – A great tragedy. Prefer Alt2. Article looks barely adequate, though its named Al Jazeera references seem rather overt. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Comment One citation needed tag has been there for quite a while. When that's fixed, I support alt2. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed sentence. Thanks for pointing it out. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to support as the article is now fully referenced, is comprehensive enough, and it's in the news. The resignation of the Minister for Health shows the local significance. I think alt2 is the best as it's shorter while still giving the important information at a glance. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * . El_C 01:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christa Ludwig

 * Support - Article meets the criteria. AntiVan (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited (including the awards) and comprehensive enough. The "Quote" section is a bit out of place, but it can't be integrated anywhere else anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fine article. I think the whole Quote section should be removed, it's very close to a Trivia section, but it's not directly damaging. Yakikaki (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've changed it to a quote box: is that more manageable? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine, though I basically don't see what it adds to the article. But as I said, it does no particular harm either, so I'm ok with it and support this nomination for RD. Yakikaki (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Indonesian submarine sunk

 * Oppose The crew is "presumed" dead, not dead. Indonesian Navy just found the debris, not the ship. If the ship is found in the future I think it would be great for In The News. SunDawn (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * However, it is also the Indonesian Navy making the call that the ship cracked open and the crew is dead, not the media. They're the authority here to follow. --M asem (t) 13:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indonesian Navy stated in here that they do not want to presume the condition of the crew, in fact he telling people to "based on the evidence please analyze it by yourself". Thus, it is still "presumed" dead, not dead yet. SunDawn (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Support (am I still allowed to !vote like that?) It seems there is a "slim possibility" the crew are still alive. Although CBS News is pretty clear with "killing all 53 on board". There seem to be some issues with the GoogleTranslate version of the first source? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please....for God's sake....don't say that all of the crews are killed....no RS already.... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – At a depth of 850 meters (2,800 feet), there's NO possibility that anyone survived. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: According to this, at a depth of 2,800 feet (850 meters) of salt water, the water pressure exceeds 1,200 pounds per square inch. – Sca (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NBC News and Al Jazeera now both say "53 sailors presumed dead". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sunk and other forms of sink would be inadvisable, as that's what submarines do. It's their nature. "Is lost with all 53 aboard" or something similar would be preferable. However, at this point, given the body of coverage, there's no point in splitting hairs over "presumed." It's patently obvious they're deceased, regardless of what the Indonesian Navy says. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment NPR reports the navy "declared the ship sunk and the crew of 53 dead on Saturday." rawmustard (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's pretty clear it has been sunk. The Associated Press says it, NPR says it, NBC News, Al Jazeera, the Indonesian Navy, the U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin [tweet ], etc. The article is updated, and it's already a blurb so updating that blurb to reflect the current information isn't a problem for me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it go back to the top? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And push down my nomination? /s I'm not sure about the actual procedure, but I'd say the update so far isn't long enough that it'd warrant a blurb alone anyway, so instead this is more of a "correction" to an existing blurb because more information is out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections, personally. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milva

 * Support Opulent article, well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weakly Assured Support A lot of songs are italicized, not "quoted", but looks fine otherwise (to me). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the songs should be sourced in [151]. Grimes2 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are. But there, they're neither "quoted" nor italicized, just underlined. I don't know how it works in other languages, I'll defer to whoever does. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * News orgs tend to use quotes; books tend to use ital. (Perhaps the difference goes back to the days when lead type was set by hand and the standard newspaper 'job case' didn't contain italic letters.) – Sca (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Songs are typically quoted per MOS:MINORWORKS. At any rate, not an ITN showstopper.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a relief. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Fully cited, and comprehensive. The years could be presented better by putting things into paragraphs rather than WP:PROSELINE, but it's perfectly fine for RD as-is. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weakest possible oppose only becuase the entire prose is all WP:PROSELINE, and really not our best work. But it is fully sourced and I'd rather see that over more engaging prose. --M asem (t) 00:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited, comprehensive, definitely suitable for RD. Wizardoftheyear (talk)
 * Oppose Videography section needs references; not covered in the existing ref that covers her musical work. Honors section needs references. Intro refer's to "her leftist political beliefs", but these are not mentioned later in the article. Not a big fan of the proseline and perhaps some related lines could be condensed into paragraphs, but what's there is adequate from that standpoint.  Spencer T• C 03:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: Did some condensing of content and it looks a little better now.  Spencer T• C 04:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was determined to find those video refs. but now Christa Ludwig died, and has alsmost no reference. Sorry, she was one of my most admired singers, and comes first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Videography" section has since been commented out.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's arguably sweeping the issue under the rug. If that's considered part of the expected content for a performer like this, it needs to be there, and subsequently sourced. --M asem (t) 01:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Now if there was no other work sourced I might agree, but we have enough recordings and theatre work for a rounded image of here. Can't believe this is held up for two days. I am still not done with the other see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support suitable for RD, seems to be well-cited Vacant0 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although I'd prefer to see "honours" referenced. It's a shame that an RD of such a size and coverage is prejudiced against because of the style of writing when we regularly post RDs with less than 1/20th of the information... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus that the quality is sufficient. The unsourced "Videography" section was commented out, but it's felt that this page has a wealth of other information where it's not essential for this RD's promotion. (As an aside, I'm not a fan of verifiable information being removed just because it's unsourced or merely to game postings.)—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Greenfield University kidnapping

 * Comment Bodies were found today, per source, and there were 20 students to start, per staff. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently a stub with less coverage than say Zamfara kidnapping (posted in Feb), leaving me skeptical this page will grow.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment has this become "dog bites man" yet? We just posted one of these a month ago. C'mon, where are the snide remarks and casual denigration of the victims or the notability of the issue? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ????? Are you rambling here? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just on tilt, heading for DIVA for the third (or fourth?) time perhaps. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait – At 150 words, too short for MP. (Notability might be questionable.) – Sca (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is too short, the article of the university needs work too, and I'm not convinced about the notability as it's not covered in many international news sources. Honestly, this is becoming too routine as well, and it's not going to stop any time soon. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is really a stub. Covered by sources like CNN and Al-Jazeera but these things seem to go on an awfully long time and usually have no widely reported conclusions.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb is essentially the article AntiVan (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AntiVan and Hanamanteo's comments. Vacant0 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terrence Clarke

 * Comment Currently marked as a stub. Is this still accurate? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, removed "stub" designation.  Spencer T• C 01:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support While brief, adequately covers life. Perhaps another sentence or two in college playing career would be useful.  Spencer T• C 01:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient coverage and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, well cited Vacant0 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus established (my own !vote aside).—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. President Joe Biden (or the United States) recognizes Armenian Genocide

 * Support alt blurb the original one unfortunately prominently links Casualties of the Armenian Genocide which is a fairly obscure article about census figures and death tolls. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is a significant deviation of US policy and is affecting US-Turkey relations, this makes the US only the 30th country to recognize the genocide - eg far down the line and definitely not the first. --M asem (t) 01:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mikehawk10 Just to let you know, support is already implied by nominating, so the admins will just ignore this. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This information is worth a one-line mention in United States–Turkey relations and Joe Biden presidency. Not Main Page material. — Goszei (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 100% Strong Support Alt II per System of a Down, about fucking time! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I will stress that while this is finally good for US to do this, we're far from the first country, and we routine reject "xth country to recognize Z" type stories. --M asem (t) 01:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Those who protect the land", at least ostensibly, America is superpowerful. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Alt2 to be appropriate as the U.S. Senate has already recognised it as a genocide. The blurb needs to be explicit that the update is the Biden administration now recognises it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many senators come and go, presidents represent America, as a whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @InedibleHulk You can look at any RS and they're all explicit that it's the Biden administration with the change in policy. To me, the "The United States recognizes" would require a bill to pass the House, the Senate, and then be signed by the president. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And President of the United States describes the role, responsibility and function in geopolitics. Like a spokesman. Genocide explains why that word matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Accepting the premise that both blurbs are correct for a moment, does it hurt anything to clarify that this was Biden's statement? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In international relations, a nation is more important than one person, though it's not wrong that America's representative here is Joe Biden, on behalf of the congress and citizens. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC) EDIT: As always, I'm a moron and forgot to osunpokeh (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC). — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Post-close strikethrough, as the intention is to flag the issue, not accuse the nominator of any rule-breach. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the US is kind of late to the party here, and Congress already handled this two years ago with a veto proof majority. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, given the historic nature of this announcement. Wizardoftheyear (talk)
 * Support, it's the leading international news story in many countries. AntiVan (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no dedicated article, literally just a one-line update (and any longer is not suitable for the article, either, considering its focus). People clicking would want to read about it, and the consequences of it, and that's not possible when the Armenian Genocide article is the bold. As well as that, it's just an announcement with likely no consequence, and the U.S. Senate had already voted to recognise it, so there's no change in U.S. policy. If something actually happens as a result of this (which I doubt), it's worth reconsidering then. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a dedicated article here: United States recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Probably a more adequate target article, although could use more expansion on why this recent event is noteworthy.  Spencer T• C 04:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be a better target article even though a huge amount of work needs to be put into it. Still, looking into the whole thing a bit more, it seems the whole thing is just semantics; Donald Trump's administration didn't say it's a genocide, but instead said it's "one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th Century". [1 ] Really, it's just the same policy with more direct wording, so I have to directly disagree with the claims it's historic and will have any implication beyond a "strong reaction". Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now seen in Alt II. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2, this is an announcement with pretty significant geopolitical implications. That said, I concur with @Spencer to use United States recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the blurb. As for why Alt 2 over Alt 1, although Biden's announcement is the one making the news, there's a lot more than just Biden pushing for recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh
 * We don't post ITN on perceived implications. Yes, there's tension now in US-Turkey relations, but anything else is speculation. --M asem (t) 04:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 Widely sourced. Made international headlines as well. Notable enough to be in the main page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't on you, but I'm unsure why you were added as an updater (which pinged you) as with all respect you've contributed 1,230 characters to the article in total, with your last addition being over 12 months ago.
 * Notification is intended for "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" (emphasis mine), and if that isn't met you should be uninvolved in the topic, as per Canvassing. Of course, the ping probably isn't intentional (and again, it wasn't your choice), but I wanted to flag this as you'd be a reliable Support vote due to your involvement in the article, and I assume you wouldn't be aware of this discussion without that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of total edits to the article, the editor you are replying to is 2nd on the list, having contributed 17.9% of total edits to the article. I understand that the article has gone under substantial revisions over time (a single editor currently gets the blame/credit for 84.8% of characters on the page), but it's pretty clear that has contributed substantially to the article over the life of the page. Are you seriously implying that I'm canvassing here? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you share that info? XTools authorship, the official tool, states they only contributed 1.6% of the article. [1 ] I'm not accusing you of canvassing because it'd have to be intentional to be canvassing, and I don't think it is. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not making an accusation of canvassing, you should probably strike the initial comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's the best way to flag it. An admin is free to remove it as well as my comments on it if I'm wrong, but if not I think the vote should be ignored for the reasons I've stated. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Xtools also has a metric on the top editors over time (both by number of edits and by quantity of text added). is obviously the editor that gets the most credit for the current status of the page via XTools' authorship metric, though admittedly the way the algorithm works is not super clear to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mikehawk10 Sorry for not being clearer about my intention, as I was only interested in flagging the issue rather than trying to make any accusation. Anyway, it seems the whole thing is moot anyway, as Biden wasn't the first president to recognise it as a genocide, Reagan was. I've added that info to the United States recognition of the Armenian Genocide article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the intention now, though since the comment has a bluelink to WP:CANVASSING I would respectfully ask that you strike it unless you have a concern that I am actually canvassing. Regarding the second part of your reply, it looks like these very same RS are acknowledging the international significance of Biden's announcement (which even the NYT source you've provided below calls the first such announcement by an American President). I don't think that this request has been mooted, though I think you have made a good point about alternative blurb 1 not being a good option given the facts about Reagan's tangential comments in 1981. Nevertheless, this still appears to be internationally significant moment, as reflected in the reporting from reliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's conceivable that one could fill out ITN candidate and credit updaters without intending to canvass. The template is somewhat open-ended about the criteria for an updater.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment "This is extremely important[.]" - Serj Tankian, nationally approved expert in both countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Didn't the US already recognize the genocide back in 2019? If I remember correctly,a resolution was passed with unanimous support in both chambers of Congress,so does Biden's recognition add anything? Also Was he the first president to recognize it? I think Ronald Reagan made similar remarks as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaramouche33 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, both the House and the Senate recognised it already. Reagan did recognise it as a genocide [1 ] [2 ], and Trump was more diplomatic about it describing it as "one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th Century" instead. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first source is a WP:NEWSBLOG written by opinion contributors to The Hill, so it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. The source from The New York Times states that "At the risk of infuriating Turkey, President Biden formally announced on Saturday that the United States regards the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by Turks more than a century ago to be a genocide — the most monstrous of crimes. Mr. Biden was the first American president to make such an announcement, breaking with predecessors who did not wish to antagonize Turkey, a NATO ally and a strategically pivotal country straddling Europe and the Middle East" (emphasis added). The NYT source acknowledges Reagan's comment that you are referring to and frames it as a tangential statement, writing that President Ronald Reagan tangentially referred to the “genocide of the Armenians” in an April 22, 1981, statement commemorating the liberation of the Nazi death camps. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ... "calling it a “genocide” -- a word no U.S. leader since Ronald Reagan has used to describe the event for fear of alienating NATO ally Turkey." [Bloomberg ]. Nice spot on The Hill, even if the info is correct, but really this is shut. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reagan was speaking for himself, not "the United States", his own opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He was literally speaking at a Holocaust commemoration, reading from a prepared statement signed "by the President of the United States of America", at a time he was President of the United States. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But he didn't literally speak for America by referring to it as "we", its beliefs and principles as "ours" and all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way, Alt blurb I isn't very accurate. As for Alt blurb II, we need to decide who is a better representative of the United States,the President or Congress? Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The president is elected by way more people, generally, and this one holds that record (81.2 million nodding right along). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources distinguish this from Reagan by using "formally" or "official" or saying it is now U.S. policy.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Semantics, isn't it? The House and the Senate have already voted yes, and even Trump agreed with the spirit of it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was only relaying how the sources distinguished it from Reagan. Not a statement on its merits as a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL Trump was not "more diplomatic about it" he was pandering to his autocrat pal Erdogan by deliberately not using the word "Genocide". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - It is in essence a national story of low to none importance in world politics. However, if the ”situation escalates” it could become ITN worthy. But several other countries has already recognized the genocide without much consequences from Turkey. BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the first country to recognize it. Also, this is a matter for historians rather than politicians. The genocide recognition recently turned in a sort of political instrument which is sad. Would support if US-Turkish relations significantly deteriorate (eg. ambassador expelled). Brandmeistertalk  08:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the US joins a long list of countries who have already recognised this. Big deal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It tops a short list of countries Turkey actually cares about. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose President Reagan already did this in 1981 so it is misleading to claim this as a first now. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "He soon backtracked under pressure from Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed after the end of World War I." --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Serious question Has Wikipedia yet recognized this as genocide on the Main Page, in anyone's voice? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The canonization of victims was posted back in 2015. That's the only one I can find in the archives that was posted. Under April 24: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2015 . Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And WP has recognized the canonicity of the genocide for quite some time as well (eg we have treated it as factual and called it a genocide of the Armenian people, consistent with most academics). I know the political community has wanted to sweep this under the bus in the past (having Armenian coworkers in the past) but lets not get too far into pushing ITN into the RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory here without news supporting it. --M asem (t) 12:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 3 separate references to it on the Main Page yesterday. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose old news in terms of international recognition, relatively fleeting importance on news pages. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This user doesn't disagree with Biden's position regarding the genocide, which has been long attested in historiography. But per TRM, Wolfson and several others, I don't see much practical impact or effect in this unsurprising rhetorical gesture. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2. The main article for Armenian Genocide appears not updated. IMO, it should be included in the blurb for providing context and background, even if as a non-bold link. The US recognition article (the bold link in Alt2) is a suitable event-type article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the author of Alt II, I distinctly remember emboldening Armenian Genocide, but respect your observation to the contrary as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (alternate II). It topped news headlines. Einsof (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the first country to do so, or the first US president, and this seems to be a re-iteration of the 2019 recognition. I can't see it having any practical effect. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to see the effect with your eyes, it's an extremely important symbolic gesture to a millionish somewhat recently departed saints and their many more descendants, recognized through innervision (if at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just imagine a world where all those badgered by IndelibeHulk read their wisdom and think "oh yeah, good point". Enough.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Zero value in terms of significance. STSC (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A welcome gesture maybe but not significant enough for ITN. P-K3 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dan Kaminsky

 * Support Due to recent editing, the article meets the criteria now. AntiVan (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CV. There is only two sentences, both in the Death section, which convey any biographical information. Article could reasonably be moved to Career of Dan Kaminsky. The date of birth is not even known. At least include some basic biographical details.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He was a security hacker. Most of those guys intentionally live pretty private lives. I doubt much information about his early life or personal life is publicly known. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A quibble but ideally his being one of the seven DNS root key holders would be explained in the body of the entry, not just mentioned in the lead. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a few uncited bits. If those are cited and correct, I believe it gives enough detail for RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited, thanks to AllegedlyHuman. Marking ready. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. A few obits have come up recently including the NYT. If someone has time, please see if you can use this one to expand the article. Ktin (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've gone through and added quite a bit from the NYT obit. An interesting person and a very in-depth article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good . There are two tags that I still see. Can you take a pass at fixing them? Should be ready to go right after that. Ktin (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, CN tags have been addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good for homepage / RD. Nice work by . Ktin (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as updater The article is in good shape now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Garrett

 * Support. Article looks of a good enough quality to post. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Mikehawk10. AntiVan (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ref spot check looks good.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it is good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mario Meoni

 * Support Satisfying article. Grimes2 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Redthreadhx (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Citation needed tags fixed, comprehensive enough. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2017 New York City attempted bombing

 * Oppose Not a notable incident, attempted bombing occurred in 2017 and even if Ullah was convicted in 2021, the conviction has not received national attention. reallylazy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor footnote given that the bombing did little damage. --M asem (t) 03:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose --- No attention even here in the U.S. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Was this intended to be a blurb nomination? Oppose Ongoing as clearly unsuitable. I could support a blurb; the article is in good shape, it is updated, there is an image available.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - How could this bombing attempt become an ongoing event? STSC (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing ongoing flag. Stephen 05:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that before the change, !votes were purely for "ongoing" and no blurb had been proposed yet.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Event connected to the bombing attempt on a New York subway is newsworthy. STSC (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is a bombing with no significant casualties and no front-page coverage. I read from the article that there was an actual bombing but it didn't have the intended effect. Discussing the article's name should take place on its talk page but the title of this nomination can be changed so that people get a better overview of what happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have added a blurb. On inspection, I found that the recent event was for sentencing, not conviction. I have added a few other sources for those that think that this event is getting "no attention".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suppose its newsworthy to a degree from the perspective that this person has been convicted before being sent to prison for the rest of his life, unlike all the others at Guantanamo Bay, but no, this really isn't even in the top 2,000 news stories of 2021. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 06:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Unlike the Derek Chauvin case, this isn't a massive story in its own right, and in general you'd expect a conviction in a case like this where the facts were seemingly quite obvious. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose may have been ITN-worthy at time of the event, but convictions of non notable people aren't ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Never heard of the event, nor the bomber. Not worthy of an ITN Sitaphul (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure "never heard of it" is not a valid reason to exclude something from ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  10:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Shock G

 * Oppose Parts not sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sourcing is in a bad shape, entire long discography unsourced.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Les McKeown

 * Support – article has now been updated and referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – article expanded and comprehensively referenced, thanks largely to Bloom6132. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, is now fully cited and longer. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment
*Oppose on article quality and on article notability. This is better suited as a DYK nomination. 141.157.254.136 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What input do you have on the article quality? For notability it's in the news, so I don't see that as valid.
 * What leads you to believe it's more suitable for DYK? I think this is pretty historic (ITN isn't just for politicians and disasters), and WP:DYK: "the hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness", while further experiments will be done so that won't hold up. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per your reply to M asem and since article is up to scratch. I would recommend cutting back on the blurb tho, it's a bit to long at the moment. 141.157.254.136 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've added two altblurbs which are both shorter. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've posted the successful landing, and the successful powered flight. There's likely many other "firsts" expected here and we can't post them all. --M asem (t) 21:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Masem You can see the list of instruments and experiments on board here: Perseverance_(rover). The rest of the experiments involve analysing the atmosphere and collecting and analysing samples, so it's unlikely any more news will get out beyond niche circles. This is significant which is really what matters (probably more so than the powered flight), and it'd be pushing off the powered flight blurb anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, considering we're replacing the other Mars story. I'll support this as I'm not seeing any problems with the article. --M asem (t) 23:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No problems on quality. Making oxygen on another planet is not routine. Levivich harass/hound 22:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Adding: Alt2 is my favorite blurb of those three, but I don't think "for the first time" is necessary, as that's sort of implied/obvious to me. Also I think the more-recognizable "Moxie" should be included: "Oxygen is produced from carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere by the Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE) in the Perseverance rover." But I support with or without my suggestions. Levivich harass/hound 00:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but needs a blurb that doesn't sensationalize it - I recommend something like the following: Atmospheric oxygen is produced on Mars for the first time by the Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment in the Perseverance rover. - it's not going to be used by humans as none are there, and I think "atmospheric oxygen" clarifies well enough that it could be used by humans had they been there (and right next to the rover, and only needed a fraction of one breath one time). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, something felt off with the first blurb but I couldn't put a finger on it, so I've added two altblurbs without the human use thing. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest adding that the oxygen was produced from carbon dioxide (which implicitly confirmed a chemical conversion rather than a separations process), if that can be worded in. --M asem (t) 00:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, is alt2 good? I feel that's the one that needed it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so picky, but may I suggest (with links as appropriate): The Perseverance rover's Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment demonstrated the production of oxygen from carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere? My links may be off and maybe there's a way to improve it further to not have sea of blue links at the beginning there, but I think that may be a good compromise? With the blurb reworking, I'm confident enough that this will be fleshed out to be ITN acceptable so I'll change to be fully supportive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support interesting, science, in the news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see this having the impact or being "front page" material that people bring up in other blurbs. It does meet WP:ITNCRIT of a quality article with updated content.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like people are less strict about that when it comes to science-related articles. Which I'm perfectly okay with, it's nice to post something other than protests and mass casualty events sometimes. Mlb96 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am a bit surprised this was posted so easily; it's a neat bit of engineering but would be have been more surprising if it didn't work. The article is fine, but nothing special. I won't object though, I'm essentially neutral on this one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Tidbit. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I used to love those; tasty little cheese crackers. They stopped making them back in the early 1990s.  I miss them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about Cheez-Its? – Sca (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – For some reason I feel the need to watch Total Recall tonight after reading this. CoatCheck (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No no that was from tribitium, a totally different process altogether. :) --M asem (t) 18:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our systemic bias is really showing with this one. I won't oppose because I'd prefer we become more lenient generally rather than more strict generally, but I hope we adopt the same "it's definitely not routine, so qualifies" attitude the next time there's a more terrestrial nomination. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll share my thoughts on this idea as a complete layman – I don't personally feel as if I understand enough of the relevant area to !vote or comment on most science-related noms. I feel pretty confident in my knowledge of, say, geopolitics, but I also think an average joe's understanding of that subject goes farther than it does with science, to where people have a generally better indicator of what's important and what's not, whereas on science I simply have no clue. Just speaking for myself here, but if others feel the same way, then that self-selection bias may help explain a lot of what you're talking about, . AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we have a Mars-centric bias here on ITN/C? WaltCip- (talk)  17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment ITN used to have a concept called "minority topics" of which science and technology were included where the notability criteria was softened. It's gone now though. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

UK House of Commons unanimously votes to recognize Uyghur genocide

 * Not the first, and the resolution's non-binding. —Cryptic 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 90% Strong Support Not as long in coming as the other recognizable genocide here, but admitting Earth has problems goes a long way anywhere, and prevention beats overdue nominal cures. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The content so far is not suitable as an update. Consequences and background details need to be stated in an article. As well as that, again, it's only an announcement with likely no consequence. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "non-binding resolution" is pretty as close to taking no action to do anything about it. Further, the UK would not be the first country to do so (I'm looking through the Classification section and see the Netherlands already did the same) so would be inappropriate to focus on the UK. --M asem  (t) 04:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as above --LaserLegs (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose non-binding, not first, next. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Never mind the politicians. STSC (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb: Russian protests
Oppose Two genocides are potentially appearing soon, remembering one living prisoner of 1,000 is relatively nothing, especially to quickly roll off two genocides over. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose one sentence stubby update. Write a paragraph or two somewhere about Navalny's hunger strike you might get that through. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs above, and this a routine turn of events. Additionally, I live right next to Russia, work with Russians and read news from Russia. You'd think with all the fury that this case has generated in *checks sources* CNBC, Independent, NY Times and WaPo, that it would also be topical amongst actual Russians. And you'd be wrong.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wonder why mass arrests during an anti-government protest haven't been widely covered in Russian state-run media. (FWIW, there are plenty of Russian sources in the articles linked, I just didn't add them here as I'm not personally familiar with what's considered an RS.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon my POINT but you might misunderstand which direction state-run media is slanting this.2001:708:20:1300:0:0:0:1650 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Protests and arrests are just ordinary events. STSC (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Fritsch

 * Support: Meets minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography is not fully supported by the references given. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks perfectly fine to me! Vacant0 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Håkon Brusveen

 * Support - Well sourced and notable enough. good to go Sitaphul (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian protests

 * ITNC may not be the point to discuss this, but we've posted soooo many protests of late and without speaking to which are reasonable and which are not, these always seem to remain sticklers in terms of when they get pulled due to lack of updates (either in the actual protests and/or the article(s) themselves). I am wondering if we should try to start an example of posting protests as a blurb (even if they've been ongoing, posting at a significant even like here, with 1000+ arrested), and then making the call after a few days when the blurb is about to role off if the protest is significant to keep on going, rather than to post as a blurb and let that "float" indefinitely. Or another way to view this; large-scale protests are nowadays far too common (like bombings in war-torn countries or shootings in the US), and rather than focusing on just the fact there is a protest, we should make sure ITN helps readers understand why there is a protest happen, so that we're ideally covering the major news event as well. I'm not against posting this, but basically, can we start with a blurb first and then talk ongoing? --M asem (t) 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I would support a blurb; however, what I generally see from the community on these kinds of nominations are complaints about the event being an arbitrary point of a larger, ongoing event. If it's blurbed, I'd recommend linking Navalny as well, since that's in pretty good shape. A blurb might look something like this (it won't let me add it to the nomination while it's marked as ongoing): In Russia, over 1,000 people are arrested during protests following the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support a blurb, even periodic blurbs for stories that get updates. Ongoing used to be for things like the Olympics and World Cup and now it's used as a parking lot for poor quality articles festering in the box long past their prime. IMO the OG criteria ought be for things which are routinely getting "blurb-worthy" events but we can that that to WT:ITN if you want. Either way, I'd support a blurb for the protests that start when Navalny dies for sure. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes on these protests, they will have been going on for a while, and then there's a spark that makes them bigger or more important. The Indian farmers protest or the Hong Kong protests fall into that, as well as this. Its rarer that the protest is tied to the immediate event that generates it, such as the George Floyd riots last year. Either way, having ITN give what that spark is to give context to the protests as a blurb can only be more helpful than just dropping the protest into ongoing w/o context. (Events like World Cup or Olympics do not need that). --M asem (t) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that a blurb would be better, at least for now. According to the article there are large gaps between when the protests occur (and therefore, updates), so if that trend continues it'd be removed from ongoing fairly quickly. If Navalny dies that might result in more regular protests, but that's just a hypothetical, however likely. So, I think it's not suitable for ongoing. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you support the blurb I've provided above? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Are there protests here, for sure. But there are multiple others across the world. This was previously blurbed. Albertaont (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's that one for reference: In_the_news/Candidates/January_2021. About 1,400 were detained in that round of protests, while in this one 1,700+ were. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The timeline for these protests reads "14 February" with the next substantial entry for "21 April". The protests in other countries section is even more sparse, jumping from a CN-riddled 31 January entry to 21 April. This just doesn't seem to be "ongoing" by any definition.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the IP user above. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 139.233 above. This does not meet the criteria for an ongoing posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Event still happening doesn't mean ongoing in ITN. These protests are expected and not significantly newsworthy. STSC (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Indonesian submarine missing

 * Support The Indonesian-language Wikipedia has a standalone article for the ship. I'll fix the article then translate it here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An article has since been created at KRI Nanggala (402), I've changed the link in the blurb above to direct here - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Wait. We need to wait for the exact fate of the ship. Let us wait until RS figured out what happens. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait - Developing. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I've had a look at article quality and fixed the most obvious little errors. We can post a blurb and update it as things develop.  A submarine accident with multiple fatalies (or a success rescue - very rare) is a big deal and not common.  We usually post them, such as Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152) where 20 died when the fire suppression system was activated in 2008. It could be a long time, if ever, before we learn what happened. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once developed. Mausebru (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment  We certainly posted ARA San Juan (S-42) back on 17 November 2018, when the wreckage was found. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is really a rare incident and it merits inclusion. I can't remember that another submarine has recently gone missing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ARA San Juan? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was guided by this category but, even with that one, it's far less frequent than the aircraft incidents that we usually post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Lost submarines by country. I do get how you went by your line of thinking here, and yes, incidents involving subs are far less infrequent than military airplane incidents. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support more important than the Boat Race. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Diving klaxon!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly fewer spectators (even though not on the River Ely River Great Ouse near Ely). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One assumes you mean River Great Ouse but hey. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I am empathetic towards posting this since we don't get many stories from Indonesia, and we've certainly posted other sub sinkings, but we explicitly don't post other military fatalities such as air crashes. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, what is the difference between military fatalities and non-military fatalities in peace time? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None? I don't know. What I do know is that military air crashes are routinely rejected here --LaserLegs (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - they are not routinely rejected, the 2017 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash was posted for example. Threshold is higher than for civil aircraft accidents though. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The significance criteria is met because reliable sources are covering this topic. The quality criteria is also met because the target article, while short, is as comprehensive as can be at the current time.  Checks all of the boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a curious aspect of human nature that people tend to be fascinated by anything that goes amiss deep beneath the waves. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably we could add something to List of submarine incidents since 2000? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - I'm going to go with wait while it's still technically only SUBMISS. If it become SUBSUNK or officially declared missing presumed lost, then I would support posting. -- KTC (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. The putative loss of this submarine is an event that as of 15:30 Wednesday hasn't been confirmed and hasn't necessarily occurred. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The oil on the surface doesn't bode well. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this isn't the Red October -- she's gone. In that depth, they may never find the wreckage. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted the disappearance of MH 370 even though 7 years later we've still not confirmed it crashed. There are many possibilities for what happened so while it's fine to debate the significance and the article quality and what-have-you please lets not pretend that we need to wait for "confirmation" to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A plane that can only stay in the air for so long going missing is not quite the same as a submarine that's designed not to be detected going missing. The window where something's wrong but everyone could still turn out to be okay is signficantly longer for a sub. I did not suggest only posting if they find wreckages. I specifically included if it's missing so long that the sub is declared presumed lost. I'm not pretending we need to wait for confirmation that it's at the bottom of the ocean. It is my opinion that it's premature to post at the moment. Others, as you obviously do, are free to disgaree. -- KTC (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Show me an airplane that has been continually, without landing, on air for seven years. I'll wait. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually found one! But before I share, go ahead and show me a submarine that suddenly reappeared in tact and with the crew alive after being declared missing. Now, I'll wait. --Warmest possible regards, --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, maybe the sub has been captured by the USA and flown to Diego Garcia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Update Manifest released. A colonel and two lt.col. Probably the former will get a promotion to  one-star if something bad happens. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Once the sub is announced as missing, that's the news. A sub doesn't just hang out underwater when it's supposed to be reporting in.  If there's a failure it either sinks to the bottom or rises to the surface.  Jehochman Talk 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that ITN is not a spot news site, and we're not reporters. The vessel may well have been lost, but Wiki isn't in a position to say "presumed lost" unless someone says so officially. All we know is what we read. – Sca (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, this is In The News, is already of great significance (irrespective of the eventual outcome) and the article is decent. There's no need to prognosticate how this will turn out. We can update as information arrives. One purpose of ITN is to show Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. --LukeSurlt c 19:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're in over your head, mon ami. We're not journalists, we're not there, and we don't know any more about it than what the media report. Period. Full Stop. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: This user is a former journalist. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment In the miraculous event that that this ship managed to resurface and all of its crews were still alive, would this article still be posted to ITN too? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Still searching on Thursday.   — Sca (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still searching on Friday? WaltCip- (talk)  18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks that way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxygen on Mars, a great achievement. Could do with a bit on that submarine right now. And in India, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per, a rationale that ought to be applied to far more ITN items. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update Debris has been found and the vessel has been "declared sunk": . Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Sorry i comment this nomination 3 days later. I found that this blurb needs to be updated to reflect that the submarine has sunk. I nominate again this article in April 24 section, thanks. 36.69.61.79 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. Narasimham

 * Comment Maybe a little more expansion, just to get it off of stub level?  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to expand, but, it is at ~5K characters of prose right now and rater.js classifies it as C-class, not a stub at the current levels. Ktin (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Page seems good and he's very notable too. It needs more citations. Probably obituary news reports will have more information about him. Working on that now --Sitaphul (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited. Could do with a bit of cleanup under 'Career', but fine for RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Monte Hellman

 * Oppose. Not a terrible article, but has some issues. It doesn't make sense we give his date of birth as 1932 when obits say he was 91 (and he graduated from college in 1951). A fair amount of his credits aren't cited, either. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now At the moment has a citation needed and a dubious claim. Needs fixing before it's ready for the main page.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Wikipedia Page is poorly written, in my opinion. It's quite inconsistent too. A lot needs to be fixed. --Sitaphul (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) George Floyd case verdict

 * Is this a preemptive nom? Can't find anything, CNN says 4:30-5:00 p.m. ET. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Same question: this is definitely preemptive (though I see most analysts saying that the amount of time spent by the jury likely means they are ruling him guilty). --M asem (t) 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Premature nom. Why start if off like this? The verdict is set to be released in the next hour. We can look at the article quality, but innocent vs guilty is a yuge difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Verdict was just released. He was charged. (CNN Live Thread). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Verdict reached but its contents aren't known yet. The charge is why he is sitting in court right now, seeing if the jury will convict him on the charges. --M asem (t) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He was charged in May 2020. The verdict won't be released for another hour approximately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the target articles really should be State v. Chauvin (the actual trial); Killing of George Floyd is reasonably fine, but the news is about this trial and that needs to be one that is featured. --M asem (t) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-opened and updated blurb, as the verdict has been announced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question was the riots of George Floyd posted to ITN, if not, then I am Oppose. If yes, then I support. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elijahandskip It was. His death was given a blurb, and the protests were placed in ongoing. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment altered wording of blurb. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose With the guilty result, while this is the appropriate justice served, this likely has little further impact (and remember, this is just the convinction, he is not yet sentenced, that's still to come). The fear was that a not guilty verdict was going to cause more rioting ala the Rodney King LA riots. --M asem (t) 21:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the conviction that's most noteworthy in the news, not the sentencing. There likely won't be rioting, no, but the significance of the guilty verdict is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- this was a verdict watched around the world. Thank God for the conviction. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you obsiously have a strong biased in this matter, especially with your comment of "Thank God for the conviction.". I would suggest you not comment to anyone else in this discussion to maintain a Wikipedia's no bias as an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure my opinions are irrelevant. I would have supported a blurb regardless of the verdict. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised. I have had admin noticeboards against me for showing my opinion on Wikipedia.  My message was more of a heads up to not show it anymore.  But either way, after you said your support statement, saying your opinion is actually really bad on Wikipedia, especially in discussions.  Just be careful and tread lightly in the future. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." Rockstone gave a reason to support the blurb, then his opinion. No issue. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support WOOOOO! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad for your support !Vote, however, I can't believe I am about to say this, but, I know you are an admin, but I highly recommend you don't comment anymore here due to that !vote comment of "WOOOOO!". Shows a decent bias and the last thing needed for a discussion is high biased. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop policing other users comments. Users have every right to express their feelings. Polyamorph (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've always been open and honest about my beliefs outside of article space. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Don't comment anymore here" is a bit much. I would recommend that all users provide a reason for their !votes, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support - The killing and trial has received international coverage for a year now, and this is a significant update to the story. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Conclusion to a long saga of American and World news. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, added blurb 2. We don't need to say "guilty of murder regarding the killing of", we can just say "guilty of the murder of". Sceptre (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support given the verdict. TAXIDICAE💰  21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose guilty verdict. No riots. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull - since when do we post trial results? We don't normally do so even when the defendant is already famous. Jim Michael (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a point I raised. The sentencing (which is what we usually post) are 8 weeks from now. --M asem (t) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentencing is pro forma. This is where the drama and uncertainty lay. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oscar Pistorius (sp) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't we post Cosby's verdict? I remember disagreeing with posting his verdict for the same reasons, but I was in the minority on that one and it seems that there is precedent to post high profile verdicts. I'm almost certain we posted both the conviction and the sentencing. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We posted Oscar Pistorius 2 or 3 times. I've seen both. Consensus has been against posting when there is likelihood for an appeal or delayed sentencing. It really is case-by-case. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weinstein —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull The verdict was announced less than 30 minutes ago, and there is at least one oppose. More time is needed to reach consensus. Chrisclear (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that the verdict is official, shouldn't we use Murder of George Floyd in the blurb instead of Killing of George Floyd? — Chevvin 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This, as well as the fact that the other counts were basically the time-honoured tradition of "throw a bunch of charges on him so at least one will stick" method of prosecution, was the motivation for my Blurb 2. Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull - Never seen a faster ITN nomination ever. 100% pull. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dead soccer player in six minutes --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support post-posting. Obviously the biggest story in the United States of its kind in decades, and making headlines worldwide. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb does not mention the country in which this case was heard. Chrisclear (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Reposting as mine got removed in an edit confict before posting - this is an internationally reported story and is clearly in the news, which is what this is. The three articles are also high quality with not one citation needed tag between them. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why Chauvin’s conviction matters - Vox – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If we posted Philip but not this then somethings wrong with this site. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment (pull/support) - I think that this, as it was the trigger for many protests and was ITN originally, likely merits an ITN posting with the result. That being said, I do not feel the posting was prudent as it needs to be discussed for more than an hour or so before it is posted, and the current blurb is... lacking at best. An eventual blurb should include information as to why this trial result is important to worldwide news, and as such, I support it being pulled until such time as it is fleshed out here. WP:DEADLINE applies here - there is no "urgent need to post" or anything that would mandate us posting this before the blurb is fully fleshed out. I also recognize that it is unlikely that any administrator is going to be willing to pull it, and as such, I support continued discussion and improvement of the blurb here. I think trouts are due all around for those who encouraged the early posting, the admin who did the posting without allowing at least a couple hours of discussion, and those who, from my viewing, supported this without evaluating the blurb as a whole. As to my suggestions for improving, I think a link to George Floyd protests (piped in some way to flow in the sentence(s) of the blurb) is necessary, as is a link to police brutality (in the US if that article is up to ITN standards) as that's the important thing here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Question 1: if the posting survives, can the image at Murder of George Floyd be used on the Main page? Question 2: can these verdicts be appealed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * re:q2, yes they can be appealed, most convictions can but in this case it's unlikely to go anywhere if an appeal is filed. TAXIDICAE💰  21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 That image isn't suitable. First, it's fair use when it needs to be freely licensed to be used on the front page, and if it's shrunk down to the 120px you just can't tell what's going on. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. This is clearly one of the more significant guilty verdicts in recent history, as demonstrated by the coverage in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support I've been getting into edit conflicts since before this was posted. I know it's unprofessional, but just this once I'm going to have to join Muboshgu in publicly celebrating this: 🦀 CHAUVIN IS GONE 🦀 —— now it's out of my system. On a more serious note, this is obviously relevant worldwide as his murder sparked protests across the planet. It's not just a domestic story, there were George Floyd protests from from Minneapolis, MN to Almaty, Kazakhstan. This is one of the rare instances where it's not an exaggeration to say that the whole world was watching. We can keep Idriss Deby as the image for a while before changing it to an image relating to this story, of course. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled - let more time for a clearer consensus to post to develop. -- KTC (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support reinstatement: I came here because I was pleasantly surprised by the speed of the posting. Very disappointed to see people screwing with it. Huge news. Very rare for a police officer in America to be convicted of murder and this was about an incident which sparked worldwide protests for months on a scale very rarely seen (I would guess not since the Iraq War). The particular sentencing, still to come, isn't really important; the outcome of the case (that Chauvin is guilty of the particular charges) is. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - well, thats an obvious one. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-posted - please don't wheel war -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to seriously re-study what the definition of wheel war is if you think pulling a single and first time is wheel war. -- KTC (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to my comment above, even if this merits ITN mention (which there certainly is a consensus for), that does not mean that there's consensus to post a sub-par blurb - which is what KTC was reverting. This needs fleshed out here before it's on the main page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is anything wrong with this blurb. It isn't necessary for ITN to give backstory for every event here, and the Floyd protests are well-known. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (edit conflicted with the reposting). ITN has previously posted the convictions of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, so this is not a rare occurence (and imo, the significance of this one greatly outstrips those others). Not much else to add. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Passes ITNCRIT. This is as impactful as the OJ Trial.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Conclusion to the largest protests in U.S. history (and a productive conclusion for those protesters). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Hugely significant verdict. P-K3 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Currently the top headline on the New York Times, the LA Times, the BBC (US version), Reuters, AP News, and numerous other news sites. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull because wheel wars are fun. Keep posted - Those who have studied history of racism and policing in the United States will know this is basically a landmark outcome. --WaltCip- (talk)  23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a hard time believing this was a verdict watched around the world. Most of the people I know simply stopped caring about it. Far as I can tell, black-white race tensions are a uniquely US thing. Banedon (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is seeing more coverage than I originally thought, so switching to support. Banedon (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose because of a single country blah blah blah". You know the drill. WaltCip- (talk)  23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose because of a single country blah blah blah. Read the oppose again. You know the drill. Banedon (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Far as I can tell, black-white race tensions are a uniquely US thing." Serious question: have you heard of apartheid? If not, you should really look into it, crazy thing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point. That makes it unique to a few countries in the world, which conveniently answers WaltClip's objection from a different angle. I might change my opposition if, and only if, it stays in the news in non-US countries such as South Africa for some time. Banedon (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's currently at the top of UK version of The Independent —Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Top story in every American media outlet, first time in who knows how long that a police officer has actually been convicted of murder in the U.S., culmination of a worldwide protest movement. Mlb96 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The shooting of Justine Damond culminated in a Minneapolis murder conviction almost two years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. I support the inclusion of this on its merits, but I do wonder if there's some sort of inconsistency with putting the conclusion of an earlier event on ITN when US presidential inaugurations have been opposed as being redundant with the election blurb. Maybe there's something I'm missing. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The executive branch is not the judiciary, at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Inaugurations are generally just ceremonial and formality (Biden's aside).—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After a US president is elected in November, it is all but guaranteed that they will be inaugurated in January, barring some truly extraordinary crisis, so it is redundant in that case. On the other hand, a conviction is certainly not all but guaranteed after a defendant is charged with a crime. Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Top story in American news, and multiple international outlets. Also the conclusion to a past ITN blurb and major news story for the past year. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull I don't see how this verdict resolves the problem of police brutality against certain demographic groups in the United States. There are still protests across the country so more similar rulings are yet to come. I suppose we're not going to post any one of them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: Myanmar Protests

 * Oppose The last update was 18 April. Not every day needs to make headlines, and that was literally only two days ago. A few things happened today alone (formation of interim government by protesters, the junta publishing lists of wanted journalists, the EU widening sanctions, ...) so it'll get updated and it won't be a problem in a few hours. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I'm running the content diffs now if y'all can wait a day we can evaluate content changes instead of edit counting. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:LaserLegs/2021_Myanmar_protests_20210420 here --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Removal there is often a spike in updates when an article is nominated for removal, but the Ongoing_section criteria is to is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article. This article is about protests but the most recent updates are WP:PROSELINE snippets about some random arrests, politicians forming opposition parties, various international agencies condemning the uprising. Scrolling through, I don't see any content updates about protests in over two weeks. Stale article, time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this time, I don't think the situation merits a removal; it's only been two days without an update. Perhaps we revisit the question in a week or so? Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you link to the update about protests? I must have missed it --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @LaserLegs There's plenty of recent information on the consequences of those protests, which is perfectly valid and relevant as an update. If the protests weren't happening, the sanctions wouldn't be applied, ASEAN wouldn't be covering the protests during a summit, etc.The chronology of the protests (a common complaint in the previous requests for removal anyway) was moved to a separate article, and it died there, and the article now instead focuses on the implications of the protests as it should.
 * I think your suggestion would be better dealt with through suggesting a rename. Taking it down because the article has evolved beyond the protests themselves just doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly won't improve the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I'm looking at the content changes of the article for signs of actual protests and not finding any. I'm seeing political machinations which happen in every country all the time and aren't particularly noteworthy so I'll ask again: Would you link to the update about protests? I must have missed it --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal Ongoing is an extremely privileged section of the Front Page, because it is the only section that does not cycle off periodically. As such, the bar for articles here is higher than for simple blurbs, DYK hooks, anniversaries and so on, and the risk for article rot is very high. The nominator has taken the onerous work to sift through the updates, and I agree that these are not substantive updates, and that the article should come down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk • contribs)
 * Could someone identify who added this !vote? At least sign as anonymous if you don't want to be known. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an IP editor, many who do forget to sign if they don't contribute frequently. --M asem (t) 18:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove Neither recent events nor coverage are sufficient. Ongoing shouldn't be forever. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Spencer T• C 20:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Chadian president Idriss Déby killed in action

 * Comment The death of a national leader is blurb-worthy, but four citations are needed. The details are also very light right now with only the army spokesperson confirming the death, so I suggest waiting for confirmation anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb2 The article is in good condition now with only two citation needed tags, which is fine as they're not particularly controversial and they're not out of character for him. Anyway, he's influential and he died unexpectedly while serving, so blurb-worthy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support, my weak stands on need to expansion of his assassination when information is available but definitely important. A president on the frontline of battle? Unthinkable in the West. Also, a wikilink to Northern Chad offensive (2021) could be made. CoryGlee (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but Wait, The details about assassination are very low. Several citations are required. Working on it now. Definitely blurb worthy Sitaphul (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending further update. Looks like confirmed. Africa Report and RIA Novosti report it, too. Brandmeistertalk  11:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Death of a sitting head of state who has held the office for 30 years is a no-brainer for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment All the non-French sources couch his death as "[...] states a spokesman for the army". The French source (presumably working closer to the scene) describe his death as "on the way to the front lines". If he were wounded in actual combat, this should definitely be blurbed with a desciption of the circumstances. Article quality is a tad off, but not much so.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only He is unknown in many countries around the world outside Chad despite having head of state for 30 years. But i believe it can be posted as RD instead. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That he is possibly unknown to some is not relevant at all. Sitting head of state dies in office, certainly a blurb once the quality is sufficient. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Futile Oppose Blurb as I do for most deaths, this guy was no Mandela/Thatcher. Article is no where near post ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree he wouldn't meet the Mandela/Thatcher standard for politicians if he had died of old age after leaving office. Violent death at the hands of rebels is the story here, not his long career. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - very influential figure in African politics. --Soman (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – There are couple more sentences that have to get cited and someone needs to expand the 2020s section too, after that it will be fine for a Blurb. Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Three decades in power, significant regional influence. However, oppose giving the "of injuries" cause of death in the blurb until more information emerges. CMD (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - 6-term president surely counts for something even if he's not in Europe or something. Indirectly this also a change of the head of state, and "killed in the front lines" is certainly an unusual event for a head of state in the 21st century. Juxlos (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in Europe no one would be allowed to cling to power for 6 terms so there is that.... --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cough Alexander Lukashenko cough... Hektor (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And going by US presidential terms, Merkel is in her 5th130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - A president dying surely calls for a blurb, even if it isn't in a western country. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality. Quite a few citations needed. Once that is sorted, and a reliable source consensus on roughly how he died, then easy support blurb. I'd post a leader of this tenure and stature even if he'd left office 15 heads ago. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – I'm surprised this is even a discussion. The 30-year president of a country has died of injuries sustained in battle against armed rebels. That is a very major news story; RD is sorely inadequate in conveying the sheer significance of this event. Kurtis (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle but the article is not ready as there are numerous outstanding cn tags. Violent death of a sitting head of state is extremely rare. It's not clear whether he died in battle or a targeted assassination; either way it seems significant enough to justify a blurb. I've added an altblurb to make the circumstances clearer. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - The strange part is the frontlines thing. It needs to be highlighted. Sitaphul (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article has multiple cn tags, and an orange "update needed" tag on the 2020 section. Once fixed, I support blurb as the death of a long-serving head of state. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but Support blurb - Sitting world leader and unusual death are two hallmarks of when a death is normally blurbable. --M asem (t) 12:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - The Northern offensive is significant itself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 12:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Incumbent head of state essentially assassinated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - Long-term, serving head of state & major figure in the war on terror, killed in battle. Jim Michael (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Le Monde are reporting unofficial sources saying he was injured on the weekend, but that this hasn't been confirmed by official government sources. The blurb needs to leave sufficient latitude regarding the cause of death until this is certain. --LukeSurlt c 13:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb which a has been noted above, is the real story hear: dying in an offensive, not "just" of injuries thereof. ——  Serial  13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I converted this to a regular non-RD nomination given the circumstances of his death but please pay attention to Northern Chad offensive (2021) as a new target article documenting the event in which he was killed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added alt2 only to highlight the offensive as a target as I think it also is in decent shape to post. --M asem (t) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Longtime political figure, death widely reported, son Mahamat Kaka named interim president. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't think of a head of state dying in battle in recent memory. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - Death came suddenly in spite of reelection, plus he is a notable veteran figure in African politics and has gained some prominence internationally. As for altblurb, "Killed during a rebel offensive" is more informative and explanatory than "dies of injuries", the latter of which might suggest that he died from other causes, although that is just my opinion on the matter. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. Feel free to bold the offensive as well if you want. --Tone 14:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb support This kind of blurb is exactly what a death blurb is for. This is not a "normal" death of old age, this is a death that requires further explanation, and for which the manner of death itself is worth noting; the events surrounding the death are the focus of the blurb, not merely that he died.  We should use this as a model for what makes a blurb necessary.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post the picture - The picture in the ITN box must be that of the latest blurb. - Depressed Desi (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, there is a delay for posting images as we have to wait for them to be protected on Commons. If nominators add the image to Main Page/Commons media protection at the time of nomination, that decrease the delay.  Spencer T• C 18:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Death of an incumbent head of state/head of government should just be formally made ITN/R. I cannot think of any situation in which it would not be worth posting. Mlb96 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support and agree with Mlb96 that this should really be ITN/R. I'm a little surprised that it isn't already. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD): Walter Mondale

 * Oppose Some orange tags that need addressing. Would support a blurb when fixed. Support blurb now that issues have been addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the only reason he would be considered for a blurb is having been US Vice President, and the article spends only 2 paragraphs addressing that tenure. I think most people know him better for losing to Reagan. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Walter Mondale was an important part of American history as Jimmy Carter's Vice President. If Wikipedia puts Alcee Hastings on "Recent Deaths", they should put him on "Recent Deaths" at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djprasadian (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NB first edit today, 2nd edit overall Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bumbubookworm. I think it would be a lot better for community-building to welcome this new user instead of obliquely casting aspersions. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see the notice at the bottom of the tan box. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Severely lacking in citations. Entire sections are unreferenced. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready. Lots of coverage including a lengthy NYT obit demonstrating a lasting impact on U.S. politics from his time as VP and his 1984 campaign. Also, the last former VPOTUS to die was George H. W. Bush (November 30, 2018), and the last non-president VP to die was Spiro Agnew (September 17, 1996), so even if we blurbed every VP it would hardly increase the number of death-blurbs per year. Davey2116 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb article is decent now, clearly a significant person worthy of a blurb. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb per recent problems with blurbs. Former presidents, yes, but vice presidents, unless they established their own legacy, absolutely not. RD would be fine, but as noted there are quality problems, so Oppose RD until those are fixed. --M asem (t) 02:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many paragraphs missing citation. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all the paragraphs you tagged with citation needed actually were problematic, for example Special:Diff/1018821796. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose blurb as not at the top of his field (politics), and no specific ground-breaking policy reforms disclosed Oppose RD on present quality Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb -- are we really going to argue that the consort to the Queen of England, who's only contribution to the nation was fathering future royalty, deserved a blurb, but the Vice President of the United States does not? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  02:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read Prince Phillip's article if you believe that's actually true. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD. Mondale simply does not clear the high bar of prominence for a blurb, in my opinion. — Goszei (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I can see the argument, and he has more merit than a few other major presidential losers (or Quayle, if you want to talk VPs), but ultimately I don't really think he cuts enough of a profile. His term was brief and not terribly action-packed, and while he did elevate the significance of the office, he was hardly Cheney. And I doubt news services are rushing to blast the TVs with 24/7 coverage of his death. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Never met Mondale, but Dan Quayle is a great guy. Doesn't qualify for RD though, because he's not dead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Old Man Dies, 40 years after fading away. RD, though, sure. Maybe not today, or tomorrow...but whenever it's ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of unreferenced paragraphs.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Still an unreferenced paragraph. Mondale then stood again with Senator Amy Klobuchar when Tina Smith was sworn in on January 3, 2018. Anyone know what that means? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From the source for the prior sentence, it looks like it simply means Mondale was present, possibly photographed nearby or something. Specifically, when Al Franken was sworn in, Mondale and Klobuchar escorted him into the Senate chamber: "Franken was escorted down the Senate floor by former vice president Walter Mondale and fellow Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who praised Franken and his readiness to work before Franken was sworn in." Doesn't look to be that important, IMO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The opposes related to article quality make no sense to me. Part of the purpose of highlighting these articles on the Main Page is so they get additional views and edits. That's how Wikipedia was and is built. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By the letter of the law, though, that template says ITNRD rules. And it says "sufficient quality" is up to a "consensus of commenters". So if you think it's good enough already, saying so is considerable enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also the requirement of any content that is featured (read: bolded) on the main page. Having numerous "citation needed" tags among other warnings is not an example of our best work. --M asem (t) 05:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the main page is to showcase Wikipedia's finest work. Putting this article on the main page in its current state would be embarrassing. Mlb96 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is in fact precisely what we shouldn't do. The Main Page is the most outside-facing page we have; the elbow grease required to get articles to a presentable level can go on behind the scenes. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb and oppose RD on quality four years acting as a personal assistant in one country on the globe basically achieving nothing. Littered with tags, nowhere near good enough at this stage.   Of course, we had Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh so one supposes we will have Death and funeral of Walter Mondale too, demonstrating the relative significance of their deaths.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Four years acting, not as a personal assistant, but as a strong voice in the one of the most influential nations on the globe. Article is good enough for a RD, maybe not a blurb. The anti-American sentiment is showing on Wikipedia, we should have less of this. Mondale was also a much more influential figure than say a royal consort, basically changing the concept of Vice President in America. Article only needs a few touch ups. reallylazy 08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, subject to referencing issues being addressed. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I also opposed the blurb for prince Philip, on its own merits and because it would set open the floodgates. This one also falls way below the "top of his field" (politics). Important, sure, but not really long term influential or world changing in the field. Fram (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Major American political figure, but not one of exceptional international significance. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb VP isn't important enough for a blurb (same as how I believe Prince Phillip wasn't). Oppose RD on quality for now, way too many cn tags need resolving. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Mate, the article is in a really poor state, hardly fitting for the MP. ——  Serial  08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. 18 citations needed, and I can't verify anything under 'Apollo 1 accident (1967)', with the existing citations being from a now-dead audio documentary. I shouldn't be the first one to spot this if the article is getting support to post, as I'd expect existing statements to be verified before it gets any kind of support. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Citation needed tags are fixed and the article is of decent quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't he married to Betty Ford?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for now, as per Uses x. And Oppose blurb.
 * Oppose blurb I don't think a former vice-president and a presidential candidate who is (in)famous for his utter defeat merits a blurb. There's also not much ado about his death in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Made history when he chose a female vice-presidential candidate, but time fades. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready for RD - numerous unreferenced paragraphs and even those with references often have just one citation at the end of a long paragraph. Oppose blurb as nowhere near significant enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Article quality is good enough for RD, but he really is not getting the level of media coverage necessary for somebody who isn't covered under ITNR to get a blurb. ( Prince Phillip had way more coverage than Mondale is getting, and even he barely got a blurb.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD Eight unsourced paragraphs remaining that are tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD It is being unknown outside the United States, notably in non-English-speaking countries and the Commonwealth. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Mondale was certainly not transformative in his roles to merit a blurb; his death at 93 is certainly not under extraordinary circumstances. rawmustard (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment He is also known abroad for his role in the history of astronautics. He was pretty much against human spaceflight, a position US politicians are not often very vocal about, when they share it. Hektor (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - not a transformative figure on a global scale, no lasting legacy. (Notably, in contrast to Idriss Deby, who played a key role in shaping relations in the Sahel region...) Ok for RD. --Soman (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - one-term Vice President whose term is summarized in his own article within a single paragraph. Not on the top of the "most influential US politicians" list for me. Juxlos (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb, Support RD – needs more references, after that it will be fine Vacant0 (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 8(!) CN's remain. I challenge anyone supporting a blurb to make a better one than the proposed blurb. "Former Vice president" doesn't convey any impact to the wider world, and his own article doesn't even cover it in detail. Were I not already familiar with the subject, I would think the blurb violates UNDUE.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Walter Mondale is remembered in his own right, and we should at least put him in the RD section. Although the article has some issues, which would invalidate it from blurb, he is fairly important. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The 8 CN tags invalidate it from RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at the actual context, instead of the count, you'll see that many of the tags are either on things that while unreferenced, are pretty clearly true - or things that are relatively minor in terms of the article. The vast majority of biographical information is referenced. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb People who have not gotten over the Duke of Edinburgh having a blurb are clearly neither living in a monarchy nor are they aware of what a king/queen consort implies for a society and a country. Imagine being one for over 7 decades, in a huge Commonwealth and next to one of the most important people in the world. Mondale was VP of the most (perhaps) important country in the world, but only four years and hardly recognizable to many people outside the United States. I also Oppose RD per now as his article is not ready, but will support once it's fixed. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strange, I haven't gotten over the Philip blurb, but last I checked I did live in a monarchy... Perhaps in the future, just write about content, and about why you think X or Y deserves a blurb or not, and laeve the reasons, motives, background ... of other people out of it? Fram (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - not transformative. Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Due to age (93), long absence from politics. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - While having served as Vice President, he has not gained a lot of notability in general American politics since, and certainly not internationally either. Not prominent enough to have an entire blurb listed to him, but a general listing in the recent deaths section will do. --Mr. Lechkar (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and also article is not yet ready for RD due to outstanding cite tags.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not up to quality standards for the main page, mostly due to excessive citation needed tags in the Personal Life and U.S. Senator sections. Once those are fixed, this is ready for RD.  A blurb is unnecessary here because there's no extraordinary circumstances surrounding his death.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking ready as the citation needed tags are fixed, and support was solely contingent on that. I don't want to ping everyone for an update, but it's certainly fine for RD which was the concensus anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD per the above. BD2412  T 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article still needs some minor touch ups but it is well decent to be at least on the recent deaths entries. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD per others; less controversial than a blurb. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, RD not blurb. RIP Fritz. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Little late to this, but count me as another one who firmly Opposes blurb, but supports RD. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Marleau sets the record for most games played in the NHL

 * Comment to be on front page, we'd need at least one bolded article. But Patrick Marleau has a lot of places where citations are needed, and the text on List of NHL players with 1,000 games played is completely unsourced (and lots of it doesn't look to be sourced in the tables). So neither article is good enough for a bold hook on ITN currently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it’d make the most sense to bold Marleau’s article, so I did that. I’ll work on adding references, but I didn’t see many citation needed tags when I nominated the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I see this just as some kind of statistics. Impressive indeed, but not ITN-level impressive. --Tone 12:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, reliable sources are covering it. This is not a frequently-broken record and represents a unique milestone; these kind of longevity records are rare and frequently celebrated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think this would be better suited to DYK, though that would require getting one the articles up to GA standards. As a hockey fan, I find this an impressive record, but it's purely statistical. No-one thinks Marleau is the greatest hockey player just because he's been around for ages. If he'd broken Gretzky's scoring record then maybe, but games played just isn't that exciting. It's also not a fair comparison to look at only NHL regular season games. In Howe's day, the regular season was 70 games and a maximum of 14 playoff games; he played several seasons (hundreds of games) in the rival WHA league. Marleau has spent his whole professional career in the NHL, during which the regular season has been 82 games (excepting the two lockout years) and playoffs up to 28 games. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both quality and per Modest Genius. Longevity is not really a great sports record for ITN, compared to actual in-game achievements like most goals or blocks or something akin to performance. --M asem (t) 14:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is great personal achievement with no lasting impact on the sport and we don't have a practice to post mere statistics. Jaromír Jágr, a real legend and one of the greatest players in the sport, plays a record 33rd career season but that's also not something worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just trivia, really. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sports records can be worthy of blurbs, but I wouldn't include longevity records.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support obviously per WP:MESSI --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not comparable. To quote Modest Genius, No-one thinks Marleau is the greatest hockey player just because he's been around for ages.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Messi is this years greatest, Ronaldo or whatever before him, someone before him and so on. Exactly the same thing actually. This is also a pretty big deal in ice hockey. Gordie Howe is sort of an NHL legend so this record being broken is significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Messi thing was nine years ago, and most likely wouldn't pass today. In fact, even at the time it had a substantial opposition. Oh, and at least that was an achievement record. The story under consideration here is simply a record for taking part. His longevity doesn't prove he's in any way amongst the elite. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jim Steinman

 * Support Two out of three ain't bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hate to do it but there's 3 citations needed. When those are fixed I'll support.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * i've found sources for those three claims. i have yet to review the article, though, so have no opinion on its quality.  dying (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, based on quality (sourcing mostly). I've gone through and tagged some paragraphs and sections that lacked any sources, or at least needed additional sources.  There were individual paragraphs in most sections, and large chunks of the 2000s section, where sourcing was missing or unclear.  Fix that, and this should be postable to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support For a moment, a total eclipse of the charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still too many outstanding citation needed tags.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Miguel Díaz-Canel

 * Comment ITN/R. Article is short but passible, one CN tag though. The problem with states like Cuba is the lack of transparency around the general secretary election process. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: election (or rather, selection) of head-of-state as per WP:ITNR. Osunpokeh (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support though I would use "selected" rather than "elected" since it was an election only among the members of the body of the CP of Cuba, not the general public. But still that meets ITNR per the previous ITNC on Castro. --M asem (t) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the CPC and the CPSU are any indication, these will get far more interesting the farther Cuba gets from the original dynasty --LaserLegs (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support change of head of state is ITNR, article is decent enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very important movement and article is pretty accurate. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fine. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Due to article quality only, which is so bad grammar. elsewhere it is look so significant to be posted. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be ironic? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Or iconic? – Sca (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that my opinion, it can be posted because this blurb is ready, thanks. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He looks like Paul Drake. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mars Ingenuity (helicopter)

 * Support interesting bit of science news, article is in good shape, lots of great images too. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though the article only has a one-sentence update so far. Could do with fleshing that out a bit, though it's getting heavily edited so hopefully that won't take long. I've added an altblurb (the first controlled flight was in 1985, this is the first powered flight). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support precisely the kind of thing we should be posting at ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a fairly major scientific breakthrough. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The original blurb is nice and sweet. The alt blurb, though more accurate (or rather, more detailed), doesn't seem like a headline. This news is quite interesting and the Wikipedia article is extremely good too. --Sitaphul (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the "firsts", it belongs at ITN. Doesn't hurt that it's a positive story too amidst all the misery going on now. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "Flies on Mars"! Who'd have thought it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've added "On Mars." Jehochman Talk 12:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sumitra Bhave

 * Comment - @, The article seems well sourced and would surely be eligible for posting if it was on Sumitra Bhave only. I'm not sure of the protocol for duo, and in my knowledge it hasn't been done before., do you know what to do in this scenario. In my view, the best course of action is to create two separate pages and then post. -Sitaphul (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for sake of posting, i don't agree with forking out pages. And are you suggesting we keep repeating same info on two pages because it was to stay on main page for 2 days? There are plenty duos who dont have to die together to be placed on main page. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. This may be an WP:IAR situation if she would not merit a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is flexibility in this.  We posted "Roy Horn" in May 2020 and "Siegfried Fischbacher" in January 2021 linking to Siegfried & Roy, for example - Dumelow (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good example of IAR on non-standalone articles (bad examples being usually crime articles). Article seems well sourced, 'ographies in good order, well composed.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eligibility comment Re: members of a group per WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Checking the in the news candidates page is always fun. You get to know more things about Wikipedia and about current affairs around the world. But I digress. Since all of you have clarified that this nomination is possible, you have my support. Sitaphul (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good and meets the hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Posting Admin might have to pipe accordingly. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Peterson

 * Selected compositions and perhaps Partial discography need to clarify their list selection criteria, else be tagged with incomplete list. These awkwardly named sections might best be deleted, with the information folded into prose. "These are all the pieces for which references could be found" is not a good selection criteria. On the plus side, they are all referenced!130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Completed the compositions section and kept the "Partial discography" section hidden. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support That's a lot of [5] citations!  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iain Gallaway

 * Support Brief, but thorough, and referenced.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) European Super League

 * I'd say let's wait a bit since this story is developing fast. --Tone 07:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait If this becomes official, then this would be a really obvious thing to post, but I don't think we've crossed that line yet, despite what the announcement said. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Support given the reaction this announcement has generated, with responses from high-level governmental officials. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. It's a huge European-wide sporting prospect which is upsetting a vast number of people (even causing the UK PM to comment) so it's certainly newsworthy, but at this stage it needs to be paused until it's all in place and actually a reality.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Obvious ITN post if it happens, but an announcement isn't equivalent to it actually happening. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait there will likely be some ramifications of this which will become ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the bold article does not explain why this is significant. This is your pan-continental competition right? It's supposed to "replace" the champions league? Like the EPL isn't going away, this is the thing the top three EPL and whatever other country teams play at the end of the season to decide who is bestest? But it's not the conference cup? What is actually going on here? Y'all Europeans lose your minds over this soccer business and if it's in the news we ought post it (instead of whining about it being parochial or some nonsense) but you can't just assume people are going to understand it. "Obvious" indeed. Is this another XFL (2001)? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be daft, it's not "pan-continental", the clue is in the name "European".  It's not replacing anything, it's another league competition.  If you read the article it would help you understand.  It's hardly "parochial" as it is about the world's most popular sport across a continent.  But hey, don't worry, we're bound to get another riot/shooting nomination in the next few days to get us back on track. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, but it doesn't explain the hysteria. This is a case where the controversy is the story, and the target needs a "Controversy" story otherwise it's just more soccer bother. Yes, very Euro-parochial I agree. Proposals for a European Super League in association football is an orange tagged mess that did a better job explaining the outrage than the current bold linked article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer this for me: Does Manchester United and Liverpool FC leave the EPL to play in this super league or is it just another end-of-season romp like the champions league? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody know, which is why it's too soon to post. There will likely be some ramifications from it, and those ramifications may well be ITN worthy at that time. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just remember you have to make it make sense for Canadians and other countries that don't know or care about soccer. If the teams that routinely dominated the Champions League are breaking away to form their own version of the exact same thing then there has to be a reason and the article needs to explain it. If they're bailing on their national leagues to form a continental league without relegation, well, that's what happens when you let Americans into the cupboard --LaserLegs (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to make it make sense to people who don't care about it, that's not the point of ITN. Your discourse here is all very interesting but as you can see, we don't have the detail and we don't have any consensus to post, so perhaps focus all that nervous energy on improving some articles?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the point of ITN, it's the point of Wikipedia and the article isn't "minimally comprehensive" unless it explains the significance. That's just how it is I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't notice, there's no consensus to post. You're raging against the wrong item.  Still, plenty of articles to improve, like XFL (2001), have at them!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It'll go up, it probably should go up, once the significance of the new league it's clarified in the target article I'll even withdraw my oppose. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as, err, not actually being a thing. ——  Serial  10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that it's even less of a thing now: no English clubs remain, and two Italian clubs about to pull out. Five clubs do not a Super League make. Anyone still supporting this after 00:01 UTC this morning is floating around in their own super league :D  ——  Serial  09:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is A Big Deal for European soccer. Major ramifications especially for the game in England. The story is still developing but the big event is its announcement with 12 clubs. I can't see anything other than its collapse fundamentally changing the item we'd post (apart from increases on the 12 number which is easy to implement). This has happened now and that's noteworthy, it's less good for ITN to retroactively decide there's been sufficient ramifications a few days later. --LukeSurlt c 11:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Timing of the announcement suggests muscle flexing in view of the proposed reformed Champions League, which would have come into effect from 2024. Under the proposals, 36 teams would play in one league in a “Swiss model” - with each team playing 10 games. A knockout stage would then follow. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As far as I can tell, it's currently a proposal. If a league is actually formed, competitive matches take place and/or football authorities such as FIFA and UEFA take action, such as kicking the clubs involved out of their leagues, then we can revisit this. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's talk of clubs being kicked out of the Premier League today. As I'm not going to be on Wiki for a fair while from ~09:00 UTC, should this happen, then my !vote can be considered a Support. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With the news that all six English clubs pull out, the story is now "Proposed ESL doesn't happen". My !vote remains at Oppose. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This is huge news for the sport, and a massive controversy. But I do wonder if it's actually going to happen, or if it gets negotiated away... As they're talking about starting this August, I can see a case for waiting until the first game happens. On the other hand, the article is a decent introduction to the topic and there's huge reader interest, so posting now would also be acceptable. Hence my !vote. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this, the more I wonder if it's a threat to force UEFA to renegotiate the new Champions League format. If so, it's possible it never happens, though perhaps the two sides are already irreconcilable. I'm leaning more towards wait to see if it actually happens or was just a very big bluff. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm from a country which isn't football crazy. I didn't quite understand what was the reason for the split - it's not mentioned clearly in any of the related articles. But I'm not denying its significance. Such a split definitely would be a turning point in any sport - it would be big news if that happened in my country's favourite sport league. The Wikipedia page would be much better if someone wrote the reason for the split. Thanks. --Sitaphul (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At what point should this story be posted? The first day of play, or the first point in which one of the domestic leagues expels an ESL member, which would be appealed by the most prominent lawyers in the world? The only big new league I can remember in the Wikipedia age is cricket's Indian Premier League, was that posted? In any case, that was a completely different kettle of fish, as all the teams were new. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A perusal of the article's talk page shows that the Indian Premier League was not posted at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IPL wasn't a breakaway of existing clubs to form their own league - it was a new competition in a new format of the sport, founded by the existing national authority with new franchises. We had no idea how important it was going to become years later. I can't think of a good parallel to the current situation, where existing clubs are founding their own competition outside the current national and continental structure, but still trying to remain in the other competitions. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This European Super League is the biggest sports story of the year so far. The formation of any league would not make the requirements to be post in ITN, but with how much there is at stake, the widespread opposition, and the influence of the team and clubs in the league, it should be posted. Not only the clubs would be affected, but players will also, with as of right now being banned from all international competitions. Also, with an actual article for the Super League up, which looks well referenced, the first blurb is ready to be posted. --Awestruck1 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait as others have suggested. If the league is actually formed, it does appear significant and will impact assc. football in Europe, but this is a planned announcement and could be a negotiation tactic at this stage. --M asem (t) 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This certainly seems like a big deal, given all the press coverage it has received. As for waiting to post, I'm not entirely sure what we are actually waiting for. It appears the 12 teams are not merely proposing this league, they have already formed it, though games might not start for a few months. -- Calidum  14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality; legitimate news sources are currently covering this story in sufficient depth. That checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The way this goes, we may as well end up with posting "PSG wins the UEFA Champions League after the other three teams are disqualified for joining the Super League". Since the Champions League is ITNR ;) --Tone 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. Even though this story is major enough to be picked up by NPR's Morning Edition (when that program typically doesn't feature sports stories in general), there's still all the details to work out. (E.g. there's lots of money, but we don't even know how media rights will shake out.) rawmustard (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if it's actually happening akin to the formation of the Premier League. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb has to include something about the condemnation of the idea by FIFA, UEFA, ECA, the domestic football associations and even politicians because it makes bigger news. I've therefore added another alternative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support regardless - the story is either a new major sports league or international government condemnation at the attempt, or both. Both would be worthy alone. Kingsif (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's no guarantee this will actually go ahead.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait with the governing bodies actively against this, it's hard to really specify what has happened at this stage.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any announcement, in any field, broadly construed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a huge story now, e.g. the top international story here in Denmark. It will probably gradually get less attention with some fluctuations. Don't wait for a threshold event at a time with less interest. It may or may not actually happen but the blurbs correctly say "announce". The 12 announced teams include 6 of the 7 non-American teams on Forbes' list of the most valuable sports teams, 9 of the top-10 at Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs, and all 12 are in the top-18. They may all be disqualifed from national leagues and other international competitions if they go ahead, and the players may be disqualified from national teams, seriously weakening many countries in their most popular sport where continental and World championships are enormous events. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Do you know how immensely hard it is for European soccer to make news -- let alone front-page news -- here in the States? --WaltCip- (talk)  00:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support since it is a major new development within a major world sport, and a very controversial one. Yakikaki (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out Sca was right again. I propose to wait and see if this will actually materialise or not. Right now it seems it won't, and in that case, this is just a footnote in football history. Yakikaki (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For a sense of the scale of this in a soccer country, it's Tuesday and The Guardian is still running a live developments and reactions feed . LukeSurlt c 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing?? In one sense nothing has happened yet, in another sense, it is like an ongoing coup attempt Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Talk is cheap. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Although it's unknown whether this will actually happen, I think the best time to post it is at the time of league announcement. Even though it is not official, the announcement of the league is clearly having a major impact on international football.  Spencer T• C 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For info:- Chelsea and Man City withdraw from ESL (BBC) Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Already talks that this will be broken up by tonight . This is why we wait until there's some committed action to post stories like this. --M asem (t) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Internal machinations that are falling apart. All hat, no cattle. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until collapse. Neutralitytalk 23:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the dramatic change of events here, parsing the votes may prove a fool's errand. I would move we close this nom and solicit fresh opinion for any proposed blurb covering the Icarian descent.   GreatCaesarsGhost   02:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Premier League teams now pulling out.—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a big story, and for football/soccer it remains one of the most significant developments in the game for years. But it is collapsing like a soufflé in a cupboard right now, which might need attention before putting it on the front page. Also we need to remember that the ESL coverage has acted as a kind of Trojan Horse/smokescreen for the changes to the Champions League, which really does the same thing in keeping certain teams protected from ever losing European competition. For now, oppose. For later, potentially, front page material. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Ain't gonna happen.  Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Table Mountain Fire (2021) and Mostert's Mill

 * Support. Count Iblis (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a dup nom on the Mosters Mill which I merged into here with the altblurb. --M asem (t) 17:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not a dup nom, it was a nom for a separate article, which is now not showing as a nom in the template. Can this be fixed so that both article are showing as noms, and I am credited as a nominator/updater please? Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is effectively the same story, so it made no sense to have two seperate ITNC open for it. We can't have two different nominators but I have added you to updaters. --M asem (t) 17:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, the mill article is sufficiently good for be featured, so I did adjust all blurbs to reflect that. I haven't reviewed the fire article, but in a case like this where there's more than just one building affected, the fire article is going to be the primary focus, not one structure affected. --M asem  (t) 17:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've raised the issue re co-nominators at template talk:ITN candidate. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per what Mike Peel said there, I've swapped out the nom (Mike is still credited for creation) --M asem (t) 18:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, noms can both be credited separately from this old version of ITNC. I think that is the correct way around this particular situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've sorted out the credit for Mike Peel from the above link, now if someone would be kind enough to do the same for me, it'd be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want a job doing properly... Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (not altblurb, which says much the same, but less. Maximum bang per buck, please). ——  Serial  17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait but generally support. Article text is <3k and the fire is still going so there could be more damage before its contained. What's there is sourced but just needs a bit more expansion as the fire is contained. --M asem (t) 17:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that we also have 2021 Cape Town fire - which needs to be merged with Table Mountain Fire (2021). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They were merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Destruction of historical monuments is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the fire article has been expanded is now fit to post, mill article updated for tense. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, Oppose alt blurb - Both articles have been merged and there's a lot of content and sources now. The alt blurb focusses to much on the windmill rather than the fire. --Sitaphul (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready (original blurb has consensus). Image added to WP:CMP. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also support original blurb, per above Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This would be like losing Nelson's Column or the Washington Monument.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I am very supportive of this. I saw it happen and it was significant. Both in size and culturally here in Cape Town.--Discott (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted While I !voted, there's clearly SNOW support for this at this point. --M asem (t) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and there appears to be a photo of the gutted mill at the article that may work better in the box. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call, using Mostert_Mill_burned_down_18_April_2021 would indeed be better. Or another picture in the Table_Mountain_Fire_(2021) category assuming any more pictures are added. --Discott (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seeded the post-fire Mill picture to image protection. It can be updated once its protected. --M asem (t) 20:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And now protected and updated. --M asem (t) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As Mjroots has pointed out, that burned out image may have copyright issues, so until that can be resolved, we're back with the free image until we can have a free post-fire image that we're sure about its free nature. --M asem (t) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as a copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I only noticed that the image had copyright issues after posting my comment. Glad it was taken down until that is resolved. I will try and take a photograph of the mill later today if possible but no guarentees as firefighters are still fighting the fire in the area.--Discott (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Peirson

 *  Weak support Would prefer to see more of a season-by-season summary of what he accomplished in his career, especially in seasons he was an all-star or went to the Stanley cup, rather than summaries of "he did X in these years". Additionally the sentence "He retired in 1958 after his "legs sort of disappeared"." could probably be more specific-- was it issues with fitness? Otherwise, just listing when he retired would make more sense. Otherwise article is thorough and referenced, and article is otherwise ready.  Spencer T• C 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added more detail to his season-by-season accomplishments. No other source I've come across mentions fitness/injury as a factor for his retirement.  I'm intending to use the "legs sort of disappeared" sentence for a DYK hook fact, so I'll leave that in there – hope that's alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to support. I guess that quote is fine, it's just confusing to me what it actually means and doesn't seem too encyclopedic. Marking nom "ready".  Spencer T• C 15:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Additional changes add clarity, thanks.  Spencer T• C 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Frank Judd, Baron Judd

 * Maybe I'm an ignorant American but shouldn't the article just be at "Frank Judd" ? The "Baron Judd" seems not to be part of his common name. --M asem (t) 00:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * i believe wp:ncbritpeer covers this. if i understand it correctly, unless he was almost exclusively known by his personal name (e.g., bertrand russell), the current title is fine.  however, i don't know if he was almost exclusively known by his personal name.  dying (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is common. See Category:Labour Party (UK) life peers, for example. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As for the article quality, several tidbits in the lede are not mentioned in the body, and the source supporting these is paywalled for me so I cannot verify.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Black Rob

 * Oppose for now - There are entire paragraphs without any sources. Sitaphul (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many citations required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since TRM's comment, all CN's have been resolved and the article prose is now both thorough and well-sourced. The Discography section has been unnecessarily spun-off into a separate article. If it appeared in this article in it's current state I would oppose, and to be frank the discography is so short that I think spinning it off was a mistake. The three remaining entries in the BLP Discography section are unreferenced, technically making this an unreferenced section.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The above issues have been addressed.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Geschke

 * Support Wikipedia page looks good and is well-sourced. Sitaphul (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RIP, well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well sourced and has good outlook. Abishe (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vivek

 * Support - Article seems good with a lot of references. Sitaphul (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good depth of coverage for an actor article; referenced. Could use some minor copy-editing here and there but overall good to go.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencer's comment Vacant0 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is highly notable and well sourced. Abishe (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are several RDs lower down the page with sufficient support to post (two with “Ready” tags on them). Is there a reason this has been posted, but not the others? Thanks. - 109.249.185.34 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and posted 4 RDs below that were supported /marked ready and that had articles that appeared ready to go. --M asem (t) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s great, thank you very much. - 109.249.185.34 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kakarla Subba Rao

 * Support Everything is referenced and the article is a decent length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Just a citation needed needs to be fixed. Working on that now. Sitaphul (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, the article seems good to go now. Sitaphul (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support All referenced now. Article in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 * Strong oppose Given the issues post-blurb posting of his death, giving coverage of his funeral as a non-royal member is way out of line. --M asem (t) 16:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way was Philip a "non royal"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As from previous discussions, he was a consort, not born into blood into the Royal family, and had zero possible chance of assuming any position in the Commonwealth's governance. --M asem (t) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, a bit like Barbara Bush. Thanks for reminding me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose we already posted his death, don't need to post his funeral too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closing. We actually already posted this - the death and funeral article was in the blurb, it's just rolled off. P-K3 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The death was posted as a blurb, that's sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Dawes

 * Support. Seems fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Liam Scarlett

 * Comment I fixed the formatting for you. The article looks fairly well referenced but the "Works" section will need to be fully sourced so that orange tag can be removed. P-K3 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aside from the citation issue mentioned, I think this will need more prose about his work? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose works and awards need referencing. Everything else is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ranjit Sinha

 *  Conditional support Article could use some copyediting/cleanup and once done, has my support. Examples of issues for fixing include use of italics for quotations instead of quotation marks; talking about his children before his birth in "Early Life"; unclear abbreviations (IAS, IRS) that are not spelled out or linked (or others spelled out after usage); and some grammatical/wording fixes. Appropriate depth of coverage and referenced.  Spencer T• C 01:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rm "conditional"; thanks Ktin for improvements.  Spencer T• C 05:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, quality seems sufficient per above iteration. --M asem (t) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Soloman

 * Weak support Wish there was more about his PEI political career, but I realize it might not be too much available in sources. Referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: ross young, the member of the legislative assembly whom soloman served with for three years when they both represented prince edward island's 1st kings district, happened to die about five days earlier, despite an age difference of about 23 years. young's death was  when his article looked like .  dying (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencer. It's brief but perhaps that's really all there is.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed - Wait) Raúl Castro

 * Strongest possible support -- the end of an era which stretches back from even before my parents were born. A Castro no longer controls the Government of Cuba. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Mr. Castro is 89, so it's not surprising that he would resign as head of the ruling Communist Party. Historical footnote. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Changes to the leader of a country is blurb-worthy, but precedent is for the successor to also be or exclusively mentioned in the blurb. The problem I'm seeing is that Miguel Díaz-Canel is only "expected" to take over, and I'd like to wait until that is confirmed. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add: the citation needed template needs to be resolved on the page First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba before I'd be able to support, on top of the above. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In my opinion, it cannot be posted until he is died. His resignation is not enough newsworthy to be posted as ITN. 180.245.109.70 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait According to List of current heads of state and government, this position is the position that holds the power of the executive in Cuba, which makes this ITN/R. However, the blurb should wait until a successor has been picked. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Undeniably of historical and current significance. However, Díaz-Canel should be mentioned in the blurb. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for the replacement to be announced, which should be any day. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Raúl Castro has too much unreferenced content to post, so while we wait for a replacement to be announced, the supporters can get it post ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait for the resignation and turnover of power to happen. I agree on that this is a case not readily covered by the ITNR but nearly all sources I see reporting on it treat the resignation as if the US Pres. or UK Prime Minister had stepped down, particularly as related to past Communist rule in Cuba. But right now, he still is in this position, he appearently has to name a successor to do this. --M asem  (t) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, what would be significant would be a change in the political system, but I haven't seen anything indicating that's in the offing. As it is, the titular occupant of the top political post is of only passing interest. 'Cuba without a Castro' is still the Cuba we've known for the last 60 years. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That feels a little misleading; like stating that the hypothetical replacement of Xi Jinping with an ideologically aligned person wouldn’t be a major story because it’s the same system, or that the hypothetical succession of Kamala Harris to the presidency wouldn’t matter because she’s the same party as Joe Biden. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. The key difference is that Cuba is a one-party state. Thus, it doesn't materially matter who succeeds Mr. Castro. It will remain a one-party state, and policies (by all appearances) won't change – at least not soon. (Besides, Raúl more or less inherited the top party post from his brother Fidel, founder of Communist Cuba.) – Sca (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence the China comparison. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Wait, per Masem. We can cover this aspect when his successor is chosen. But support in principle. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until replacement is nominated/inaugurated, and then we can post a standard blurb: "X replaces Raul Castro as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vartan Gregorian

 * Support Thorough depth of coverage; fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. Sad news. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good and meets homepage hygiene expectations. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced and comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 18:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helen McCrory

 * Oppose for now Notable enough, but needs additional citations.
 * Oppose, not good enough. There is no wait, only do.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added six refs, I'm still checking through them to see if there are roles/awards not mentioned, and will look for those. No other article issues that would prevent posting. Kingsif (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be all sourced. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks well referenced now. P-K3 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 19:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Peacock

 * Support. Article's in a good state, for the most part. Some stuff is unsourced but I don't think it's enough to prevent posting. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are whole paragraphs unsourced, let alone single sentences. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same reason as . Will change when the article is fully sourced.
 * Oppose for now needs more citations! Vacant0 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support only one [citation needed] which really could/should be gotten rid of or sourced immediately. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the cn tags, the source for the entire first paragraph in "Early political career" is a 404 for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tag, singular. And plenty of copies of that source at Archive.org.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as soon as the above sourcing issues are resolved Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the above issues are now resolved. I've helped fill in wherever citation was needed. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 18:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Indianapolis FedEx shooting

 * Wait We currently don't have a motive and it's been 12 hours since the shooting took place. Kellis7 (User talk:Kellis7 14:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Wait  – Per previous. RS reports indicate suicidal shooter acted alone, and his motive was unknown. Although toll considerable, wider significance appeared absent as of 14:30 UTC. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait unless it's terrorism (racial, political, religious I don't care) we ought not post. Domestic and workplace disputes frequently turn deadly in the United States. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per reasoning of LaserLegs. --M asem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose another day in the United States. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bro. 15 casualties at a single shooting isn't "another day in the US".  At max, 10 casualties in a single location would be typical, but more than that is big news.  This is top news in 90% of major news sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bro", nearly 13,000 people have been killed in gun violence this year in the US (and it's only mid-April). This is nearly the 150th mass shooting of 2021.  It's just not news.  It's like reporting that bombs have gone off in a war.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting these numbers from? You're either making it up or wildly misciting somebody's statistics. Levivich harass/hound 00:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gun Violence Archive has 12,422. Stephen 00:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the source, that would be misciting statistics. GVA is reporting 12k deaths, not homicides. Similarly they report ~147 "mass shootings" this year but 11 "mass murders". And their definitions don't match other sources' definitions anyway. This hasn't happened 13k or 150 times before or anything even close to that. This is not a routine event, and I wish people would stop misciting statistics in their arguments. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics," I guess. Levivich harass/hound 01:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting the number 15 from? All recent sources (including the article) list the death count as 9. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , "casualties" include non-fatal injuries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assumed they meant deaths alone, thanks for the clarification. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sadly this is run of the mill. This isn't another day in the US, it's just another month. There have been 31 other deaths in unrelated mass shootings in the US this month alone, and that number is only set to grow. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM et al.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Although this is being widely reported, and the number of casualties is above the routine, we don't yet know if this is just another workplace dispute or something more significant. P-K3 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait unless this is something extremely out of the ordinary Oppose run-of-the mill event. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nine deaths isn't enough for a blurb, and I've said before it's not reasonable to post every event on this list, the same way it's unreasonable to post every high-casualty event in regions of wars, protests, etc. The article would also need to be more comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose dog bites man, unfortunately. ——  Serial  18:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another run-of-the-mill shooting in the United States that makes me feel that we're getting spammed. Putting RD nominations aside, 'shooting in the United States' is the most frequent type of nomination, even more frequent than elections. I simply can't see any extraordinariness.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - First mass shooting at a FedEx in 30-some odd years.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ... on a Thursday ... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a link to a mass shooting at a FedEx on a different day in the last 30 years? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – All indications are that the shooter, a 19-year-old former FedEx employee, acted on his own, so broader significance seems unlikely. Under the circumstances and in context, nine fatalities (including the gunman) doesn't seem like ITN material. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose shootings in the US are so common, and nothing to suggest this is anything ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) United States racial unrest

 * Oppose all just run of the mill stuff at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose (pending significant developments) in accordance with previous reasons in Daunte Wright protests below. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Osunpokeh Anything specific? I can't see anything that applies to this nomination considering this is a list of all protests (which undeniably are notable and have a high impact), rather than a single element of that list. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's ongoing, it's certainly in the news, the overall impact (both domestic and international) is high, and the article is high quality. The comment about the protests being routine (which I agree with) doesn't apply to a collection, so there's no issue with that in this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Uses X mostly. I'm unconvinced by the not a (insert country name) ticker - civil unrest is well established as notable enough for Ongoing. We should apply the same standards that we ought apply to others: pull it down when the story is stale or the article is trash. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it's significant, the nature of these protests is not run-of-the-mill at all, and the article is in great shape. Events are likely to continue in this direction as today we see the release of a video of a 13 year old Hispanic male shot while his hands were up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support none of this is run-of-the-mill, despite the misinformed protestations to the contrary. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong. That's why we have an article detailing literally dozens of protests after the literally hundreds of people who have been killed by the US police in the last few months. It's almost as common as mass shootings.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There is no valid argument against this year-long event being significant. Rather the argument is that several hundred mass protests occurring in a short span are distinct unrelated events, such that a) they must qualify individually and b) the vast number of protests make the them commonplace. Cynical as hell, but typical anti-American bashing from the usual suspects.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we just run a "racial unrest" ticker and a "mass shootings" ticker then, as both are commonplace and completely unremarkable these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem is, given the nature of this article is being constructed, there's no proverbial end to this, and it would remain in ongoing indefinitely (In contrast, we know there will be a point we can eventually remove COVID once it no longer is seen as a worldwide threat). If we post this, we might as well post something along the lines of "gun violence in the United States" - a major news topic but one that has no clear "end". --M asem (t) 22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Guaido still thinks he's president of Venezuela, students in Hong Kong are still antagonizing the CPC, in fact there are still weekend protests in Belarus all those articles were in ongoing and are no longer. Prying stuff out of OG is a gigantic hassle around here but that isn't a reason not to put things into OG. Brexit popped in and out as it flared up. The Myanmar protests are in the box right now and that mess is a monument to WP:SYNTH. I empathize, but relax, we'll be fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. I do not believe that several riots that may coincide temporally and causally is something of such importance as to be "ongoing". Police brutality + protests is usual in the US. Catalonia has experienced something similar (bridging the gap) in recent years in the context of the territorial crisis with Spain, with riots for days and I would not even think of nominating it. Although honestly I am not going oppose if a consensus is reached to support it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Its a notable series of ongoing protests, and I would support Catalonia protests being ITN, tooJackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since at least 2011, there have been reliable protests/unrest/riots in American cities every Summer. Whether you're sympathetic to the professed motivations, yet another year is hardly unique, unusual or comment worthy outside of larger effects. Putting them in Ongoing is like putting Crime in the US in Ongoing; it's part and parcel of living there.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding, individual events are much better suited for blurbs, and I would (and have) support(ed) them previously. The linked article is narrative spinning from disparate events that are sometimes not even thematically related.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per Uses x and Muboshgu, and per RS (e.g. those cited in the article), which write that the protests 2020-present are quite different from previous 21st-century protests. (How long did it take before Occupy Wall Street was added to ongoing?) Levivich harass/hound 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly because the article is blown up with every incident of larger scale that occurred in the country over the past year (What does the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol have to do with race without clear explanation in the text?). I also notice events that were posted either with a blurb or to ongoing on their own so the target article is definitely not something to support on the main page. In my opinion, 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests could be a better fit in place of Daunte Wright protests and the proposed one just waters down notability (Yet, the article on Daunte Wright protests is not updated with yesterday's events, implying descending significance as time goes by.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is sorta what I was getting it in my oppose, while it is clear the concept of long-term racial instability is there, this feels like an OR-created topic that doesn't reflect how the news frames this. Connections are being made between the George Floyd protests and these events, sure, but they aren't seemingly calling it connected event. --M asem (t) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Musing -- Having thought on this some more, I think we should probably wait until after the verdict for Derek Chauvin. These protests may rapidly die, or they may become as big as the protests in 2020. We don't know yet. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then that won't be an "ongoing" news story, it will be a story directly related to the most recent police killings so will be a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose My first thought was a blanket oppose, since the other nom is still open and this feels like a classic way to skirt around opposition there, but I read through all the comments, particularly TRM and LL, and I still feel that the Minnesota riots article would be a more appropriate target (and that the new? article probably shouldn't exist at all) but have been convinced a blurb would be more appropriate given the often disparate nature of the protests/riots/whatever. Kingsif (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too broad a topic, impossible to manage in a way that treats incidents equitably, inevitably producing a mishmash. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Racism in the United States has been going on for a long time and this topic isn't current (this is my understanding, since I'm not from the US). If it's about a specific protest or unrest like the George Floyd protest, I'm okay with it. But not this. --Sitaphul (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Before anyone says I'm anti-American, I've supported the Daunte Wright protest nomination Sitaphul (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment A better case may be made for ongoing of the Daunte Wright protests. Albertaont (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. If '20-21 racial unrest in the US is synth, then AFD the article. But of course it's not synth; the RSes themselves, in their own voice, explicitly, state that the protests of the past year are unique. (Those RSes are cited in that article.) These protests are not business as usual; they are larger, more frequent, more widespread, longer lasting, and more violent (on both sides), than any protests in the US probably since the seventies. Even bigger than OWS. (Was OWS in ongoing?) Definitely the biggest in my lifetime, and probably the biggest in your lifetime, too. If not, name the last time we had sustained year-long nationwide protests. Even OWS didn't last a year. Levivich harass/hound 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Uses x and Muboshgu. It's certainly getting a lot of coverage. Collectively they're notable enough and show no signs of fading, so it's suited for ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone who claims that this is "run-of-the-mill" either categorically dislikes when United States affairs get put on the front page or doesn't know anything about the United States (or in TRM's case, both). The changes that have been sweeping the nation since last June are unprecedented. Monuments getting taken down, actors retiring their roles, the Redskins finally changing their name, etc. Mlb96 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this article covers every protest since last June. Look at this list of race riots in the U.S. Prior to June 2020, there hadn't been a race-related protest in four years. And with the exception of 2014-2015, there was an average of one race-related protest per year. Since June 2020, we've had multiple race-related protests per month. To claim that these kinds of protests are common is absurd. If they seem common now, it's because the racial unrest is LITERALLY on-going. This frankly should have been put into on-going months ago, but better late than never. Mlb96 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean there wasn't any protest in 2019 like this one? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, by all means try to insult me but you just make yourself look silly really.  Racial unrest has been ongoing for years and it's not newsworthy, it's just "a way of life" in the US, just like mass shootings.  Nothing changes, nothing of true encyclopedic value comes from these protests or shootings.  Once the balance tips and someone actually does something to prevent more than 1,000 people being murdered by the US police per year or reduce hundreds of mass shootings to nearly zero, then we can get genuinely interested in a news story.  Until then, it's business as usual.  I feel very sorry for the thousands of people killed every year in each of these circumstances in the US, but that doesn't mean we need to overwhelm this global encyclopedia with protest/mass shooting tickers.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TRM, I'm trying assume good faith, but I feel that your anti-American bias is shining through, and it's annoying. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just saying it as it is. The rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with "riot" and "mass shooting" stories from the US, in particular when literally nothing ever is done about it.  I discovered 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens today, sums it up perfectly.  This isn't about anti-American anything.  If someone kept suggesting we post minor casualty events from a war zone then I'd continually oppose those as well.  This is no different.  But I appreciate your attempts to AGF.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with TRM here and I'm American - this is unfortunately the situation in America for more than a decade or two. What's happened in the last year and calling it a special period is inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Further, this type of story belies the purpose of ongoing, where we know that there will be a reasonable endpoint that we expect to pull the event; there is no sign that this unrest will end in the US; if it ends (likely due to legislation that is passed) the means by which it ends would be a story. --M asem (t) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change. This isn't news.  That's the point.  There is nothing to be gained for our readers on seeing low-level protest after low-level protest after low-level protest added to that article of low-level protests.  The world is bored of this, nothing changes, nothing gets to a point of real noteworthiness.  It may come to a shock to those people in the US who think this is of anything more than a passing interest, but these shootings and riots just roll off the news with regularity.  There's no interest.  This is a global encyclopedia, focusing ITN on mass shootings and protest after protest is not its mission. And since when was 2021 storming of the United States Capitol about racial unrest?  Jesus.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Referring to millions of American protesters as "just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change" is your anti-Americanism showing again. You really need to curtail this here. If "this isn't news" then why is it all over the news? Also, you do not speak for "the world". "The world" does not have a single opinion on anything. Your comments here are 100% just your opinion and no one else's. Levivich harass/hound 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh give it rest. Half the items in that article featured dozens, not millions, of people protesting and many of those had nothing to do with "racial unrest".  Once you have a suitable argument other than the half-baked "anti-Americanism" bollocks, I'll listen.  I'm actually anti-police-murder and anti-mass-shooting, I have no opinion on the United States, having been there several times it offers literally nothing.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per Mlb96. Nothing "run of the mill" about the racial protests that have been taking place over the last year since the George Floyd death in the U.S. They absolutely are qualitatively different from the protests that have occurred before, and they have already resulted in significant changes in attitudes towards race and policing, comparable to the impact of the Me Too movement. Saying that the rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with these stories is a perfectly good reason to put them into a single 'ongoing' item. Then each time an individual story of this kind gets nominated for a blurb, there will be an immediate counter-argument: we already have an ongoing item for this topic and let's keep it there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too broad and disparate. A lot of that article is just disparate protests in response to isolated events that might've had something to do with racism. TBH, it might actually be original research to group these all together as part of some cohesive movement, in the way that article is doing (distinct from some kind of list article), unless there's some RS doing the same (not immediately obvious). But, and WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, possibly in the future there may be a suitable nomination relating to the Chauvin trial. But not sure this is it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as too broad, in line with what several others have pointed out above. Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as rather amorphous. I'm not completely ready to dismiss it because it is generating significant and ongoing coverage, though.  p  b  p  22:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a cultural paradigm shift, and so in effect is actually too newsy for ITN. At the rate things are going, this would probably never come down off ongoing if posted.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kerch Strait closure

 * Oppose Announcement. Might be relevant when it actually happens. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just an announcement, and not in the news much. The update would also need to be longer, giving the impacts of it, etc, as right now there's only the background. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not significant - if we were to nominate every military activity then the list would be huge Sitaphul (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Russia announcing it's doing a thing is the same as Russia doing that thing. I rather doubt anyone is going to test them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is related to the back-and-forth between Russia-Ukraine-US, and is a minor development about equal to the US sailing destroyers through the Dardanelles, or Zelensky's visit to troops. The article is actually pretty nice. I'd rather post good articles with a topical update than the usual "event" article, but some more information in the blurb is needed to give readers context. And we should wait at least until next week when this is no longer merely an annoucement.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Louvain

 * Support Article is well-sourced Vacant0 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, and everything is sourced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 18:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Usman

 * Support Article is in good shape. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is generally fine, though it's currently using worldstatesmen as a source, which should be replaced as it's on the depreciated sources list (as it's a self-published peerage website). The dates in lead are a bit unusual, maybe put them into text. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Already posted, but thanks for the feedback--updated refs and shifted the dates into the text.  Spencer T• C 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Bernie Madoff

 * Support. Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ??????????????? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you are going to have to provide a rationale...-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair the comments were posted before I added the template - it previously just read "Bernie Madoff" with no context. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad. I was just bewildered that it didn't have a template. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not seeing any lapses in sourcing. Lede's a bit awkward and overheavy on details of the trial but not a severe enough issue to block RD posting. (and confirm with BK that the first two !votes from Count Iblis + Fakescientist8000 had been made before a template was added) --M asem (t) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding my Oppose blurb - convicted fraud dies in prison does not represent a transformative person at the top of their field. --M asem (t) 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb given the magnitude of his fraud, and have proposed as much. I understand we don't want to push too much stuff off the ITN box; while I don't necessarily agree, at least that's better than promoting otherwise non-notable stories because "nothing's happening". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A well cited article, it at least deserves a RD Vacant0 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb There is one cn tag, to a list of assets that seem logical, three dead links, and a clarify tag that I don't understand, but otherwise in great shape. Prominence warrants blurb. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Significant criminal, yes, but not of lasting global importance.  Sandstein   14:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Major news sites like CNBC and the New York Times have it as a top story and the article is well cited, if not a blurb it at least deserves an RD mention. PolarManne (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Article looks good. Infamous in the US, but doesn't meet the very high bar for international notoriety for blurbs for deaths from old age. It's a side article in UK and French news. --LukeSurlt c 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only article is good shape for RD. For someone involved in such a high profile scandal, surprised his name isn't more commonplace, but outside of the US he isn't well known at all. So doesn't meet the very high threshold for a deceased person to get a blurb. (And before anyone screams bias, I also opposed Prince Phillip last week for same reason). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting RD, there will be no consensus for a blurb, I believe. --Tone 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only doesn't meet significant criteria for a blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, international ramifications etc. ——  Serial  14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Now that the template has been added. Very significant person indeed, chief mastermind behind a massive fraud scheme. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and weak oppose RD Just another nomination in the avalanche of nominations to blurb around here lately. Big criminal, but not a transformative figure in his field, neither in his country nor globally, as stated above. Also there's two cn tags in the article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb this guy is the Nelson Mandela of financial criminals. Household name: check. Feature films/documentaries: check. Blurb it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well was, anyway. And also "the Prince Philip of Ponzi fraudsters"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Masem. A lot of media coverage but RD is appropriate.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem. Blurbs are the exception, not just for anybody that people have heard of. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - what information does the blurb provide readers that an RD listing doesn't provide? "Madoff died" is what the RD listing says: beyond that, a blurb would say nothing useful. If Madoff is a global transformative figure, etc., then everyone knows who he is and we don't have to describe him in a blurb. So a blurb won't give any add'l useful info, which means the only reason to blurb rather than RD is to say his death is more important than other RDs. We shouldn't be doing that, as it's not our place to decide. Levivich harass/hound 17:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Old man dies in prison. No rationale for a blurb other than him being reasonably well-known. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Notoriety does not equate to global transformative importance.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support blurb I don't think that crime ought to be a significant enough field for ITN death blurbs, and I don't like the idea of giving further fame to a criminal, but there's no question that Bernie Madoff was a "transformative world leader in his field" given that he ran the largest ponzi scheme of all time, so by the current wording of "Blurbs for recent deaths" he probably should be a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb exactly as WaltCip puts it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Daunte Wright protests

 * Wait but leaning oppose. Nowhere near the scale of the George Floyd protests at this point. --M asem (t) 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * The article is improved and the AFD has closed. On a second review the article could go up. The point made by TRM below is a very good one, though. Protests and riots in the Upper Midwest (and in many of the places listed in the Events elsewhere section) have become commonplace over the last few years.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another Ongoing nomination has been made for this event (above) which links to a much weaker and frankly poorly composed article. In the interest of getting something up on this topic, I'd suggest to make a blurb nomination along the lines of . The article here is good enough, and that blurb formulation we have used many times previously.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose On article quality. Anything red-tagged is not getting on the main page, however ITN the actual event. Kingsif (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think we could even move it into ongoing as part of 'American protests' or 'United States protests', similar to the Mynamar protests ongoing ITN. Even though the Black Lives Matter movement has experienced a period of inactivity, it seems to be re-emerging and we could potentially list it in the ongoing should these protests continue to regain momentum. JMonkey2006 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until AFD ends. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests is a different potential target, that I'm neutral towards. Kingsif (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, also a Comment: this is a bit POINTy: considering the rather tame Northern Ireland Riots got in, this one should, by that same standard. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This receives front-page coverage on the BBC and many media in Europe and it appears that the protesters haven't calmed down even though the incident was followed by police resignations. I strongly suspect that some users are deliberately undermining the significance of these protests because they no longer take place during Trump's presidency. And we don't have a rule that an ITN nomination should be frozen while an AfD on an underlying article is open.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this has an AFD running for it, so shouldn't run unless that's resolved as keep. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. If something major happens I'd reconsider, but 53 arrests isn't front-page news to me. According to the article, these protests are only part of the more general 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests which I'd personally support for ongoing due to the wider scope. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Uses X. Domestic protests without the national (and international) impact of George Floyd protests. I would say that Northern Ireland riots are much important than this ones and everyone agreed in not to post it in ongoing. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was blurbed, which this one is not being considered for (I think). -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. The article is up for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's pretty clear that this isn't like the George Floyd matter.  331dot (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-opened The AfD has been speedily closed with a result 'Keep' so the discussion here can continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, the AfD was closed as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed but 'no consensus' to delete has the same effect as 'Keep', which is more spot on in relation to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a speedy close with no consensus before- seems like that is being used solely so people can re-open this nomination. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominator themself withdrew the nomination, but a speedy keep was technically not possible because one editor chose "Delete" before the article was expanded to a reasonable length (see WP:WITHDRAWN). Other than that, it was between a keep and a merge, and a merge isn't reasonable considering the size of both articles. There's no conspiracy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It would be inconsistent of me to have supported posting the Northern Ireland protest but oppose this one. Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be considered that often when there is a "white cop shoots black person" incident which happen with rather troubling frequency, there are protests, some more significant and/or violent than others; the Floyd protests clearly surpassed a level of being "routine". These protests may be just tipping past "routine" with the events of last night but they still aren't at the same sense of scale as the Floyd ones. In contrast, the protests in N. Ireland aren't anywhere close to routine occurances, and the events that led to those unusual (beyond the ususual tension between N. Ireland and the rest of the British Isles). As such, it didn't have a baseline to compare to so was posted for that reason. Its why we do consider events relative to their scope and scale for similar events within the same region for posting, and how that would filter up to the international scale. --M asem (t) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose along the lines of Masem's explanation above. Like mass shootings, these protests are now commonplace, and realistically it needs to not be "routine" for it to be something we should consider at ITN.  Those arguing about the N'Iron posting need to realise that riots there (in this day and age) just don't (didn't) happen.  Trying to equate these regular riots with a rarity is not a reasonable comparison. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if riots in Northern Ireland started up again, would you be OK with not blurbing them/putting them in ongoing? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to assert that riots happening for the second time in decades equates to the run-of-the-mill riots we see in the US every time a cop kills someone? The US police kill more than 1,000 people a year, it's routine.  The ensuing riots are, thus, routine.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 06:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not routine. Most deaths by police do not result in rioting, or even protest. And these are not run-of-the-mill. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, well perhaps the 1,000+ people killed by US police every year would beg to differ if they could. And a quick look at 2020–2021 United States racial unrest shows that yes, indeed, riots are very much commonplace these days, whether you think so or not.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Police killing people in the US is obviously not something worthy of ITN. These protests however, are new and not routine. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the "ongoing nom" demonstrates, these protests have been going on regularly for months and months. It's routine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Already having an effect on the world outside Minneapolis, and article is well updated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Effects? Which ones? Where? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * City under a state of emergency, professional sports teams cancelling games, protests around the country. These things rarely accelerate as quickly as this one has. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Jim Michael, TRM – The shooter and the police chief have resigned, and the shooter has been charged, hopefully defusing this incredibly bizarre event.
 * PS: This user grew up in Minneapolis, and can hardly believe the stuff going on there – but I left a long time ago. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe the thing to do is to put Black Lives Matter into ongoing since both the road side summary execution of unarmed black men by sworn police and mass demonstrations afterwards both seem to be .... ongoing. We've let poorer quality articles fester in the box for ages and the pattern of "but the sub-articles" was well established as a justification for keeping the Hong Kong Bother in the box for a while. Consider it anyway, especially with the Chauvin acquittal looming there is certain to be more unrest. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going pointy there at the beginning (I know ho much you love ongoing), but you convinced me. These are absolutely ongoing in the literal sense, and only routine for the last year. 2020–2021 United States racial unrest would seem appropriate.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. Not that crazy of an idea to have US racial unrest in ongoing. Levivich harass/hound 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose that for ongoing, basically it would then be argued to stay in perpetuity. Might as well have a US ticker.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that these protests, more intense and severe that we've had since May, are going to occur in perpetuity? Serious question. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. US cops murder at least 1,000 people a year.  That hasn't and won't change.  People now get annoyed by it rather than just accept it as part of the US lifestyle.  Protests, as evidenced by the "ongoing nomination" article, are now commonplace.  They will happen for the foreseeable future while nothing changes.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, , and : I've nominated the article here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a significant topic to me - max it should be there for 2 or 3 days Sitaphul (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of U.S. mass shootings, this singular one seems less than significant, though it has a bizarre aspect. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, but that's not a qualification for not posting. Correct me if I'm wrong Sitaphul (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is very detailed and these protests have certainly gotten a lot of coverage. I'd support either this or 2020–2021 United States racial unrest as nominated above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above, but I think a broader racial unrest ongoing would be better, per the arguments in that thread, and tonight is the first Adam Toledo protest... these protests are only growing with no sign of dissipating. Levivich harass/hound 03:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Conn Findlay

 * Support Tidy article, well referenced suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited and comprehensive enough for RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Leonard

 * Support Sufficient coverage and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support definitely good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced, and the citations check out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My initial vote aside, consensus is clear.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Warner

 * Suggest Well-referenced, although we should clean up the article. It's not ready for RD *truly* until then. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well cited Vacant0 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Japan's cabinet approved dumping of radioactive water

 * Nominator comments: This is the first time since 2011 the Japanese government makes it clear to the world on how Japan would deal with the radioactive water. Reading the comments on the ITN nomination of (which was a different article), my responses are as follows.
 * (1) Part of the "consensus" on rejecting was based on the poor focus and the poor quality of that article, not on the importance of the news per se. This is a different, new article, entirely focus on the water.
 * (2) Some users voted "opposed" by claiming this is "old news". In fact, news on this before 13 April 2021 was just speculation by tabloids. The cabinet approval was handed down on 13 April 2021.
 * (3) While some users rightly pointed out "the cabinet approved the dumping to happen two years later, not to happen now", being the "first ever cabinet decision on the matter" grants this news importance.
 * -- love.wh  15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - See consensus below. WP:SNOW for the below, and this isn't much different. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the "consensus" was based on the poor quality of a separate article, not on the importance of the news per se. -- love.wh  15:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost everyone there opposed on notability too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. We just had a discussion on this that closed as a clear consensus not to post. The fact that a new separate article has been created doesn't change the consensus. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially as this article just seems like a WP:CONTENTFORK so you can say there's a new article, and therefore start a new nomination. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The original article is large enough (> 70,000 bytes) this would need to be split from it anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The new article was entirely focus on water, different from the all-encompassing Fukushima disaster cleanup. How can this be WP:CONTENTFORK? Rather, this is a necessary main article. -- love.wh  15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant global news, must read. STSC (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose New article is a hopeless mess of WP:SYN about various dumping events. I'm not even sure why this is a distinct article from the Fukushima clean-up article.  It takes a scatter-shot approach to reporting on the events, and there's little in the way of narrative flow that makes the article very hard to follow, and not up to the standards I would expect for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup

 * Oppose "Announcements".130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article has multiple (flagged) problems, and it hasn't been updated to mention the announcement and the implications of it. I don't see any point in evaluating the notability of the announcement until that's done. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was announced days ago.  Is this a "confirmation" of the "announcement"?  When they do dump billions of tons of vicious nuclear waste into the sea, that may become a news story (with related protests etc no doubt).   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality that article is nowhere near the standard of article we should be putting on front page- it was marked as outdated in 2017, and nothing has changed since then. Also, not sure this would be notable enough for ITN anyway, but that's irrelevant until the article is massively improved. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose they're not dumping raw water, it's going to be diluted with seawater and released with minimal radioactivity. Calm down. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Radioactive waste sounds scary, but this isn't barrels of glowing ooze like you see in the Simpsons. In reality it's sea- and rain-water that has gained a tiny amount of tritium (which also occurs naturally, albeit at lower levels). From the Guardian article linked above, expert consensus is "the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk". It's a public relations problem, not a health risk or environmental disaster. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per, the International Atomic Energy Agency says "There is no scandal here" and an independent scientist says it "does not pose a health risk at all". Even the local fishermen don't object to the release itself, just the poor communication with the public that the water is safe. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not quite as bad as allowing an entire population to become irradiated and having them believe nothing is wrong. WaltCip- (talk)  11:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Galen Weston

 * Oppose "Expansion" and "Holt Renfrew" sections have almost 0 sources. Would also be able to get sources for the couple of other cn tags too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ady Steg

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - came to nominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced and a decent length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine for RD. Have marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Williams

 * Support - Looks good to me. The citations are significantly better than some other articles on RD. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a single RD article that we've posted with multiple paragraphs lacking citations.  Spencer T• C 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see someone removed the very relevant orange tag for more citations needed. Multiple paragraphs unsourced, nowhere near good enough sourcing to be on the front page. I suggest people find sources rather than just removing the orange tag. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tag. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when citations resolved. It's been vastly improved over the course of the day, but there are still some gaps (uninvolved editor's eyes needed?). Moscow Mule (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Farewell to a member of "Gang of Four". STSC (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourcing issues now sorted. Article is fully sourced. 213.205.194.86 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks well sourced to me. Polyamorph (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go now, marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Can't see what's stopping it. One of Leeds' finest, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready five hours ago....? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted the one above, but I can't post this one as I nominated it, and Spencer has commented on it as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have guessed. It's like the old boys club round here! Maybe mark as Attention needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Northern Ireland riots

 * Comment Is this actually still ongoing? I'm not seeing anything in the article taking place past 9 April, and didn't see anything new on the front pages of Guardian or BBC. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are still happening (worsening it seems), but 1. Philip is now all the British news, all the time, 2. if the article isn't getting frequent updates it shouldn't be posted. Kingsif (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not Philip pushing it out, literally nothing has happened for days. CTRL + F, and search for "riot": Irish Times RTÉ Irish Independent The Journal, Northern Ireland news sites: Irish News (Nationalist bias), Belfast Telegraph (Unionist bias). Believe me, I'm Irish, I live in Ireland, and nothing has happened since Friday. Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It was on all the TV news in NI yesterday, though (last, behind a half hour of Philip), so I won't take your word for it. Kingsif (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was commentary, not reporting. If something actually happened yesterday please share and I'll alert the press. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Aside from a bit of commentary, it's out of all the Irish newspapers and news sites. The last update to the article was from three days ago. If something major happens (and it's obvious the protests will continue even longer) I'd support it going onto ongoing then. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - It's definitely an ongoing event and getting more serious. STSC (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing and updating. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am myself quite interested in NI history and politics, so I understand the implications here. But by any of the ordinary objective standards we use to judge protests (the size of gatherings, number of injuries/deaths, damage to property, prevention of ordinary activity), this is small potatoes.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm totally agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Don't see much going on here. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per everyone else. Nothing is happening. It shouldn't have even been blurbed. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  15:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the ongoing impact is not significant enough for Ongoing section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's literally not a thing atm. There's some sporadic (read: a few lads pissing it up on the Row or Lanark), but most of it's been suspended to show—you'll love this!—respect during the mourning period. Oy vey, old man dies; Catholics don't get firebombed. ——  Serial  16:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point is things are still happening, so judge by article updates. The repeated comments that there's nothing in X newspaper aren't helpful (though yours was quite funny) Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Largely absent from main RS sites Monday. – Sca (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's actual rioting elsewhere in the world, but that won't get posted... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're free to nominate that... Kingsif (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Somebody already nominated the Myanmar protests. Well, not exactly rioting, but 100 died in a day a few weeks(?) ago but people rejected since it's already at ongoing. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you were talking about the rioting in Minnesota. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also thought you meant Minnesota. Saw Myanmar and was sure that it was, indeed, in ongoing. Because I also thought the objection was to the fact someone had considered nominating riots for ongoing. Howard, you've got me all confused, what is annoying you and is it relevant? Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't know about the new Minnesota riots. Now that's why the Timberwolves game was postponed and left many fantasy NBA pissed pissed. Either way, the Myanmar civil disturbances are putting every rioter in shame, but not enough for it to be posted here. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to understand your objections. It is currently posted on the main page.  It says "Myanmar protests" right there!  Right now!  This isn't new; it has been on the main page for weeks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago, there was a day where Myanmar killed 100 of its people during the protests. This was rejected at ITN/C because it's already ongoing. That was a poor decision as that would've "unpinned" the article from ongoing and we would not be needing another discussion to remove it if it becomes stale. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're upset that the Myanmar protests are still on Ongoing? If that is the case, you should start a direct discussion to remove it.  I see you haven't done that yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm upset that the Myanmar protests weren't promoted to a standard blurb when the state supposedly killed 100 of its own people, because it is "ongoing" (and some downplayed or doubted the event). I suppose there's no !rule preventing an article in ongoing being promoted back to a blurb (and being removed from ongoing) but people have used that non-rule to prevent articles in ongoing promoted back to blurbs. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Boat Race!! The HUMANITY! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You've set the klaxons off, now. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only a matter of time before it gets brought up, thought I'd get a pre-emptive mention in! THE HUMANITY!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Let it roll off. This was pretty borderline to add in the first place, and I agree with GCG above. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose According to the article itself, the last significant, widespread, rioting occurred on and around April 7-8, with isolated incidents of vandalism and hooliganry occurring sporadically since then. Not as widespread as it was 5-6 days ago, and with little worth reporting since then, it seems like this is not really "ongoing" anymore.  If it becomes sustained and widespread again in the future, with clear evidence of such in the article writing, I'd be perfectly willing to reconsider at that point.  But as of now, it's not there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to wait until the whole Northern Ireland is burning. The article has been "regularly updated with new, pertinent information", that's the real criteria for "ongoing". STSC (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Meets the criteria for ongoing. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Given that consensus will not develop to place in ongoing, can someone please close this section? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Guillermo Lasso elected President of Ecuador

 * Comment: Target article should be the elections article (changed the nom to reflect such). 2021 Ecuadorian general election is almost there: results section needs to be updated with prose about the second round results.  Spencer T• C 04:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't election results ITN/R? Mlb96 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, but they still have to be proposed and the articles discussed/assessed for quality JW 1961 Talk 08:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. When I made that comment, this was nominated as a regular ITN nomination with a blue background, not as ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2021_Ecuadorian_general_election is empty and missing summary prose on final round.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment   I've just added the results by province in the 2nd round from the CNE's info. Now I'm working to make the table more visual, but the article now may be ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the results section needs a prose summary of the second round voting results, and once that is done, I'm willing to support.  Spencer T• C 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made some progress. If you think it's not enough, I'll get to it after dinner. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article updated.  Spencer T• C 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work improving the article Alsoriano97 JW 1961 Talk 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This fits the definition of a notable event, especially considering how this has signaled a political shift away from the traditionally left-leaning and leftist candidates who have been President in the past. Articles look good too JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll omit the number. Feel free to update the photo at some point. --Tone 07:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Severe Tropical Cyclone Seroja

 * Oppose This storm isn't particularly strong and it's impacts in Australia are minimal. We already posted the hundreds of deaths in indonesia/timor leste, so I see no reason to post the one death in Australia. 2600:8807:5681:2400:D8C8:2F91:321D:C5A2 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait but leaning oppose If the extent of damage is limited to deaths in the single digits, this is not really the type of storm we'd post to ITN. --M asem (t) 02:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP User  HurricaneEdgar    02:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP. We don't post strong storm systems that cause no damage, either. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose weather making landfall is not newsworthy. Substantial impacts of weather on people, infrastructure etc might be newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It is rare for a cyclone to make landfall so far south in Western Australia. Even rarer for a category three to make landfall where it did. This is not just a regular cyclone. Steelkamp (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Landfalls aren't notable no matter where they occur. Impact is what's important and this had minimal in Australia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – BBC reports "a trail of damage." – Sca (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't they all leave "a trail of damage"? So far the impacts in Australia aren't really noteworthy enough to post, and this is especially reflected by the article. So what if it's the "strongest to hit X town in X many years", these records are set and broken every single year. Gex4pls (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If the loss of life isn't there, then the damage would have to be pretty significant for us to post, like if this had completely demolished the Syndey Opera House (I know, wrong coast, but trying to come up with local example). --M asem (t) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Massimo Cuttitta

 * Oppose – "Early life" and "Club rugby" sections, as well as the stats in the infobox, are unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Currrent blurbs could be misread as if Best Film also went to Zhao/McDormand. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See nom comment... Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I read the nom differently the first time. I think you mean "WINNER - NOMADLAND Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey, Frances McDormand, Peter Spears, Chloé Zhao"—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, they both get two! If it is a concern, the awards in the blurb could simply be switched, i.e. "... Best Director/Actress for X and Best Film." Kingsif (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNR only mentions including Best Film. In 2019 with winner Roma, we only posted a picture of the director, with no mention that he also won Best Director. I've add ALT II (including other copyedits).—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II Suffient coverage and sourcing. Leave focus on Best Film per WP:ITNR and past years' blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment added alt3 with no meaningful context at all --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ALT3 looks really useful and not like you're trying to prove some kind of point by adding meaningless blurbs to multiple nominations..... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ALT2 as the ITNR is for best film. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted with ALT2. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enzo Sciotti

 * Oppose Technically a stub, but well-referenced and would support on principle. If you can double the prose size it would be good to go. Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "but well-referenced" - ??? Uses x (talk • contribs)
 * Your ping didn't work, but I looked to the ref list when I saw missing inline cites and the Guardian article there is good (the way it's been added as a source but not inline is an old ref format that just needs sorting). If information from it can be taken and added to the article, it should be mostly fine. Filmography might be on BFI but that's the real issue. If I had an hour I wasn't dedicating to something else, I'd do it. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with update. Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Current readble prose size of 1074B is too short. Filmography needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A stub which is very poorly sourced. Not only is most of the text uncited, the citations that are there are mostly from blogs and user-generated wikis. Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support With the update it's more comprehensive and fully cited. ping in case you don't see it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I found that hour (20 minutes) and have updated the article a little, now no longer a stub and refs should be satis. Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Masters Tournament

 * Support Article looks good. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis Kingsif (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Field and Final round sections both have unreferenced paragraphs. Stephen 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * done. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * question: the headlines of reliable news sources appear to either mention that matsuyama is the first japanese male to win a golf major or that he is the first asian-born winner of the masters. should the blurb include one of these descriptions as well?  dying (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , normally ITN blurbs don't include trivia like that, but that could certainly go in the article itself. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If "new records" don't often happen, they won't often appear in blurbs, but look at the current Grand National one. Kingsif (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITN: Blurbs should avoid sensationalism ... Every listed event can practically be described as a first for a specific location and/or situation. Perhaps the Grand National was an WP:IAR for one of the two gender assignments, while there are many more nationalities. That said, the headlines consistently allude to his nationality: "Hideki Matsuyama victorious at Masters, becomes first Japanese man to win major" ESPN, "The Masters 2021: Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga leads celebrations after Hideki Matsuyama’s historic win" The Independent, "Hideki Matsuyama Wins the Masters With a Groundbreaking Performance" The New York Times—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose mention of ethnicity/nationality as the event is ITN/R – plenty notable result without the need for qualifiers. Also, the way in which we would have to frame it to be a record (e.g. "first Japanese man" "first Asian-born champion") reeks of sensationalism. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. I fixed the error in the lead before doing so.  Incidentally, how anti-intuitive  is a scorecard system that has red for birdie and green for bogey? Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-post blurb expand Support ALT blurb, expanding that he's the first Japanese male to win a major title. It's pretty much in the lead of every news story.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose expanded blurb - he wasn't playing for Japan, he was playing for him so his nationality is trivial. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment replace it with "In golf, the 2021 Masters Tournament concludes". Not adding any meaningful context to blurbs is an asset to our readers, really, and it solves the question around the nationality of the winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What a strange suggestion. Anyone would think you're trying to make yet another point?  The name of the winner is fine, the "first male Japanese" clause is trivia.  And P.S. we don't include the year in blurbs for ITN, thought you'd know that.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment So we blurb the first female for the Grand National ITNR (just below) but the first Japanese for the Masters is "trivial".—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ≈50% of the world's population vs. ≈1.6%? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But No. 3 in world GDP. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Uyghur genocide

 * Support – It's ready. Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This has been ongoing for years. We can blurb important developments when they occur. TarkusAB talk / contrib 08:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't change that it wasn't on ITN in the past. The fact of the matter is, as you said, that it's ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, ongoing like the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and Darfur genocide and Rohingya genocide and Somali Civil War and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Syrian Civil War...let's permalist all those too. Yes the world is a dark place. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – This has been a significant news item over the past week. Turkey summoned the Chinese Ambassador and issuing what at least one expert called the "most public rebuke of China in more than a decade." (For context, Erdogan accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs in 2009). China released a musical as a part of an intense propaganda campaign to deny its human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang (a quote used in the NYT article was declared to be the NYT Quotation of the Day.) China has been intensifying its attacks against Uyghurs and Uyghur allies overseas, China has sentenced Uyghur officials to death, France is seeing a court case filed against multinationals relating to labor rights abuses in Xinjiang, and there are public discussions among the United States and its allies regarding whether or not to boycott the Winter Olympics, earning a response from Beijing. The Uyghur genocide is indisputably in the news, and it is one of the biggest stories currently. I believe that the article would be certainly fitting for inclusion here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is high quality and fully cited, but I have to question the word "genocide", as it's not completely agreed on (the BBC article states it's an allegation, for example), and it's not comprehensive enough about what's happening; I think the term "persecution" should be used for the title instead. Is there any reason against this, or should I suggest a rename? The article is also one-sided, with mostly commentary from activists and NGOs, and little commentary from China or its allies; you don't need to believe it (I don't), but it has to be given in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , this title was very recently decided on in an extensive talk page discussion, which resulted in a one-year moratorium. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @AllegedlyHuman That was changing the name from "Uyghur cultural genocide" to "Uyghur genocide". None of the titles the article has had or have been suggested, giving five in total, have used the word "persecution", so my point hasn't been discussed yet. The moratorium isn't an endorsement of the current name, so "If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists" I can suggest it on the talk page, but that would take over seven days so I can't support the current nomination anyway, unless I'm convinced "genocide" is the widely-accepted term. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See FAQ point two: "If I wish to rename the page, should I go ahead and open a move request?" "No." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The title "Persecution of Uyghurs" was proposed in a February 2021 move request, which resulted in not moved, with nobody other than the nominator supporting it. The discussion was not as lengthy as the April 1 move discussion, but there was still a consensus present not to move the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mikehawk10 "was not as lengthy" - that's an understatement if I've ever heard one. The singular oppose doesn't deal with what I said, as the IP user who suggested it didn't give any kind of rationale for the change, and the current name was based on other factors ("cultural genocide" vs. "genocide"), so I'm not convinced.
 * Take a look at the talk page for the recent rename, and tell me there isn't a huge amount of personal research and WP:ACTIVISM there. Remember, the editors who are even involved in article re-naming are usually those involved in the article itself (and look at the sheer number of now banned, recently registered, and IP users in that bunch), so talk page concensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN concensus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there is some activism going on that has led to breaches of the WP:NPA policy (such as this edit). I also think that, the administrator who closed the most recent move discussion (which once again found an affirmative consensus to keep the page at Uyghur genocide), correctly closed things in a way that reflects consensus achieved on the article talk. Obviously, there can be different local consensuses in different places when there is no global consensus, so talk page consensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN consensus. That being said, it seems that the proper place to challenge article neutrality is in the article talk itself, not a separate venue, as this would help to keep the discussions on the article in a consistent place that editors can more easily discover and engage with. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - for article subject and overall article quality. Any concerns raised though should probably be fixed before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Uses x. As long as this article is calling something a "genocide" despite reliable sources not yet referring to it as such, it's not suitable for inclusion on the main page. The closer of the recent RM acknowledged that the title was problematic, but appears to have closed it as "not moved" on the grounds that no better title has been proposed. That may be the case, but it doesn't make the current title suddenly OK. I also agree with TarkusAB's oppose - this tragedy did not begin recently, it's been going since 2014, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight - if we put it up, then we're basically saying it's going to be up for the next five years. There haven't been significant new developments in the past week and it's unclear why this is being proposed now rather than at any other time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree that "there haven't been significant new developments in the past week" per . And as the nominator, I'll tell you frankly: I nominated it now because I thought of it now. Should it have been nominated in the past? Probably, but I can't go back and change that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK that's fair enough, you thought of it now, and my point is not to say that nothing has happened recently. This is an "ongoing" event in the sense that terrible things are happening to people on the ground on a daily basis. I'm not belittling it at all. But as tragic and concerning as that is, that isn't what the ITN "Ongoing" section is all about. There are several ongoing conflicts and tragedies in the world right now - the never-ending wars in the middle-east, the War in Donbass, unrest in Venezuela, the persecution of Rohingyas, wars in Africa etc. etc. But the question is whether anything going on those conflicts amounts to global breaking news that we might consider posting as an individual story. When I do a Google news search for "Uighur" I don't see anything that would ever be considered as an ITN story in its own right. And honestly, from personal experience as someone who reads the UK news, nothing on this has crossed my radar this week. That may be a fault in the way international outlets are reporting it, but it's also not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - but as per BabbaQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. Allegations of Chinese genocidal activities have been shooting for quite a while, and should have been nominated earlier if it was proven true. Until there are boots on the ground to verify the allegations, I would rather this be held off. – robertsky (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These alleged human rights abuses have been occuring for years now. Officially, the Chinese Government says that there are no currently operating internment camps in Xinjiang. There is no evidence that Uyghurs are still being arbitrarily detained, let alone at a mass level. If new evidence arises that this alleged "genocide" or "ethnocide" is still occurring, its status as an ongoing event should be reassessed. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moral Support - clearer important but per this is not recent news and needs ITN context. Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: But if our goal is to turn Wikipedia into a US State Department mouthpiece, then let's go right ahead. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm saying that we shouldn't push an obviously non-neutral article into ITN that parrots the US State Department's allegations. Those allegations are widely contested, not least by the US State Department's own legal advisors. See, for example, this article, which describes how the political appointees at the US State Department ignored the legal advisors and accused China of genocide. The article Uyghur genocide puts extreme claims into Wikivoice, despite the fact that reliable sources describe these claims as allegations. This is not the sort of content that we should be pushing onto the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You essentially called me and every support voter a fed for daring to think that a current genocide is in fact major world news. Now, I have a pretty thick skin, but you ought to strike that remark for those who don't. If you have concerns about neutrality, oppose on that principle and, if you're really so concerned about the article's current form, I would strongly encourage you to follow up on it by taking it to the article's talk page, making a better encyclopedia for all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per reliable sources, these are allegations of genocide, made by the US State Department, contradicting its own legal advisors. There's a difference between allegations and facts, and it's important to note this distinction on Wikipedia. Putting an unproven (and heavily contested) allegation in Wikivoice is bad enough. We shouldn't then push this non-neutral material to the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides for the Chinese government nobody appears to be contesting the allegations of human rights abuses, WP:RS have confirmed the allegations as far as they have been able to. Also just FYI the page name predates that US State Department designation as you well know because you participated in the naming discussion, your personal attacks are inaccurate as well as hurtful. Just because you personally don’t agree with a community consensus does not mean you can disrespect it or lie about it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 64 UN member states have signed a declaration rejecting the allegations - far more than have supported them. Even the US State Department's own legal advisors advised that the accusation was unsupported by the evidence, but they were overruled by the political appointees. RS specifically describe "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as has been shown over and over again at Talk:Uyghur_genocide. The fact that reliable sources report that allegations have been made does not mean that those allegations are true, as the Iraq WMD fiasco illustrates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, usually edits or discussions which aim to sway an article to pro-Chinese or anti-Western views are quite often met with "CCP trolls" or "wumao". I'm not saying that we should be allowing accusations of ethnocentrism, but we should be careful about applying double standards especially on a Euro and American centric website if we are to aim for a clear, balanced and worldwide take on topics. 58.167.153.79 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - (1) per Uses x. The article name is contested, (2) Not particularly in the news (looked on the front and "world news" pages of several major news organisations and searched for "Uyghur" with no hits. AntiVan (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the CPC isn't going to stop because we stuck this article in ongoing. It will continue for generations until the Uyghur people are assimilated, exterminated, or driven out and the region repopulated with Han Chinese. Are we really going to leave this in the box that long? It's akin to putting Climate Change or Israeli–Palestinian_conflict into the box it is never ever ever going to stop. Nominate the occasional "blurb-worthy" event instead please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nominate the "blurb-worthy" event instead please. Otherwise we end up filling the infobox with ongoing events, like Rohingya genocide,Yemeni Genocide all of which are current. When US designated a genocide in January 2021, that was a good point for "blurb-worthy" nomination. Albertaont (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same old allegations do not qualify as "ongoing" for ITN. STSC (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I could see the only legitimate support is from the nominator itself and Mikehawk10. All other supports other than that doesn't clearly state the reasoning. The oppose section raised various concerns regarding the neutrality of the article title and the content, and the fact that putting in on ongoing is an act of WP:RGW as the event itself has been going on for several years and the recent coverage is just about the "expose" part. One IP user pointed out to balance the take of the topics.
 * Meanwhile, the only support for this ongoing based it on the fact that there has been continuous widespread coverage over the past week. Judging through the refutations of the nominator on oppose comments, the nominator nominates this item due to the continuous development of the event's article in Wikipedia and the recent widespread coverage. The nominator refutes the neutrality allegation put forward by the oppose, stating that the matter has been discussed for a while and there is a moratorium for that. The nominator recommends whoever questioned the support to bring it up on the talkpage.
 * Judging by the weight of both opinions, I oppose the notion of nominating this item for ongoing. The continuous coverage of the event is only for the various actions of nation in response to the event and not for the existence of the event itself. Other than that, I believe that this article is sufficiently neutral due to the continuous consensus. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - While I do believe this is a genocide, what I do not believe is that this is a recent event. This has been ongoing for YEARS, the Myanmar protests and the COVID-19 pandemic have not (albeit the latter has been occurring for c. 1 year, so touche. Also per Albertaont, the blurb? Maybe. Ongoing? No thanks. We needn't flood the Ongoing page, shall we? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest close with consensus to not post. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Clark

 * Support – Looks quite thorough. A household name in the U.S. for those of a certain age. A champion of personal rights. – Sca (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - decent article, interesting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Good sources. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Reasonable conditition for a longish article. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are too many tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Issues were addressed. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, major historical figure during the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a factor for an RD; all people with articles are important enough to post. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal iVotes on these issues takes notability into primary consideration. Just because someone nominates someone who played one professional game of football but has a cracker-jack polished page doesn't mean I'll be coming by to support an RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooooookay, but editors have raised legitimate concern about this page's current quality, the (agreed upon by consensus) sole issue for an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is an iVote? Is that the Spanish version of !vote? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Si. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just read the novella-length RfC and discussions, and it seems that the close of the RfC is far from supportive of the criteria without criteria expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying is that you think regular ITN users have misinterpreted the RFC linked to every RD proposal, then that's something to take up higher than this individual nom; I would suggest Wikipedia talk:In the news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC close accepts the criteria as defined but seems to ask for further refinement. If someone can come up with a coherent sentence portion to add to it then your advice is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn ... that's the literal point of RD. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who has a Wikipedia page is eligible for RD, which you can read on the text of the nomination itself. You don't need to come by if you don't support that, the regular contributors here will manage. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the close of the RfC which asks for further criteria refinement in addition to article quality. This has been done in the case of inclusion of animals, yet it seems that the need for additional language to address other good faith concerns hasn't as yet been fully addressed and resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn It has already been refined. Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, and the article doesn't meet that. And remember, if there are citation needed tags it means no one has put much effort into fact-checking the article, so the citations that are present likely haven't been verified. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Until CN tags are addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems a lot of people need reminding RD isn't based on notability, it's based on article quality. There are CN tags, so the article is not of the required quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I've sorted out most of the citation needed tags, the only two bits missing are two dates (both tagged) that are not particularly important, and that's fine according to the critera. Pinging everyone who was also opposed, in case you don't see the update:


 * Oppose article is inadequately referenced. Also, no need to tell people who have supported a sub-standard article about RD criteria, it's plainly written.  Assessing admin will discard such votes when article quality is clearly not suitable.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support much better. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now 2 orange tags, a few CN tags and a large part of Notable Clients not cited. Will support when fixed JW 1961 Talk 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support as issues were addressed throughout the day JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sca Take a look at those pages, and you'll be able to say why those got posted yourself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Always amusing to see how poor the de. and fr.wiki standards are for BLPs.  Something we should definitely not aspire to.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're here to please. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose until orange tagged section and cn tags are fixed. P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As tags are gone and article quality is improved. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No idea what all the arguing above is about, but the article is flawless now. Mlb96 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Grand National
Why am I tagged in this? L1amw90 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You've made significant contributions to the article so people think it reasonable to credit you with doing so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Race card table is largely empty. Nothing said of horses that failed to finish. Why did they fail to finish, what happened to them? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Riders come off at a jump, it's the only reason and so common and expected to be unremarkable. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the only reason a horse fails to finish, and you know it. We are covering an historic event, so the info should be there for those in the future to be able to read. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is the only reason. I mean, if they have to shoot a horse, I hope the rider's come off it by then. Which is the disqualifying factor. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - issues raised above have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - tables all completed and sourced JW 1961 Talk 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That blurb seems odd since I recognized as horse racing, seems odd to identify Blackmore as the "first woman to win" it. I know what was meant but had to do a double-take, and so perhaps add "jockey" in there somewhere? To add/affirm the second part of the blurb, her "first" is definitely a factor collaborated by multiple news sources, so it is appropriate to note. (ESPN, AP, The Guardian, etc.) --M asem (t) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Alt added, might look better JW 1961 Talk 20:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's much better to me, doesn't require an odd double take. --M asem (t) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't we usually include the name of the sport in the blurb? -- Calidum  20:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added alt2 to this effect, with other corrections. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - "It was the best of times, it was the Minella Times...". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Minella Times redirects to 2021 Grand National – shouldn't we make an article before sending to the Main Page? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the race of this year is the target, that is fine for ITN posting - we expect the event to be updated, and its a plus but not required for the winner(s) to be updated too. --M asem (t) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull There are four sections, three of which are uncited, of which two have no prose at all, and the section that has prose has three paragraphs and a blockquote uncited. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only one refimprove tag now. Did you look at 2019 Grand National? Same format and two sections there also no sources. But did it get posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually checked how 2019 Kentucky Derby looked like, and that's a lot better than this one, but I dunno if any of those two (KB and GN) were posted, nor should it matter. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think people look back at past year's events to guage the expected format and quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Pull. I have to agree with the above. The event is noteworthy enough, but the article is insufficient. The horse's article is also a redirect (to the race) and the jockey's article is a stub. -- Calidum  22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Errm, Masem above said that no horse article was needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't, but the event article needs to be of quality, and if that isn't there, the pull is appropriate. --M asem  (t) 22:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with pull Most prose content is unsourced save the lead (which doesn't even need to be). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources added to the 3 orange tagged sections of concern and the block quote JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't Pull. I would have pulled it myself if I'd seen this 30 minutes ago, but the sourcing is there now.  IMO this is good enough. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've made a Minella Times page so it can be linked to. Lankyant talk 00:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that this should be pulled as there is zero prose about the race itself. Do I need to remind everyone here of In_the_news (Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page)? For comparison, look at 2019 Kentucky Derby, which is the last horse racing event posted here. That article contains a three-paragraph description of the race, not just background on qualifying and media coverage. -- Calidum  00:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still pull. No actual prose of the race itself. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull Too quick to post. The race isn't even in the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The linked article is 2021 Grand National? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't pull good grief, this is just fine now and possibly even lived up to that mythical "it attracted edits because it was posted" paradigm. Time for the complainants to find another target for their chagrin.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who knows how to add racing colours of the placed horses still very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sandra J. Feuerstein

 * Comment I have added citations. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is satisfactory. Mlb96 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has limited information about the subject's judicial career; at this point, essentially a resume in prose format.  Spencer T• C 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient article quality IMHO. I think you would be hard pressed to find other District Court judges with more citations. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surely she ruled on some important decisions since 1987, I would think? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely past a stub, and not comprehensive enough. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nikki Grahame

 * Oppose IMDB isn't reliable. RIP. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed and replaced.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Sudden death of someone with a 17 year career in mainstream British television. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is comprehensive enough and fully cited. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not had much of a career beyond reality TV and Big Brother, not had anything within the last 10 years. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to Oppose on ITN. Secondly, you obviously has not read the article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the article had over 300.000 views yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because admit it, she was popular back in the days and that was the last series of BB I've watched. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great; not a valid reason to oppose. Read the notice at the bottom of the tan box. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ross Young (politician)

 * Support Not a great rapper or elder statesman, but a fine little article. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Late-middle-aged statesman, technically. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Fully referenced and a decent length. Honestly I'm impressed you could find this much info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sweet, decent and appropriately balanced biography. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Aten (city)

 * Provisionally oppose on quality, support on significance. Whoa, this is big news, but I'll withhold my support until after the article is improved to post-able quality. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment As the stories point out, they started excavation around the area in Sept 2020 and only seem to now have a better idea that this is Aten. That said, these discoveries are usually accompanied by journal articles that affirm things like carbon dating, etc. I'm not saying they're being fraudulent here, just that we'd usually want the scientific backing of peer-review to confirm this. --M asem (t) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Zahi Hawass announced the discovery on 8 April, which I think is sufficient until some journal article emerges. Brandmeistertalk  16:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Was considering nominating myself. Quality is sufficient by now + maps and coordinates. Brandmeistertalk  16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support very significant discovery. Quality improved since nomination. Looks good to me Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Can the blurb start with something like "Egyptian archaeologists announce the discovery ..."? Otherwise, a great ITN story. --Tone 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: DMX

 * Oppose article not updated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is currently full-protected, so I literally can't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, bloody ridiculous to have it fully protected. Shambles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I pinged the protecting admin, who dropped it back to semiprotection. Edit away. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb  notable death of an influential hip-hop figure, covered by reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC); Edited 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC).
 * , as the note in the template says, all recent deaths get posted, and comments should be about the article's quality, which as of now is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've removed all uncited claims from the article. Anyone can feel free to readd the information with a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when sourcing issues are fixed --LaserLegs (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD due to quality at present time, Oppose blurb, while probably one of the first well-known rappers, a read through the article (ignoring the sourcing) does not give me any good indication that he was a transformative figure to the scene. --M asem (t) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The likes of TIME and USA Today called him a “legendary rapper” who “changed hip-hop forever”. On top of his number-one albums breaking Billboard records. So a transformative career is irrevocably the case. Trillfendi (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, oppose blurb. A few citation needed tags present, and not notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Article looks good enough for RD. A cleanup is due for the 'Legal issues', but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * and : has now removed claims that were missing citations from the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, the article is acceptable for RD. Thanks for the ping. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Two major things that are still a problem: All of the Apperances need to be sourced (standard for any actor), and I'd beg the question if we need to detail every arrest/time in jail in "Legal Issues"; that he was frequently arrested and in jail is summarized in the lede, and if there were any major notable ones, those can be mentioned but it is highly inappropriate to post a rap sheet for a BLP/BRDP. --M asem (t) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD posting, oppose blurb - article is in OK shape now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. As someone who listened to DMX growing up, this news is tragic, but he has largely been out of the limelight for the past decade. I also don't think he rises to the level of say Dr. Dre or Eminem in terms of importance to the genre to make him noteworthy enough for a blurb. -- Calidum  17:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Calidum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem and Calidum. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb While his rap career is noteworthy, it's not transformative in the way the likes of Grandmaster Flash or Dr. Dre would be. rawmustard (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD per rawmustard. CoatCheck (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD not influential and transformative. just your daily rapper. on the other hand article is well-referenced and clean. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD when sourcing complete (Awards, Filmography need sourcing). Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Never heard of him but article looks good for an RD inclusion. Certainly not as well known as Prince Philip so definately not deserving of a blurb.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I oppose posting this a blurb, frankly I find comparing DMX and his career to Prince Philip screams of all sorts of horrific systemic biases. Wikipedia has been endeavoring to drive out these biases for a reason. WaltCip- (talk)  19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Five consecutive number 1 albums but I personally believe there's a huge gulf between that and, for example Eminem (biggest selling artist of 2000s and 2010s decades) or Jay-Z (most Grammy awards for a rapper, billionaire through extensive business interests) Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb because he is not significant enough within his own field. Would support for a person who can make a claim as one of the greatest rappers of all time (e.g. Eminem, JayZ, Tupac, etc.), which DMX falls short of. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if JayZ makes it to 99 we can blurb him just for being married to Beyonce.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 99? I can see problems with that. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Great rapper but not transformative.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Consider this a pointy !vote if you will, but... If Phillip is transformative in whatever field merits his blurb (marrying into the monarchy? Serving as a stunt double for the Cryptkeeper?), DMX is subjectively as household a name as Eminem or JayZ when it comes to hip-hop/rap and arguably transformative in that field. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recall this rapper chap setting up a worldwide youth programme or inventing a new sport.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I do not consider him a role model by any means (DMX). I do, however, consider him top of his field. I'm not sure what field Phillips is top of, nor what groundbreaking accomplishments he's made (although carriage driving seems like an entertaining variation of chuckwagon racing, so I'll have to check it out!). Again, I'm being pointy; there's a double standard between who is "notable, end of story," and who has to be considered "top of their field" before qualifying. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's pretty clear that the entire world is reporting on Philip and will be doing so for a few days (in the UK a few weeks I expect) while DMX is a consigned to a below-the-fold treatment. Hardly comparable really.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we using his real name, Earl Simmons, or his stage name, DMX? Osunpokeh (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , DMX is his WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only His contribution in global music industry is unknown, but the article is in really good shape to be posted in RD. 182.3.100.65 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready Consensus support for RD seems to exist.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Awards section and Filmography will need to be sourced first.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unmarked as ready, two sections pretty much without a single ref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also again add that the "Legal issues" section, equating to a rap sheet for all purposes, seems highly inappropriate. One can sum up he had frequently arrests and fines, but we should not iterate each one. --M asem (t) 21:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Nice article (ready for RD), but not a major music industry star to be put as a blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only - when the orange tags on awards and filmography are addressed JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Neutral on Blurb: Once the awards and filmography are taken care of, otherwise this looks good to go. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Simmons was noteworthy enough to mention in passing but doesn't rise to the level of a blurb given his relative lack of success compared to his contemporaries. Frevangelion (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD but I don't know if he's notable enough outside the US for a blurb. Connor Behan (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the guidelines say the deceased must be "notable enough outside the US for a blurb"? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not speaking for Connor, but as I read it, that was a kind way of saying "he might have been blurbworthy at his peak based on US popularity, but not when you think of all rappers globally". Of course, Connor might be saying "people outside the US don't listen to good rap" or something... Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The chart peaks in DMX discography show hotness in Canada and not bad at all elsewhere after 2001. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs referencing. When ready, Support RD only: I thought I knew music, but I have never heard of him. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but in a rapper hierarchy of who might possibly get a blurb one day (currently opining none), he's not even on the list. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD Had he died a decade earlier, may have justified a blurb. Has been out of limelight. Albertaont (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - At no point in his life was he anywhere near important enough for a blurb. Claims that he was a household name are ridiculous. Try mentioning DMX to elderly relatives - they won't even know there was a person known as DMX, let alone that he was a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure the elderly would have actively avoided any such kind of "that hip hop music", just as I'm sure many free-spirit young punk whippersnappers would have avoided any sign of fealty to those monarchists in England. Singling out one group or another to determine what's important to society overall is myopic. (I doubt most of those grannies would have even heard of Kanye.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Millions of young people don't care about Prince Philip's death, but they know who he was. (By the way, I'm opposed to him having a blurb as well, but realised long before he died that there'd be a strong consensus for a blurb.) Ask your octogenarian/nonagenarian (grand)mother/(grand)father/(great-)aunt/(great-)uncle what (s)he thinks about DMX & (s)he won't even know you're talking about a person, let alone a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, you said that before. And as I said before, it's a ludicrous argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant in refuting the claims that he was a household name. Most people haven't heard of him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's honestly straight up not true. DMX was certainly a household name when it came to American rap. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to American rap, something that most people have no interest in. Being a household name means being very well-known across all demographics. Someone merely being well-known in their field isn't sufficient for them to have a blurb - they need to be at the top of it. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The bar here is "transformative", not "top". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way(s) was DMX transformative? Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, doing a cursory glance through what Wikipedia has to say on rap music, it's about 90% one and the same as "American rap music", especially in the period DMX was most notable. (Sorry, UK drill.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not say "support RD" when you are merely opposing the blurb. Support RD means you think the quality is sufficient to post now. On that subject, I think we have enough oppose blurb votes - it will not happen. Lets just focus on getting the RD ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Have finished referencing the filmography and awards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 02:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RD "Legal issues" could use work, but no consensus that NPOV concerns there preclude posting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, only. While it may be true that "By late Friday afternoon there was one death dominating the most-read stories on the BBC website: that of the rapper DMX", even if mistakes have been made with other blurbs, no need to compound them, and the article is fine for RD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-RD posting support RD oppose blurb - Article is in good condition for RD. Tom Petty situation here - excellent music, premature death reports unfortunately bringing his actual death a bit more into the media spotlight, but just below the blurb line IMO. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahyuddin N. S.

 * Support Comprehensive, well-referenced, and very sad. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree the article is basically fine. Actually, better than many others. There were a couple of points I noticed that might need an Indonesian speaker to check against sources; perhaps waiting a few hours would allow more attention from the country. The page appears to have been moved and moved back fairly quickly, but I assume the nominator knows what's right. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have trimmed and re-written the article, looks good now and is well-cited. Vacant0 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoa, five !votes in six hours. Usually it was just like 2 !votes in 48 hours. Thanks, DMX and Prince Philip. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) La Soufrière eruption

 * Oppose for now; information in the target article is exactly identical to the blurb. Unless we have something more to tell people in directing them to the article in question, there's no reason for an ITN posting.  Please expand the article with sufficient information about the eruption, and then we can look at assessing those additions for their quality.  Right now there's basically nothing there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Bueno. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated / expanded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support' Looks good. Definitely worthy enough to be included ITN. Nice job! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of decent length, appears to give all the current information, and it both affects a lot of people and is "likely to continue for days and possibly weeks", so it's notable. There's also plenty of media attention. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough article and ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is "in the news"; is a significant event, and the article is good enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  HurricaneEdgar    23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've put the blurb in its correct place, at the top of the template. Although the Duke has died, the world moves on. There is no need to keep the story artificially at the top of the template. Let it cycle down in the normal order. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The old photo's still showing, bit out of whack? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the volcano image to WP:CMP. Once it is protected the image can be added to the template and the stories swapped back to their correct order. Apparently a photo story goes above a non-photo story if both posted on same day, irrespective of order or posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Image protected, stories and images swapped in order. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A new article, 2021 eruption of La Soufrière, was created about 10 hours ago. Should this be added to the blurb on MainPage now? --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be the bold article. --LukeSurlt c 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Updated bolded article.  Spencer T• C 17:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 * Oppose Blub per WP:BARBARABUSH --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For such a lengthy article, the referencing looks quite good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb RIP Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Beaten to the nom Support blurb - this will be worldwide news, and is inherently blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only the article is good enough for RD, albeit there are a couple of citations needed. He is not the head of state of a country, and so not blurb-worthy in my opinion. We wouldn't post to blurb the death of the head of country's spouse for any other country. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely very notable. Wretchskull (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb article is solidly B-class. Eurocentrism, arguably, but this'll be front-page news most places I wager. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, blurb Prince consort for 72 years is notable enough alone for blurb for me. That position is his, not just "spouse of head of state" (though that would be head of state of 54 nations, so, it wouldn't be "just" comparable anyway...), but he was also a very long-term figure in military and charity in his own right. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But if you really want "transformative in his field", he was a commander of the Royal Navy and literally helped invent a modern-day equestrian sport and the premier award for encouraging community spirit in young people internationally. In short, I'd expect the same treatment for any equivalent figure, though there are none (internationally impactful constitutional monarchy, military career, charitable career, dynastic longevity, etc). Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (a recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb this isn't just the spouse of the queen, he's a well-known public figure in his own right. Major news worldwide and will likely be until the funeral. OMG just the Meghan/Harry aspect lol... —valereee (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on quality. Unsure between RD/blurb, but leaning towards RD. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, notable, blurb is fine. May he rest in piece. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only While he is very notable for having a longest Duke of Edinburgh per argument, he is not popular as the Queen. I believe if the queen dies, the blurb will be more significance than this. Having it has posted as a blurb is unknown for most ears as they assume the queen is death. 36.77.94.210 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's a very convincing argument. I'm pretty sure most people will not assume the Queen is dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb after MANY edit conflicts - I think The Crown has helped more people become aware of Prince Philip's life and career, so he is internationally well known, and that's probably why the article is in pretty good shape, as people have probably used WP to fact check his early life and naval career. Shame he didn't quite make it to 100, but he had a good innings. (For the record, I am not a fan of his at all and this is probably the last word I will say on this) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Old man dies in same year as thousands of old men have died = meh. ——  Serial  11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've sent the image to WP:CMP should it be required. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb might not be the norm, but few heads of state are as visible and long-lived as the British royal family and given the coverage this will receive I believe it warrants a blurb. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted RD with no current consensus for a blurb. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I'm no fan of the royal family, but there will be few if any deaths this year that garner the amount of news copy that this one will - and this, in the end, is ITN. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - incredibly well-known in the western world, which is where most of our readers are. People would expect ITN to have something on his passing. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD but Oppose blurb, not a transformative figure, not a major head of state. Yes, this will be news the world over, just like many other deaths. For example the death of Hans Küng is being reported worldwide, but he doesn't warrant a blurb either. The death of Paul Ritter is reported worldwide, doesn't make it blurb-worthy. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - one of the major events of the year, its not often they interupt normal scheduling. SSSB (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, notable in his own right. Will make front pages everywhere. <span style="display:inline-block;padding:2px;transform:skewy(-16deg);color:#FFF;background:#FA0">49 <span style="display:inline-block;transform:skewy(16deg);color:#FA0">TL   11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Founded The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, transformed youth development not just in the UK but around the world too.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually don't strike my votes but there's reason to do it here given the pace at which the death article is being developed. After all, the encyclopedic content is what matters the most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. WaltCip- (talk)  12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb comparing Philip to Barbara Bush is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you're right, as FLOTUS she was marries to someone with actual authority, Phillip wasn't. Cheers TRM and sorry (truly) for the national loss. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Eight years of being being the wife of a president cf. 70 years as queen's consort?  Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb this is worldwide news. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb leading news item for most of the western world AntiVan (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support picture (ec) We have an excellent free picture to display (above). We don't need lots of words to go with this so an RD entry or short blurb to go with the picture and caption would work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very strongly. Not only The Queen's consort for so long, but also founder of the internationally recognised Duke of Edinburgh Award which was so inspirational for young people.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only -- don't think a blurb, here, is good practice, per several above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb As dumb as I may find royal family gawkery, few people will spend 75 years in the active conscience of millions.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh now exists. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Link added to blurb. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If there is anyone that should be an exception to the Barbara Bush precedent, it is Prince Philip. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Worldwide news. P-K3 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking ready for blurb It seems that consensus for blurb has been achieved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Must avoid systemic bias tempatation for white, male spouse exception. And some continent out there is still sleeping as we !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At this moment, almost the entire world is awake. It is 10 pm on the east coast of Australia, daytime in Europe, and early morning on America's east coast. The west coast coast of America is the only major english speaking area that is currently mostly asleep. Steelkamp (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because everyone gets up to !vote on Wikipedia right when they get up. See confirmation bias. —Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb --  tariq abjotu  12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It might be worth noting that the picture was taken in 1992.  He didn't look much like that recently... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that when I put it as the alt text. It seems strange to provide a photo from nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to provide a decent newer photo (maybe the one in the infobox?), and I don't know if it's strange to note "in 1992" directly in the caption. --  tariq abjotu  12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't standard already, it's best to show a deceased person in their prime, when possible. Picture is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is relevant: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That could be the only picture available, and as far as I know, we don't have a rule dictating the use of the most recent image of somebody. At least, I know we haven't tended to for other public figures. WaltCip- (talk)  12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The image that I added to the blurb was this one from 2015. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe we need a rule that anyone whose funeral will likely be televised live in its entirety on multiple continents automatically gets a blurb? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the British have majority territory (disputed) on Antarctica, I would expect all continents. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd set that rule to anyone with a death article but that's yet a two-edged sword. People will fight to work up such articles in order to make the nominations qualify but, on the other hand, we'll probably end up with an increased number of RfDs on notability grounds as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Pulled for now. As described to User:Tariqabjotu on his talk page: "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here. Consensus may emerge to post, but there is valid policy- and precedent-based opposition at this time." -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Replaced already! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And now User:Stephen has re-added with "clear consensus" when that is not the case. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't wheel war. WaltCip- (talk)  12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not a wheel war. It's a BRD with "clear consensus" not being the case. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD-NOT explicitly says BRD does not apply to edits using advanced permissions. The blurb had barely been up for seven minutes before you chose to revert. The proper method in this case is to discuss with Tariq prior to reverting. We're not in the cowboy admin days anymore. Don't shoot first and ask questions later. WaltCip- (talk)  12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be pulled on my end. Maybe your edit was reverted? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the other two comments. Please stop wheel warring. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was reverted with a poor rationale of "clear consensus" -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are only 3 "oppose blurbs" and 4 "support RD only"s. Consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of the blurb being posted. Now that it has been, can we please leave it there until it naturally drops off the template. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mjroots, I don't think this meets the spirit of WP:WHEEL, Stephen reverted Fuzheado because he saw consensus. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WHEEL: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action: Fuzheado reverted.  OK.  Stephen reverted.  Wheel. —Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both Fuzheado's second action, and Stephen's action, were technically WHEEL. It might be a good idea to stop there for the time being unless there's a clear consensus to change it, I think. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Let it end there, rather than everyone heading on over to WP:DRAMAFEST. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your action, as you've noticed, has already been reversed. There is plenty of participation, probably far more than most items added to ITN. And the suggestion that only one region is awake is particularly bizarre. Which region? Euraustrafricasia? --  tariq abjotu  12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sleeping refrain is common when a U.S,-related blurb is posted while Europe is sleeping and was at prominent at In_the_news/Candidates/September_2020.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was a sneaky one. This story is, however, global in its reach and we clearly have consensus, so there's no need to clutter up the nomination with further chatter about it.  Such concerns should be addressed elsewhere. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. Might reconsider in the future if the media coverage keeps up. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as a cultural/social figure. Widespread ambassadorial impact for 70 years and the UK still has links to many countries eg Australia, Canada etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as per Bumbubookworm. Also a leading force for environmental issues in his time. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Support blurb, still an active figure, and plenty of media attention. The article is also of excellent quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, I think the funeral will be more notable than their death. 108.41.156.233 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Current UK coronavirus regulations restrict funerals to 30 attendees. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Philip had asked for a military (not state) funeral and in current lockdown conditions, the numbers allowed to attend will be highly limited.  The news is his death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, BBC1 and BBC2 (the main UK TV channels) are broadcasting news coverage solely on his death. Other UK TV channels also. Extraordinary level of worldwide coverage. Difficult to find a more notable RD. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Relevant news story re importance: ""World leaders pay tribute to Prince Philip following death at 99". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Why can't ITN be as crowded as this in other discussion of blurbs? This way we're gonna get better consensus in less time. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine most of the responses here are prompted by people looking at their phones and seeing a notification: "Oh my, the Prince Consort is dead. Better hurry to my computer and post support on WP:ITN!" WaltCip- (talk)  12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's if they have a phone, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which ironically provides more evidence for a blurb, there can't be many deaths that set mobile phones all over the globe off. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb oppose per apparent precedent on spouses of leaders. When Winnie Madikizela-Mandela died who was far more a prominent figure in her own right, she only got a RD treatment. Same with Barbara Bush (mentioned above). Can someone point to other examples where a spouse whose notability was mainly derived from their partner got a blurb treatment? Regards So  Why  12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Need to add white, Euro male spouse ITNR.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Barbara Bush?! Eight years president wife for one country vs 72 years consort to the Queen of the Commonwealth?  Funny!  And no, his notability was completely independent, but not to worry! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles H. Coolidge

 * Support Referenced; covers in good depth what he is notable for (the Medal of Honor).  Spencer T• C 04:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable. Referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 09:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good, well cited Vacant0 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emmanuel Evans-Anfom

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks satisfactory for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) First results from the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab
*Wait to see what the results are. If there's nothing beyond the Standard Model, there's no reason to post. If there really is new physics here, the article(s) need(s) to be updated first, which I expect will take longer than most current events and require subject-matter expertise. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We can't be pro-active with posting, we need to wait for the actual results, update the relevant article with that, and discuss the quality of that article as well as whether the results are particularly impactful. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the fact that the results have not been posted means that we will have to wait until experimental results are published.--Osunpokeh (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until we actually get the results. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not clear if there is a peer-reviewed journal paper associated with this announcement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait too soon, as no results have been published. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not going to post anything scientific without a peer-reviewed paper to back it. --M asem (t) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Continued oppose based on the published paper. Yes, the paper's out, but reading through it (most going over my head), there's no such indication of anything suggested in the blurb (namely the fifth force of nature), but only a better confirmation of the results to prior tests at BNL. Reading ArsTech take on it, the results nearly eliminate that the BNL results 20 years were statistical anomalies, but it doesn't bring the field closer to proving that there's a fifth state to the Standard Model ; more work is needed for that. --M asem (t) 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not only has the seminar not happened yet, but also the topic seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I think I'd prefer something obscure and arcane get posted to ITN instead of just continuing to post mass casualty events and ITN/R and nothing else. Mlb96 (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How did you feel about the boat race? – Sca (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is not an issue that demands immediate attention to a preprint. Peer review comes first. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having now seen the results, they find almost the same thing as the 2006 measurement. The precision has improved slightly, but it's still less than the five-sigma threshold required to claim a discovery in particle physics. I still can't see any sign of a peer-reviewed paper either. Lots of theorists will find this interesting, but for the general public it's incremental stuff. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: there's now a paper in PRL, which is good to see. However another paper in Nature was published on the same day, which claims the measured value is consistent with the Standard Model after all. That diminishes the excitement level even further. 'Physicists measure the same value as they did in 2006, and argue whether it is or isn't consistent with standard theory' isn't significant enough for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't see the contents of the Nature paper but comparing its contributors to that on the PRL one, it seems to be by a different team altogether and not related to the Fermi data (Nature is by French and German researchers, none that are on the PRL paper?) --M asem (t) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's by an independent team presenting new theoretical calculations of the Standard Model value. The simultaneous publication is surely not a coincidence. I have no idea which theoretical value is superior, but it does demonstrate that the experiment is not necessarily discrepant with the Standard Model. Or another way of looking at it: the anomaly may have been a problem with the calculation methods, not due to any new physics. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reopened I'm reopening this not because I think it should be posted (I am ambivalent for now), but because many of the opposes claim no peer reviewed paper, and such a paper has been published: . Banedon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That paper came out after this item was nominated, at which time people voted for other reasons. (Notice the "Wait" votes becoming "Opposes".) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on principle but the article hasn't been updated yet. As the paper was only published today, I think it's fair to give editors time to update the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until result is 5-sigma confirmed. -- KTC (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exciting for particle physicists as it suggests a crises in the theory so as to lead to advances in human understanding, but still not yet at the confirmed crises. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify, there have been three published peer-reviewed papers related to the result. Very roughly, the theoretical overview in PRL, the experimental details in PRA, and the remarkably sophisticated magnetic calibration in PRD.  Calculating the higher-order effects is mostly a difficult black art.   The Fermilab papers took past theoretical calculations (most recently 2020) as their go-to comparison.  The new Nature calculations (using an intense amount of supercomputing) were not available.  As for the Fermilab results, these are based on less than 10% of their data, so updates will doubtless be soon enough.  But it's going to be unclear for quite some time whether a 5-sigma claim has any meaning!  An overview of all this can be found at quantamagazine.com. 73.81.122.254 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose an obscure topic with an insufficient update.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Mrs. Sri Lanka controversy

 * Oppose No evidence of major significance, and the page is very obviously written from an advocacy standpoint. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unlikely to see this in the top 10000 stories of the year. Better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 06:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose When the balance issues are resolved, I recommend posting to DYK instead. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and recommend close by WP:SNOW. Significance of event is minimal, while article is lacking in both quality and NPOV (only one major edit, and that was by nominator). --Osunpokeh (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the significance to be posted.  This is not headline news around the world. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tommy Raudonikis

 * Oppose on quality. Too many unsourced info.  I Need Support  😷 04:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cleanup needed as the layout could be better, and too much info is unsourced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grischa Huber

 * Support: Sufficient text and sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)*'
 * Support Adequate information and well sourced.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Küng

 * Comment: Thank you for the groundwork, Grimes2 and Bmclaughlin9. I added the last missing sources. Just for the one thing "citation required", I found only what could be mirrors, - commented out for now. If someone can verify they are not mirrors, please restore. Need sleep. Will dream of more lead, - would be nice to wake up to it done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the Dutch say, Slap lekker.... – Sca (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive article, and is well referenced. The layout could be a bit better, but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Widely known in religious/theological circles. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alcee Hastings

 * Support decent article, obviously qualifies. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to mention that every person who has a Wikipedia article 'qualifies'. Discussion for RD comes entirely down to article quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Citations are needed in some places, the "Elections" section oddly only includes specific mentions of his first US House election (1992) and then 2016 and 2018, despite running every two years and 2018 being unopposed, no mention of his 2020 primary challenge, some possible POV issue around the Lexus lease (if he didn't break any rules, why is it mentioned?) and his ten year service as a judge is not covered beyond his impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What Muboshgu said. Some citations missing and the content selection in "U.S. House of Representatives" is strange.  Wait, if it's still problematic in 8 hours and the current heavy editing slows down I'll try to fix it. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Citations needed and the article has balance issues. There's a lot of detail about his impeachment, finance problems, etc,(the negative stuff), which all seems fair and well-phrased, but nothing about what he actually did in his career at that time (the positive and neutral side of things). Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's basically a hit piece at the moment, as 90% of it is about the negative 10% of his career, and only 10% is about the other 90%. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of the few people removed from office by an impeachment trial, I would expect an article about him to focus on that. What more positive aspects are missing? 331dot (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Australia-New Zealand travel bubble

 * Con: wait for the opening and for an article. --Tone 08:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the linked article barely mentions it, and is orange-tagged. If it's really a notable event, then surely it's worthy of its own article? Also, this already half exists (as travellers from NZ can enter most Australian states without quarantine according to BBC World News. So is it really that groundbreaking that it's been implemented the other way? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a "good news story" but not really ground-breaking nor super-notable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I guess I'm not seeing how the lifting of any COVID restriction merits posting. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the lack of a specific article & lack of importance. There are many examples of restrictions being lifted/reduced this year which are of similar or greater relevance. Jim Michael (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Veronica Dunne (soprano)

 * Comment: Working on it. We still need refs for her students, and the world premieres, and we have little about opera. Help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything has a ref now. More roles would be great, but not needed. Irish soprano and voice teacher of generations of singers, teaching until age 87, "a national treasure". Sold her pony to study in Italy, - great story ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Nice article and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support decent little article well sourced JW 1961 Talk 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Ritter (actor)

 * Weak oppose – majority of filmography not referenced by British Film Institute general ref at the top. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help, I've got a distraction called "work"...! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even IMDb doesn't have a date of birth, let alone any place. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's gone already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And we don't even know date or place of death for certain. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is this? The Guardian says he died yesterday at home.  I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So where was his home? As far as I know the only source for his death is the statement by his agent who said he died "last night". I'm suggesting that editors may be able to uncover more information about the places and dates of birth and death. That might look better when linked from the Main page? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our obligation at ITNC is to ensure the death is being reported in reliable sources. The specific date or place is of interest generally, but not for our purposes.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The article seems to be largely at the mercy of unregistered IP editors at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre series of comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand them. Article quality matters. A bio missing basic biographical info is lacking. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I didn't understand them. The details we have are in the article.  What is bizarre is an apparent sudden requirement for information that may simply not be actually be available anywhere reliable which has never been the case in the past.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How soon could a fair use image be used? Although, yes, I realise the article doesn't need one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally for someone who has been in the public eye for such a long time, in theatre etc, it is not unreasonable to expect a free image to be out there somewhere. We normally expect to wait between three to six months to conduct such a search.  This and other such minuatiae probably belong on the article talk page by now as this is wandering way beyond what is required at ITN and is simply unnecessarily bloating this nomination.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The thread I opened about an image awaits your valued input. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already added my opinion here, thanks for all the off-topic bloating here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The "Article quality" part of ITN suggests "not omitting any major items", has for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure and if no-one knows his date/place of birth, we have to go without that. It won't preclude it from being posted.  This is all well-trodden ground and simply wasting energy and further bloating this debate which is not related to this nomination.  Take your concerns to the article talk page if you really care. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. You followed me there, called it a waste of time and repeatedly collapsed the conversation. Just for the record. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "concerns" were failed attempts at humour with your pal Martin. I collapsed the elements which included goading me, and left whatever remained. Cheers now, you can get back to your witticisms.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You told me I don't understand missing birth dates, and should stick to jokes. Then you followed me, called them hilarious and still didn't get it. Calling you lucky is a compliment, to be clear, not an invitation to fight. Neither is this. Peace! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I told you that you don't understand, full stop. I didn't "follow" you anywhere, your pal "invited" me to the talkpage where I discovered the Chuckle Brothers making jokes at my expense.  Stick to trying to be funny.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Missing some vitals, regardless of why. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like what? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like what has since been added, changing to Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliantly informative. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you must know, Ghmyrtle saved your nom at 14:20. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DATE OF BIRTH. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Best just stick to the jokes.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient there for RD, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A little short but good enough.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even with the strong possibility of circular sourcing? Or perhaps that "doesn't matter." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are people launching all of these half-baked attacks on this nomination? Is this guy known for beating orphans or something? If you see any circular sourcing, call it out. The sourcing I see is to highly reputable sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just surprised that Playbill has information that the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent don't. I'm not sure why sounding a note of caution counts as a "half-baked attack". Still researching the orphans. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We've posted child killers before, Playbill knows play stuff, I'm 80% baked. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty; that explains some of it. Look, trusting reliable sources is what we do here. If you think a source is not reliable, that's fine; there's a whole project to discuss that. But we don't just ignore reporting from a 140 year old institution because "I dunno, maybe they got their info from Wikipedia?"   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a total waste of energy and time. Such hilarity.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The threads opened on the article Talk page await your valued input. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're starting to repeat yourself now. More bloat?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I thought you might be interested in improving the article. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, try not to do it a third time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – seem to be some sourcing issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Whatever issues may have originally existed, referencing now appears to more than meet our customary standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – The bulk of this 320-word article is a filmography table. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they're all pretty good words, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - within standard for inclusion now. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. No major issues that I can see. It's short at 1900 bytes prose, and A few odd constructs such as "he was married to his wife Polly" but nothing to prevent it going to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "Early Life" section is an eyesore with only a single, 7-word-long sentence. I'd recommend deleting the entire section if that's the only thing there is to say about his early life, especially considering that that information is already in the infobox. As an aside, some of you need to chill out. The inclusion of an article on Wikipedia's front page is really not worth getting this worked up over. Mlb96 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you Mlb96. But was that the only reason for your oppose? I think any article should to be factually correct and should have good sourcing, whether it gets linked from the Main page or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you expect. You can't just make up facts that aren't available anywhere.  It's been merged (which you could have done since you found it so abhorrent).  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Now cut this shit out and redirect your energies somewhere constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Some of us have been.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure as to whom or to what your rather curt description was aimed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we eliminate the Supporters (since Posters generally favour them), then discount the Weak and Neutral (for lack of apparent surplus energies), that just leaves one potential Opposer...or does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship

 * Support Updated and sourced with prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to go. Only issue is redlinks for some players. TheMrP (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red links in article are not an issue (see WP:REDLINK)—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Concern - Why is just the men's championship mentioned, when the women's championship article is equally well-sourced? This makes little sense, especially considering the men's and women's boat race listed just below. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The women's tournament is not ITNR. You are welcome to nominate the women's tournament using the regular ITNC process. Adding it to ITNR has been discussed in the past and not gained consensus. They are separate events in separate locations, unlike the boat race.  In addition, rightly or wrongly it does not get the attention of the men's tournament.  Note that the WNBA final also is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Women's championship got a ton of coverage incl. Stanford's first title in 29 years. It was certainly in the news. It was widely covered by ESPN, USAToday, etc. AvatarQX (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting the women's result. Same time frame, same effective league, so this is nothing like comparing the NBA to the WNBA. While it is clear the mens play get far more coverage, we should not hide the women's result if it happened nearly at the same time. --M asem (t) 23:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've created a nomination for the women's tournament. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting proposal to add women's tournament to blurb - As well-sourced as the men's article. Different venue has no bearing on notability. Women's tournament has plenty of coverage and was discussed more than ever this year, including player's claims of gender discrimination in training facilities, food, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be for you to make a separate regular(not ITNR) nomination for that event. "Different venue" is simply the reason we don't post both as ITNR, they are separate events. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what kind of food is strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Sigh. Another year and it currently appears that once again many of those editors that come out of the woodwork every January to strongly oppose the posting of the NCAA College Football Championship solely on the claim that "amateur college sports do not belong on ITN" (despite the cultural significance and viewership) are silent in April when similar college events like this and The Boat Race are posted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've ever posted NCAA Division I Football Championship Game... Due to COVID, the 2021 edition will be later this year. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike NCAA College Championship, this one managed to get into ITNR. So, as one of the opposers, I dropped the stick in this case. Brandmeistertalk  18:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At least with the basketball tourney, there's actually a championship structure and more than a handful of games to decide the winner, and thus more representative of an actual "winner", compared to the BCS structure and its favoritism. --M asem (t) 23:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ... there's actually a championship structure ...: Unlike The Boat Race?—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race is the only top level organized rowing event short of the Olympics. --M asem (t) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * World Rowing Championships: The World Rowing Championships is an international rowing regatta organized by FISA (the International Rowing Federation). It is a week-long event held at the end of the northern hemisphere summer and in non-Olympic years is the highlight of the international rowing calendar. Is that even true? Boat Race > World Rowing Championships? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But given the sourcing I'm seeing there, does that even get covered by non-specialist sources (eg "in the news"?) Boat Race at least does. --M asem (t) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WTAF. This gets posted and the same old people still making the same old fuss about the Boat Race?  Jesus, change the record.  And take the debate about a completely unrelated topic somewhere relevant, 'cos this ain't the place.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NCAA Division I Football Championship: Not to be confused with the College Football Playoff National Championship (2020 was posted), the top level of college football.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not much point in making noise about it when it's ITNR. WaltCip- (talk)  18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New president and PM of Vietnam

 * Comment. So in looking at the List of current heads of state and government the real power in Vietnam is with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam.  Even if we want to stick with the de jure head of state and head of government, the PM is appointed by the President, so we should only mention the president(if we mention this at all). 331dot (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support head of state changes are ITN/R, HoG are in all but name This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Phạm Minh Chính's article is an unmitigated disaster. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nguyễn Xuân Phúc is too, though a bit less obvious. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on quality of both BLPs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - both orange-tagged. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support head of state and government changes are ITN/R.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits is not required for ITNR nominations, this discussion is only to judge article quality and a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on article quality, and the fact that neither have any real power in the Government. (although if that doesn't matter for ITNR purposes, then strike that. The article quality is still way too poor.) -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I really wish people would fix articles before nominating them (this is a general criticism rather than being aimed at this editor in particular). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Head of state changes is definetly notable Nyanardsan (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Any comment on the quality of either article? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not at issue for ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agreed with the important of news; the quality of article will be better in some days. Newone (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are significant leadership changes, but both BLPs have poor quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Robert Mundell

 * Support blurb Mundell was definitely one of the greatest and most influential economists of his generation. He made major contributions to monetary economics for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics and played an instrumental role in the introduction of the euro for which he was dubbed "Father of the Euro".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only quite famous, but doesn't quite rise to blurb level. We probably have someone die about every week or two in the world that reaches this level of impact. 1779Days (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only when it's properly sourced. While he's very famous, he's not famous enough for a blurb. An excellent quality article would make up for that somewhat in my view, but that's not the case. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as needs a lot more sourcing. Would support RD if sourcing issues get fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - his article shows he was in the top tier of his field & that he has a great deal of historical & international notability. A lack of fame is irrelevant - the large majority of people in the top tier of academic fields never achieve that. Jim Michael (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, when it is fixed support RD only; their death was not unusual or unexpected, and requires no further explanation than that they died. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD until referencing issues are fixed.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Battle of Palma

 * Support if the article makes clear that the battle has ended. Its conclusion is important enough to post & the article is well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - didn't we just post this? Is it a wrap, or is this city going to change hands every two weeks for the foreseeable future? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad. I should have clarified; if the city is decisively seen as taken back by Mozambique, then we should keep it. If it does change hands over and over and over, however, then I will proceed to end this proposal. :) Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but would you say it is or isn't clear that the battle has ended? Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if you consider Sky News a reliable source. – Sca (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support if it's conclusive per LaserLegs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mehli Irani

 * Support - seems sufficiently sourced to me. And long enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Could use an "early life" section but as is, I think its good enough. Dan the Animator 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Marshall Sahlins

 * Comment For the purposes of ITN, I do not think a tweet will suffice for verification that a person has died. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Recent Death has to be "in the news" in the sense that at least one reliable source has reported it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest close, with the option to reopen if a reliable source is added. RD is understandably a very sensitive space. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve found the following source from the University of Chicago, where Sahlins taught., I’ve replaced the Tweet in the nomination with this link.  Wishva  &#124; Talk 06:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Currently no reference in prose to his death. Article still uses the tweet as a citation, which is no bueno. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game

 * Support as updater - media coverage is certainly there and article is up to standard quality-wise. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regretful support we need to be egalitarian. But we're starting to plumb the depths.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really sure the NCAA tournament, i.e. the most prominent in American college sports, is really "plumbing the depths." The women's game was watched by a peak of about 6 million people. The 2020 NBA finals (Lakers v. Heat) peaked at 8.29 million. Nobody called that "plumbing the depths." AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support combining with men's blurb per Alt blurb. In the past, the women's tournament winner has been combined with the men's winner (already posted above) e.g. 2015 (discussion, post) and 2017 (discussion, post). WP:ITNSPORTS says Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) ...—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue has been in part that the men's and women's events are two separate tournaments, held in different locations. No issue with posting, just saying. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a technicality that should just be WP:IARed. AFAICS, the years recently when the women's wasn't posted was because it wasn't nominated, not because it was explicitly opposed. FWIW, the recent women's final got 4M TV viewers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support media coverage was extensive and it seems sensible to just include both the mens' and womens' NCAA results in one blurb. AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape, and the audience figures indicate this wasn't just some "routine game". Could we combine both basketball hooks though, because 2 basketball hooks in 4 ITN items seems like an overkill? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Even the men's tournament is kind of borderline, from the experiences from previous years, when there were contentious discussions. But it is ITNR, so I won't argue about it. Women's tournament is not ITNR. Since we don't post the WNBA results, arguably the highest level of sport in the US, we should not post the college-level event. (clearly, the NBA title is ITNR as well) --Tone 12:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support combining with men's blurb. Received extensive media coverage (more than the WNBA, so that's not a great comparison). Article is in good shape. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Europeans may find this mind-bending, but the women's NCAA tournament is more popular than the WNBA. A female basketball player would get the most attention of her career playing in March rather than October in the WNBA Finals. Might as well codify this in ITNR if this will be posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Game 3 clincher in 2020 WNBA Finals had 570,000 TV viewers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do love people insisting that we only post the "highest level of sport/professional competition" when that's not even in the rules. It's just made up bullshit to oppose items such as this one. Either this is in the news or not.... you know like... college football lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, topic has been covered appropriately by news sources. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any and all amateur university sport on ITN. I know the men's version is on ITNR, as is the Oxbridge rowing, so there isn't anything I can do about those. However I will continue to oppose adding any further items of this kind. Stick to the highest levels of professional competition. Tone also makes good points above. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - combined with men's tourney per Alt 1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cheryl Gillan

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 11:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election

 * Oppose Don't agree with the assessment that the "article is good". There is no prose about the results, and the majority of the article at present is large tables and graphs.  Spencer T• C 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article has 1779 characters of prose, this isn't enough to fully summarise the election. The lead is also way too short, as it doesn't even mention which party got most votes and the impact i.e. if Government/coalition was formed. For reference, 2021 Liechtenstein general election had around 4k characters of prose, and that's for a country with 0.1% of the population of Bulgaria. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, doesn't look like 100% of the votes have been counted, so too soon for this to be on ITN. The article also doesn't mention anywhere in prose that the incumbent Prime Minister. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now The voting will be probably concluded by the next morning, and the article needs to be expanded and fixed. Vacant0 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Table farm with very little in the way of prose. Needs much expansion before it is ready for prime time. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New president of Kosovo

 * Comment Kosovo may not be fully recognized but it is on List of sovereign states which should qualify it for ITN/R. P-K3 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Vjosa Osmani needs a lot more sources before it's acceptable to be on the front page. Entire Biography section is unsourced, plus multiple other paragraphs. If the article quality is fixed, I would support- as Kosovo is a sovereign state. As an aside, I also bolded the article in the blurb nomination. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the unsourced content. Take a look now. Dan the Animator 14:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks just about long enough, and is now well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I removed some extra words, but a large chunk of sourced professorship stuff I couldn't cut and paste to Academic career, need help (see 14:42 revision for chunk). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All better now. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * done. i'm trying to figure out if she still holds the positions, though.  she appears to be an assistant  (which is distinct from an assistant professor) at the first mentioned university according to this, but i can't find her listed at the second.  dying (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [corrected. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)]


 * Weak support bolded article is short, but sufficient. Some expansion would be nice.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are couple more sentences that are missing references, if that gets fixed then it will be fine. Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All cited now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not ready. Kosovo is not a country. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the inclusion criteria. It's BS but Kosovo passes. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * admittedly, i have no issues with the list of sovereign nations being generously inclusive, as i worry that being fairly more exclusive could potentially raise pov issues. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." As such, this nomination should not be labeled ITN/R. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do it yourself, but I've done it for you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * List of Sovereign states includes Kosovo because of the rather generous criteria so ITNR is appropriate. I was just wrong before. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * we had exactly the same dispute a few months ago re Northern Cyprus. And in the end that was not posted, so we effectively have a precedent that the countries in the "disputed" section of List of sovereign states aren't part of the ITN/R list. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  Only the lead mentions she became president on 4 April. No details in body on how she transitioned from earlier title of acting president, or what happened between the parliament election in February and now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As of 07:38, 6 April 2021, the article has explained the election of her as President. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose based on updates.—Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hah, yeah, i noticed that too, but only hours after the first time i looked at the page.
 * regarding your first point (osmani's transition), it's now partially resolved. also, osmani apparently voluntarily resigned from the position of acting president in accordance with article 90 of the constitution, but i haven't figured out why.
 * regarding your second point (what happened in two months), i'd like to know too, but am not sure it would be appropriate for this article unless it involved her, and also wouldn't consider its inclusion necessary for posting to itn unless it directly related to what is mentioned in the blurb, i.e., her becoming president.
 * in any case, her transition president is now covered, so i feel that the article has been properly updated with respect to the blurb, even though her transition  acting president, which happened about two weeks before, isn't covered yet.  there's more that could be added about the election itself, but i think that what's there currently meets the minimum requirements for updates.  dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * question: should "5th" in the blurb be spelled out as "fifth", or is it better as is? mos:ordinal refers to mos:numeral regarding "guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth" and mos:numeral states that, in general, "[i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", while i couldn't find any applicable exception for this case, though it's entirely possible i missed something.  however, in the article on james monroe, he is referred to as both "the fifth president of the United States" and "the 5th president of the United States", and i can't figure out if there were any reasons for using one format or the other.  (the "5th" used in the infobox i can attribute to the infobox exception in mos:numnotes, and the "5th"s used in the references are there because they are in the titles of the references.)  in any case, i think the word "president" should be uncapitalized in the blurb due to mos:jobtitles.  dying (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the election of a ceremonial office-holder by the national assembly (not by the people in an open election) in a partially recognised and non-UN member state merits inclusion. We didn't post the election of the presidents of Albania, Greece, South Africa and Switzerland who were elected in a similar way so I don't see a strong argument why this should be an exception given that it would set an undesirable precedent that some people are waiting for to use in the future. In general, there's no point to post the election of a head of state when there's no stand-alone article documenting the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We post changes of prime minister in many countries where there is no election at all (i.e. Theresa May, Boris Johnson). There is also a stand-alone article on the election.Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We usually don't post presidential changes in UN member states elected in this way. Do you have a specific reason why this partially recognised and non-UN member state should be an exception (and please make a stronger argument than comparing this ceremonial office to the prime minister of the UK)? This sets an unwanted precedent for other disputed territories (Disclaimer: I have friends from Kosovo and don't have anything against the country's independence but the fact is that it's still not a UN member state and that very fact may encourage snow-balling with nominations about states in similar situation or even regional politics in some large countries.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Presidency in Kosovo is not a ceremonial position (see Article 84 of the Kosovan constitution), and they are also the head of state. They are always elected indirectly by the Assembly, however it is always just after a direct election for the Assembly (this year's was 14 February), so the Assembly elections are effectively electing them.  Also, check the ITN inclusion criteria. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two discussions at WT:ITN to consider the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support References issues have been solved. I would have suggested to say in the blurb if she was the first female president, but I see this is not the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Should we use the 2021 Kosovan presidential election article instead? Joofjoof (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, true. Changed. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not if you didn't add it to the blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb, although I haven't bolded the election article as no-one has been !voting on it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, don't bold it. It's OK, but shouldn't be the target. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Marked ready. Her article is good enough and there is no substantive opposition. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is comprehensive enough and is well-referenced, and it qualifies. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is fine, ITNR. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Pull. Per precedent of Northern Cyprus, we established that only states in the main part of List of sovereign states are WP:ITN/R. The line which counts here at ITN/R is: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". I see no discussion above of the merits of posting this, and given that this is effectively a mostly ceremonial role, I don't think it should be posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems an odd reason to pull. The ITN/R banner was removed three days ago, and no-one withdrew their support. There was still consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - I admittedly haven't looked into the Northern Cyprus discussion, but I think it's clear from the "Further Information" section on List of sovereign states: Kosovo is recognized by 113 UN Member states, while N. Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey. Kosovo also has de facto control over its claimed territory, which is a strong indicator of sovereignty IMO. I don't have an opinion on inclusion/pulling based on the ceremonial nature of the role, but I think Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be included. AviationFreak💬 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not an odd reason to pull at all. Most of the !votes are based on the assertion that it's ITN/R, which the Cyprus precedent suggests it isn't. Very few of the !votes actually addressed the question of significance at all. And I'm sorry, AviationFreak but the whole point of using the "List of sovereign states" article is to give us an objective standard of what counts for ITN/R and what doesn't. Note that if this was the PM of Kosovo, I'd support it in a heartbeat, as someone of true significance within a territory that is under that person's control (as indeed Northern Cyrprus is). But the largely ceremonial post of presdident just isn't that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have an opinion on whether to include or pull based on the importance/ceremoniality of the role - My main opinion is that Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be covered at ITN. I think we agree here, seeing as you would support posting a change in PM of Kosovo. Even if there is currently consensus against posting ITN blurbs relating to, say, Northern Cyprus, that doesn't rule out posting blurbs about other disputed states (in my interpretation, this is what is meant by the phrase "Disputed states and dependent territories should be ... judged on their own merits"). Hope that clears things up! AviationFreak💬 22:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sure, yes I understand your point. I did say after the Northern Cyprus debate that we should clarify the rules once and for all on this, because it seems to cause procedural arguments every time it comes up. Personally I think Northern Cyprus, and indeed Kosovo, Taiwan and other places, should be on the list of things we always post, because however much they're disputed they do control real territory with a real population, and act to all intents and purposes like a nation state. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Seroja

 * Support a blurb for significant impact once the issues are fixed, oppose ongoing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Fuck it... I'm done putting up with all the bull shit arguments to oppose any significant weather event that happens. We don't need to participate in ITN period if you guys don't want us here. Go ahead and keep posting all the sports stories and awards while ignoring items that are definitely "in the news". We have better things to do then keep arguing with brick wall. Let the more sensible editors comdemn you all when the next Hurricane Katrina occurs and it doesn't get posted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like the wall of opposition for the first nomination and lesser but present opposition to the second nomination for what was literally a record breaking Atlantic hurricane season? there was an inconclusive discussion about it. Relax, this will get posted, almost all death toll stories get posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it wont get posted. The regime will oppose it in mass and close it before anyone else gets to respond. Nobody wants to cooperate and establish any kind of criteria for weather events. I think it's time the weather projects just leave ITN and focus on more important things. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah the "snow close" mentality has got to stop, but you'll see, this will get posted. If not, you could try DYK. These articles are always new, DYK has a high rate of churn, and there is always some bit of trivia to use for a hook. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See, it was posted like I knew it would be. Relax. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, calm down. The internet is not serious business. Mlb96 (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. He needs to calm down, lest we're going to see what happened on February this year.  Mario Jump  83!  14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If this isn't working, then WPTC boycott is the best choice unfortunately. I'll still be involved in the ITN however as the part of WPCE (WikiProject Current events), especially about the events involving my country.  Mario Jump  83!  04:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb or ongoing. Storm during storm season does storm things, not uncommon for the Timor sea. Relatively low death toll for a developing country with poor infrastructure. This is no different from an Atlantic hurricane killing 40 in Central America with landslides and flooding. It's sad, it happens. Article isn't terrible by disaster standards. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While I acknowledge that my country really has a bad infrastructure, it's important to note that Indonesia is a country of islands, not a single landmass, and Java is very dense for an island, contributing to 56.1 percent of Indonesian population. And the floods affected Timor Leste which is far smaller country than us and was formerly colonized by us, contributing to sorry state of our situation.  Mario Jump  83!  04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing and blurb for now on quality grounds. When the article is fixed up (grammar issues, etc) then I will be happy to support a blurb. CodingCyclone!  🌀 📘 03:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the above.  HurricaneEdgar    03:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb only. This disaster killing at least 50+ in two countries. --Tensa Februari (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Tropical cyclones in Indonesia that causes major damages like this are rare meteorologically, and as an Indonesian, this is worthy of a mention. But, this isn't a plane crash, which garners way more attention from the Indonesian media than the severe weather events.  Mario Jump  83!  04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In regards to this being an ongoing event, oppose. I don't think Seroja will do much outside Indonesia or Timor Leste.  Mario Jump  83!  04:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb We don't typically post storms in ongoing, so I'd support a blurb instead. Regarding a blurb, the article quality is much better than the usual disaster article, being well-cited and well fleshed-out, with only minor grammar issues here and there; and on significance this is the deadliest cyclone to hit the Australian region since Cyclone Guba 14 years ago, and the deadliest to hit Indonesia and East Timor since Cyclone Inigo 18 years ago.  Therefore I see no reason not to support a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The cleanup tag (which I agree with) needs to be sorted out. Otherwise, it's notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality cleanup tag needs to be resolved. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Significant death toll. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once the maintenance tag is addressed. Honestly, the snarky outburst at the top of this nomination is really quite unnecessary.  If you want to play, play, but don't go off into swear mode just in case things don't go your way.  That's part of why most of the strange behaviour of that Wikiproject is summarily ignored these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – The storm has become a major weather disaster for Indonesia and East Timor, and the crisis is far from over. The death toll as it is is already significant and will likely continue to increase in the days to come. Also, the article quality has dramatically improved since the nomination was opened up, and the article is no longer missing any key information. Oh, and anyone who thinks that this event is not notable enough for ITN either clearly doesn't understand what WP:NOTABILITY constitutes or has a rather messed up view of what does and doesn't belong on ITN. This storm is all over the news, at least for that part of the world. This is definitely more than notable enough for ITN.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the expand section tag should not prevent a posting on the MP. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For Info - WT:WPTC. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this is clearly notable. I would also strongly suggest to the first poster that forcibly ejecting your toys and attacking other editors when anyone opposes in what is meant to be a discussion is indeed not conducive to participating in a collaborative environment. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when you have over half a year of a specific group of editors opposing (and closing in most cases) every nomination no matter how severe the storm was. Killed over 100? Too bad, it wasn't enough. Crippled a whole state's powergrid and water supply? That's just a normal snowstorm. I'm sorry if I got upset, but this is getting ridiculous when this group comes out and does the same thing every nomination because they WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We tried to discuss with them for criteria, but that discussion was not fruitful in the least. I see no need for myself or my project to participate any further in this toxic environment. We might as well just stop nominating anything here if people don't want us to be here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What "specific group" are you referring to? P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What specific group opposing and closing? I've begun to suspect you are just ranting emotionally at this point.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The disagreements here between regular editors on storms are no different from any other subject at ITN/C. Go back and have a look at the history of the discussions on US mass shootings, or the deaths of very-well-known-but-not-quite-legendary celebrities. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially Brodie Lee! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, more toys. The weather fans need to stop this faux indignation (glad to see no repeat of the co-ordinated oppose like we did for the America's Cup nomination though) and suggest that if you and your project don't "like" the way ITNC operates, you do something positive about it rather than these fruitless outbursts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Hurricane Noah, I understand your pain. I've had similar experiences with you in this ITN/C, seeing bias towards certain countries, double standards, and else. My method is just to rant on your own talkpage and quit ENWIKI for a while. If you are addicted to Wikipedia and multilingual, try contributing to other Wikipedia. After a while or so, return back here! Please, whatever you do, don't try to blame anybody on "toxic, bias, etc" unless you have sufficient evidence to back it up. And try to rant somewhere else other than in publicly visible place. Thank you... :) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I named my tragic lonely ode to Brodie Lee "JON FREAKIN' HUBER" (for dramatic effect). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's kind of nice that you have a lot of watchers in your talkpage, so your ode has literally a lot of views. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I more appreciate having 123 watchers than a lot, given my namesake's incredible 1-2-3 over The Iron Sheik on 1/23 of '84. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At ITN we try not to post weather storms or other natural disasters like earthquakes that simply involve disruption of everyday life, unless that disruption is on a massive scale or that it because a major loss of human life. Storms and disasters happen all the time, and many simply knock out power, cause flooding (without loss of life), and other types of property damage but because this is "routine", we avoid those. It's when there's clearly something more fundamentally critical in the damage and disruption post-storm or disaster that we consider to be significant. Plenty of storms make it to ITN (like this one is definitely going up), we're just not going to post storms with minimal impact even if these may be seen by weather experts as major events. --M asem (t) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Significant storm and death toll. P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post or the kitten gets it! Seriously though, relax, the kitten and article are fine. One meets MINIMUMDEATHS, has everything other storm postings did and is in the news. The other is purely rhetorical. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks reasonably complete. Guardian says toll is "at least 97." Certainly more significant than the moat race. – Sca (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support hard to see it as not being notable. Article quality is OK. Dan the Animator 14:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, it surely qualifies w this death toll. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly 97x more significant than our #1 story. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh do change the record. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuelan clashes

 * Weak oppose for now. It's certainly ongoing, but the updates are not long enough for me (last was 10 words) combined with the fact there's not much else to read. I recommend expanding the background, as most of the article is just from news updates of, and reactions to what's happening. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Expanded last events a little bit more and added a Background section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @NoonIcarus Is there any information about why the conflict is starting up again after the ceasefire? The article is still missing that. There are a few things that need explanation too, such as what "Infobae" or a "mixed patrol comission" is. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. The article mentions that "Experts have argued that control of drug trafficking routes is the motive for the clashes", and Colombian President Iván Duque has also declared that the conflict "was between the Venezuelan Cartel of the Suns and the FARC dissidents", but I have avoided placing it in the lead or repeating it to try to keep neutrality. Infobae is an Argentine news website and according to the references, a "mixed patrol comission" performs patrol, recconnaisance and search operations. I have added these details to the article, along with other updates. Notifying editors that voted in the last nomination: --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will solely state the following; this is not ongoing-worthy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose there is a lot of filler in this one (background/reactions). Of the events, two soldiers blew themselves up by accident, four agitators were arrested (by whom, and why?). Looks like the last actual clash was on 3/31 but the updates are thin and border on nonsensical (who is Vladimir Padrino López? What radio transmissions and why are they relevant? Whose armed forces? And WTF is a Tiuna FM Radial Circuit?). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * weak Oppose - still ongoing. More can happen. for now.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Article is ok and well-sourced but I don't think it rises to that of an ongoing article. It was better as a event nom. Dan the Animator 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing I agree with Dantheanimator above: would consider a blurb, and in general items like this nominated for Ongoing should start as a blurb and roll onto Ongoing if warranted. Neutral for a blurb right now since I don't think the article clearly explains recent events.  Spencer T• C 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) The Boat Race 2021

 * Support Oh no, not this again. Hooray, at last the Fens hit the front page! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and ready another FA in the making from TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Better than expected in the circumstances. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment updated now, sufficiently I hope, to be considered sufficient for posting. Unusual to see the crews battling out in an almost dead-straight race, but as Andrew alludes, better than I had expected.  And of course, the correct university won.  Both.  Races.  Go Tabs!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment A true legend. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Chhattisgarh Maoist attack

 * Oppose Currently two sentences on the event. (Also, these blurbs could use ce and the links are pretty MOS:EGGy.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree the update isn't long enough. It appears only soldiers were killed as well, and I think a higher bar is needed for that compared to civilians being killed, especially since they died during a raid (part of the job description, to be insensitive). Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest snow close. Dan the Animator 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that we have an article. Disclaimer: I updated the blurb and the nomination. this nomination needs a re-look on your part. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has no body paragraph about the incident.  Spencer T• C 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article could use additional expansion, but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - so we have a "Background", and we have "Reactions", but absolutely nothing in between. This reminds me a little of the Collect underpants ... ? ... profit meme... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article does have a body now. Depressed Desi (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -The event got enough media coverage in international media. This attack with two dozens casualties of armed forces qualifies to be in WP:ITN. USaamo (t@lk) 22:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The coverage by various third party source satisfies WP:GN--Sylvester Millner (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The bar for ITN is higher than simply the general notability guideline. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope if this isn't stale yet, IAR and post this as the 3 Oppose !votes above are from when there wasn't even an article for this or from when it wasn't expanded. There are 4.5 Support !votes to this incl. the nominator hence it must be posted or maybe all lives aren't equal. --Depressed Desi (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that escalated quickly. Agree that people should take another look, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the deaths seem to be reported on 4 April, this could still just replace the Osmani blurb, which is also on the same date.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nom says "one of the world's longest-running insurgencies", but the "Background" section begins "On 23 March 2021 ..." Article doesn't give an indication of what are the motives.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a part of the Naxalite–Maoist insurgency that started in 1967. Pretty impressive if you ask me... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop tagging this as needs attention. This doesn't need attention. Use that if it's like tagged as ready for days and about to get stale. This one isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Jordan alleged coup attempt

 * Oppose grammar is pretty bad, article is light on details. 2021 Jordanian coup d'état attempt is no better. Was there a coup attempt or not? Did Abdullah smell a coup and strike pre-emptively? Once the government releases a statement there might be something here, right now it's just media speculation and scattered reports. No reason to rush an inadequate article to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021 alleged Jordanian coup d'état attempt exists now and isn't bad. Still not many details released. It's in the news though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Some coverage, but situation seems murky. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not notable enough, and it left the news fairly quickly. Probably a bit stale by now, in fact. The article is also too short for my liking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - Let’s wait and see if further events happens.BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is decent, and what's there is sourced. Unsure about notability per above. Dan the Animator 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems mainly a celeb/royal foofaraw. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Jordanian coup: arglebargle or foofaraw?--LaserLegs (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An alleged attempt isn't important enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arthur Kopit

 * Support Well sourced, comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go. Well sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready JW 1961 Talk 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luo Ying-shay

 * Comment Citation needed tags need sorting. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cyprian Kizito Lwanga

 * Support Short and sweet. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced ! Vacant0 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Short but sifficient.BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carla Zampatti

 * Support article looks alright and is well referenced Vacant0 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Falling down the stairs at a notable opera's premiere at a notable rock/point/chair might even make a relatively substantial blurb, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: April

 * Oppose Overly promotional tone, too much focus on related-but-different giraffes, referencing seems adequate. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - promo-tone can be fixed. Other than that good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Promotional language cleaned up; article is adequate.  Spencer T• C 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Hualien train derailment

 * Support. Clearly a major event. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Article has enough to post Sherenk1 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - major accident in a developed country, high death toll. Image added. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. The article is already in decent shape and will no doubt be worked on quickly today. Notability seems WP:SNOW too so I've gone ahead and posted. I'd probably Oppose using the suggested photo though, as far as I know we don't usually post a "similar" train/plane after accidents, it could be confusing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * !Vote to pull Current version is only 1400 bytes of readable prose—a stub. Bad precedent to post this quality on the MP, and only after two hours of discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing an issue. Nothing in the instructions about a minimum byte size of prose. Article is not a stub, it has good structure, an infobox and an image. There are at least three paragraphs of text and everything is referenced. This should be enough to post. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We regularly hold off RDs for being too short. DYK has a 1500B requirement.  I expect the same of blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's at 1775 characters now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it was posted at 1400B of wikitext, it clearly would be expanded with new information quickly to get past 1500B. Completely fair to post something like this that was just a tad short. Would be more an issue if we were talking an RD stuck at 1400B with likely no reason to grow more. --M asem (t) 14:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with pull as a matter of principle; three early support votes is not enough to demonstrate consensus even if the article were in excellent shape, which it is not. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support there you go, four supports and a passable article, no need for any further complaints. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also second the posting. The article is as long as it can be at this point, without adding trivial details. --Tone 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just wondering what to do about an image. The current photo on the article, File:TRA TEMU1000 Tze-Chiang Ltd-Exp Taroko North Link Line Heren Chongde 20190618.JPG seems more relevant than the one proposed above, as it appears to be pretty much in the location of the crash. (Perhaps the tunnel pictured is even the one where it happened). I guess it gets a bit complicated when you have to point out in the blurb and in the picture caption that this is not actually the same train that derailed though. Any thoughts? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason we say "similar trainset pictured" is that the type of train is known, but until the actual unit number is known, we cannot be certain the image is of the actual trainset involved. Once the info is available, then image choice can be reassessed as to whether or not there is a decent photo of the actual trainset available for use. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Trainsets 1013 and 1014 involved. There's this image of 1014 available. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * File:TRA TEMU1000 Taroko Express (TEMU1013-1014).jpg might be better, the distracting (and possibly slightly inappropriate for this situation) livery is not particularly visible in this shot. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now File:2021年太魯閣列車出軌事故 01.jpg available provided by Executive Yuan which is a photo after the accident. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Major disaster, article quality is acceptable and it will obviously get better as more information comes in. P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment at the time it was posted the article did not consist of three complete, well referenced paragraphs as set out by the guidelines. In fact, it was no better than the Egyptian train crash which was rejected. Background and reactions sections are filler. Could we please make sure these disaster stubs meet some benchmark for quality before rushing an article about an excruciatingly irrelevant disaster to the main page. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I imagine that this might somehow be different if these were 50 casualties in a different country, or the uproar if another continent was mostly asleep while this was posted in two hours. Confirmation bias? (Yes, the page meets quality standards ... now.)—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not from here. If a train crash in America killed 50 people, I'd support its inclusion at ITN.  Very poor choice of article to attempt to die on that particular hill!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ... good to see discussions being conducted in quicktime while the rest of the world sleeps. The Rambling Man—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This killed more people than coronavirus did in the country. feminist (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Isamu Akasaki

 * Oppose per now a lot of work with sourcing is required. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that more work in sourcing is required. It appeared to be hard to find extensive sources in a language that I can understand. Maybe someone fluent in Japanese could help; the Japanese article lists a number of sources, but I can not read them. To rewrite the article to adapt to less sources seems counterproductive. Oceanh (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Trial Of Derek Michael Chauvin

 * Oppose I don't even know if we'll post the verdict. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both as ongoing and as a blurb (on verdict). I can see a potential result that an acquitial may lead to more protests and THAT might the news, but not the verdict itself. --M asem (t) 02:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)