Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2019

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: William J. Larkin Jr.

 * Support - seems adequately sourced.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron 32 11:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Midland–Odessa shooting

 * Unfortunately Oppose. We had posted the El Paso shooting because it was a rather large number, and the Dayton one only because it was 24hr later and both talked in the same news cycle. This is while tragic, yet a smaller gun crime in the US where they are too common. --M asem (t) 06:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor shootings in the US is commonplace news in the nation. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:68E8:C55F:83CC:E35A (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Novelty points for being a series of drivebys this time, but still more a curiosity than Big Story. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find myself in agreement with User:Masem and InedibleHulk. Minor incident of frequent type. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was minor or frequent. Just not big news. It's crazy rare for this type of thing to involve one guy, a white guy, a caught guy, a rural guy or a non-feuding guy. This sort of thing being GTA-style rampage, I mean. As "another mass shooting", of course he's the usual suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk you have failed to notice the period after your name. I did not say "that it is a..". You can also read "." as ". IMHO" in the statement above, if it helps. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to notice nothing. There was a connotation, and it's still there, but if you weren't implying it, I won't infer it. Now why was I initially pung here, if not to argue or agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - shootings with comparatively low death tallies occur too frequently in the United States to justify posting all of them on ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Pretty common occurrence in North America. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wang Buxuan

 * Support. Short but satisfactory. Spengouli (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, as usual from Zanhe. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alec Holowka

 * I've tried bolstering the sourcing (there's some key BLP stuff that I know is sourced well, its the smaller games that are a bit harder for good sourcing). --M asem (t) 02:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose at least one unreferenced claim but mostly alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - I added two cites for the obviously unreferenced claim.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support References are all in order, article is at least as good as any other RD post. Sad tale.130.233.2.183 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

RD / Blurb Anthoine Hubert

 * RD only A Formula 2 racer isn't going to be the news story of a Dale Earnhardt or comparable F1 racer. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RD Only and the article is really not sufficiently detailed, its a lot of charts with minimal substance. --M asem (t) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as of now. Still a lot of result charts that are unsourced.BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - as above, not at the highest level of his profession and ergo not as notable as other comparable racing deaths. Also not ready to be posted as an RD yet. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and references needed for RD. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The results in the Jules Bianchi article are similarly "unreferenced", yet that article is a GA and was posted in ITN. Can we please not let this issue be a bar for RD. Everything else is referenced. WP:MOTOR seem to do things this way. That said, I've raised the issue at WT:MOTOR. It may be that a full RFC will be needed on the issue. I'm wondering whether this is a WP:V vs WP:BLUE issue. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In contrast, there is a LOT more prose at Bianchi's article that the tables do not stand out as the bulk of the article. Here, the tables are nearly or more than half of the content, and the lack of general sourcing is of question. (Roughly, less than 500 words of text). Yes, the article passes notability, but it seems to be lacking significant content, particularly in light of this accident, you'd think there would be more bio stuff that can be added. --M asem (t) 05:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - I expect full obituaries to be posted today, which will enable expansion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD Looks much better now. (I oppose Blurb. In case that was not clear). – Ammarpad (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. In better shape, referencing is up to date. Spengouli (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD G2G-- Booth  Sift  20:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I guess I have to be the bad guy. There is an unreferenced section. I did not put it there but it is justified. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RFC started at WT:MOTOR re referencing of results sections in all motorsport articles. Please feel free to make your views known there. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

RD Immanuel Wallerstein

 * Oppose Lots of unreferenced material. Spengouli (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spengouli. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Honors and Works sections are totally lacking, and still plenty unreferenced claims scattered throughout the prose sections. Terms and definitions section is unnecessary; those should be included on their respective pages for e.g. World-Systems Theory. Half the text in the Criticism section is actually a defense of his work, which raises some suspicions.130.233.2.183 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, are you saying he shouldn't be included because of a lack of notability? Search for his name on Google Scholar or Web of Science.CircleAdrian (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, they are lacking for references130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Better sources will be needed to attest to his death too. The only results I can find online other than the Mehr News Agency and Firat News Agency already cited is TRT World. All are clearly questionable, and it would be reasonable to expect news of his death to appear on a university website or an international agency. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Added two more sources. Presumably there aren't more US university/news sites posting about it yet because of Labor Day weekend. He did definitely die, if you search on Twitter you'll see a ton of people posting about it. CircleAdrian (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Franco Columbu

 * Oppose Sourcing needs work. --M asem (t) 15:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article. I've had to comment out the filmography section and other details as they have proved to be difficult to source, but the article still covers the essentials. Feel free to take another look and list any problems. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be okay now. Not 100% thrilled with removing the filmography but you kept the more recognizable films there. --M asem (t) 04:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - article sourcing has been improved.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Fentie

 * Weak oppose I see at least two unreferenced claims in there, and some bare URLs. The remainder appears satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the concenrs pointed above. The Rambling Man please review. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support References are good, by spot check. I think it's strange that his death should be in the Background section, and it does read oddly. A few more details (marriage? kids?), rename the section Private Life or something, and then it's good to go.130.233.2.183 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind review. I have renamed the section to Biography. Others are welcome if they have a better option in mind. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to support per above130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Limited depth of the subject's career. Dennis_Fentie is essentially a list in prose format, with some additional drama about Fentie's government (rather than his political career specifically). Needs information about issues he pushed for, legislation introduced/passed, or other concrete things done in office, rather than election results listed.  Spencer T• C 01:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A new section Dennis_Fentie has been added based on User:Spencer's review. Please see if this can be posted before archiving. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Valerie Harper

 * Oppose a few unreferenced claims in the prose and per the nom, filmog is lacking in sources too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. ping me when article is ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Rausing

 * Support: Article may be a bit sparse, but all information are sourced and properly shows importance.  I Need Support  :V 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: article looks good. -Zanhe (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MHT use in western countries

 * Oppose the target article doesn't even appear to have been updated. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It never is with this user's nominations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose A peer-reviewed journal article is not a news source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this doesn't even deserve to be on the Current events portal IMO. I'd suggest a SNOW close soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd oppose on quality at this time on the basis that the target article hasn't been updated, but - for what it's worth - I did notice at least some news coverage of this . I don't really have any strong opinions on whether or not the story is notable, but I thought it might be in the interest of some editors for me to post this (since the nomination was flawed as it linked to the study itself)     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 08:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Papua protests

 * Support blurb; article is in good shape.  Spencer T• C 12:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not a blurb? Brexit was a preventive measure (to save us from headache) because we all know where that was headed. This is more like the Hong Kong protests where, at first, we did not know what direction it was going to go. I would be more inclined to support blurb now and ongoing later if warranted, like we did with Hong Kong. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support BLURB! Per Cac. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb but Support ongoing. This is stale as a blurb, as these started mid-August, but they are still going. --M asem (t) 15:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The protests started on Aug 19 and would be the second-newest item on the template if posted for that date.  Spencer T• C 15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is probably better at this moment since it is difficult to single out one event. Willing to post when I see some more support. --Tone 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or ongoing per above. Already notable, and seems like it will develop. Davey2116 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing for the time being, we can always update to a blurb. --Tone 17:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - blurb first, ongoing later. Banedon (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both-Per Davey-- Booth  Sift  20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per this edit, it seems that the protests have subsided. IMO a blurb would be preferable for this situation.  Spencer T• C 02:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Kazuo Wada

 * Support - short but referenced.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

- could you help and weigh in?  starship .paint  (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this, I mistook him for Kyohei Wada. But realizing my error, I didn't feel strongly enough to say anything about Kazuo or his article quality. Unhelpful, I know, but Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per starship.paint. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article satisfies the ITNC criteria. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(Need Admin Attention) RD: Jim Langer

 * Weak oppose Could use more prose information about his professional career and notable events. At present, that section is essentially a list in prose format of teams he played with and awards that he won.  Spencer T• C 02:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the article has been expanded with excellent sourcing. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer please take a relook.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - Super Bowl wins not in prose, I don't think the high school is sourced.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the sourcing and expansion pointed by User:Starship.paint -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I added a sentence too and it’s fine now.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A lot of work has been put into expanding the article and improving the sources. An admin should review and post this before it gets archived. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Jim Leavelle

 * Still needs more referencing, unfortunately.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) FARC war announcement

 * Support seems obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because he is a former commander it's not entirely clear what ramifications this announcement will have. EternalNomad (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As I'm woefully ignorant to the situation between Colombia and the FARC, would anyone familiar with the subject be able to comment here regarding .whether or not Márquez's announcement (as a former leader) is in fact a significant development? It wouldn't feel right for me to !vote without having enough of an understanding to accurately assess the notability of this story.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the lead of the FARC article indicates that the leader of FARC disagrees with Marquez on that front. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note All FARC commanders are technically former, by virtue of the formal breakup, unless they're back together now. The current leader of the same-named political party is not inherently the leader of a potentially reformed insurgent militia reclaiming the name. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The third comment to this nomination shows that, given the articles linked in the blurb, an interested reader cannot determine the relevance of this event. Marquez's article is not updated and in any case is in very bad shape.  The FARC article is very long and the update section seems UNDUE; it could have just as easily fit into the previous section already dealing with FARC members dissenting from the peace accord. Worth noting that this is not the first time that members of FARC have declared the accord void.  I remember this happening within weeks of the Nobel being awarded to the (previous?) Colombian president for this issue. It never went anywhere, and it's CRYSTAL to think that this one will.130.233.2.183 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If FARC was resuming its war, that should be posted. But what would that look like, if not this?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if FARC resumes its war, post, not just someone saying they will. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Political grandstanding by disaffected FARC supporters. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could go outside and yell that we're returning to war with Sweden. Doesn't make it so. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Czy jesteś Polski? – Sca (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, just as easily could be France. I discriminate not. :) 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose If he were a political leader with any troops under his command (so leaders of most countries and of US states) declaring war or even asking his legislature to declare war, it would be notable. If he were commander of an extant military group and was announcing the end of a long standing cease fire, I could see it being notable. Even a commander who declares that he won't be accepting a peace treaty negotiated by his superiors might be notable (depending on how much of the group he commanded). A commander from a disbanded military organization declaring war when he has an unknown amount of troops and materiel doesn't mean much. Let him actually do something and claim credit and we will believe that he has started a war. Rockphed (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand reading these, when the 2015 peace deal was signed, FARC ended up becoming a political party and gained seats. This thing here is a "new FARC", a splinter group that has taken up the most hostile measures that the original FARC had and abandoned. That said, no hostilities have actually started, so I would not post this yet. --M asem (t) 14:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a free publicity machine for the most grandiose and/or blood-curdling pronouncements of assorted dissatisfied terrorists. Besides, how would we decide which terrorists supposedly 'deserve' our assistance? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with above-- Booth  Sift  22:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

New Italian government

 * Oppose The Guardian article doesn't say what you think it says. Conte has merely been given a mandate to try forming a new government.  The very same article says the deal may be scuppered if the Five Star Movement members vote it down.  Wait until Conte if/when succeeds and then we can debate. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – If they manage to cobble together a cabinet and form a new government, this would be ITNworthy. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Wait  per Sca. It's just a little too soon. Once a government is formed, regardless of who the PM will be, I definitely intend to support a blurb on its merits, but this story is still developing (as far as I know).     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm becoming more open to ongoing as the most blurb-worthy aspects of the story (the formation of a new government) have yet to come, but if there's reason to believe that this could be as slow as the process to replace Theresa May was, then I'd be swayed that a blurb now is more appropriate.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support the alternative would be posting it to ongoing (see Brexit) and as with that nomination, I'm for blurb first, ongoing later. Banedon (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Interesting political machinations. Would be nice to get us out of this news dry spell. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to wait. I was under the false impression this was a done deal. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the IP - nothing to see here. Would support posting the new government.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Proposed altblurb2 for content. Also, as per Coffeeandcrumbs, time to get this wagon rolling before it's old news. Suggest to bolden "resignation" and "formation", as they're the same newsworthy process, ongoing for three weeks now. Wakari07 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How would it be old news? Either Conte succeeds, at which point his continuation as Prime Minister is confirmed and we could post then, or he fails, and there's a well good chance of that happening - we'd look a little silly then having posted this.  Wait until if/when Conte succeeds. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the crisis that suddenly started three weeks ago (with the railway vote) and the resignation ten days ago now. Just suggesting, couldn't we update and/or bump the blurb as needed over the follwing days/weeks? The only significant events expected are either (unexpected) elections or an (expected) oathtaking and confirmation. But this could take weeks. Why wait? Wakari07 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We wait because the significance of the story is whether this deal actually works. As mentioned, it goes before a vote of Five Star Movement members, who could easily vote it down.  And knowing Italian politics, any number of other things could derail this.  We can post when we actually know the result.  The fact Conte has merely been tasked to try is not ground-breaking news that must be posted this very moment. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The significance is that of a serious, ongoing political crisis in a major country . Wakari07 (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And we'll post about it...when we actually have something solid to report. News that a politician is trying to form government isn't ITN-worthy.  88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just one IP's opinion to me: s See the two significance criteria for inclusion in ITN. Wakari07 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to suggest that, because I'm editing from an IP my opinion is somehow less worthy? Suggest you be careful with your response. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking, I do appreciate that. I apologise for my tone in response.  I think, to avoid this escalating, let's just say we have two different views on this.  We've both made our case and we'll let others decide. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: altblurb2 seems not to mention the word "Italy" at all. The acronyms are not very useful here, either. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 13:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tried a fix.~Thanks for the feedback. Wakari07 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose different day, different coalition. Not meaningful.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Different coalition is hugely meaningful. That's how a multiparty democracy works. Wakari07 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In Italian politics, very little is meaningful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Molto buono! – Sca (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man has been on Wikipedia since 2005. I don't think he needs educating on what a multiparty democracy is... 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, until the last adult leaves the room? Wakari07 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 2 or ongoing While it's not a change in head-of-government, it is still very consequential for Italy and the world. Davey2116 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for Ongoing, basically per Vanilla Wizard above. Weak oppose for blurbs as basically premature, tho alt blurb 2 seems best if others decide to post a blurb. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update If I understand the mechanics here, today the new colation gov't, announced yesterday, Sept 4, should have been sworn in (NYTimes). They still face a confidence vote by the Parliament, but this is not expected to be a hurdle due to the colition's control of Parliament. So this might be the time to post?  --M asem  (t) 21:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Achille Silvestrini

 * Weak oppose There were a few statements that needed cites. I've tagged them as such; if you can clean that up, consider this a full support.  -- Jayron 32 20:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned those up and fixed some other minor details. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 02:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good. -Zanhe (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Does a much better job at avoiding over-reliance on primary sources, unlike previous noms for cardinals. Good work. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nie Yuanzi

 * Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Bury F.C.

 * Oppose Very big UK sports news, but no further than that. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose very sad, but parochial and while it may be the end of the beginning for such clubs, this is a minor blip right now. There's even talk of another, international consortium stumping up the cash as I type this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Forecast – Snow. Sca (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good quality article, and this a rare event (first expulsion of a League club since 1992) which is getting a lot of coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. -- KTC (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The bankruptcy of Rangers was nominated and rejected back in 2012, and that was an internationally notable football club. Bury is notable on a national scale at the most. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite, TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I know little of the structure of English football, so take that for what it's worth, but this sounds like a notable story to me.  It seems to me it would be like the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox being kicked out of Major League Baseball for financial reasons. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox are two of the three most successful teams in the MLB, while Bury F.C. have never won a top-flight title and used to compete in the lower divisions for 90 years. Your comparison would have been fair had Manchester United F.C. or Liverpool F.C. been expelled, which surely would have led to different voting results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except Bury are older than both of those clubs and been in league system since before either of those were created.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If Trump (aged 73) is shot tomorrow, it will be a snow post blurb. If a 90-year old mayor of a city of 10,000 was, unlikely. Older is not more notable. Juxlos (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Apart from the fact that they have never won a top-flight title and were deeply in the lower divisions for a long time, no other indication on notability, such as being the oldest club in the league system, has been made in support of this nomination (note that there are more than 5,000 clubs in the English Football League).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are incorrect. There are only 72 clubs in the EFL (Not including the Premier League).  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was alluding to the entire English football league system, not just the tiers 2-4 that make up the English Football League (sorry for the miswriting).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a minor team ending the last seasons as number 68 and 70 overall in the English football league system after playing in tier 3 and 4. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very sad news for footballing fans, as TRM alludes to, but Bury has not been a club of the highest calibre since their FA Cup victories more than a century ago. That puts them firmly in the camp of historic club, but not one that is relevant on an international (or ITN) stage nowadays, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Looks like 2:1 against – evidently no consensus re significance. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose time to bury this one.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Prorogation in the United Kingdom

 * Support as nominator. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC).


 * Oppose This is only news because of Brexit context (which is already in Ongoing). If this was 2014 or any other year, this ITN would be the equivalent of posting "School's off for summer". Juxlos (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Brexit has just been posted to Ongoing, which is sufficient.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose with Brexit in ongoing. --M asem (t) 15:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb is a bit clunky Rockin 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an internal political maneuver tied to Brexit. The real story will (probably) be on Oct 31. Stay tuned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Brexit

 * Support. This is clearly going to be a big story, at least for the next couple weeks, if not right up to October 31st. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I was thinking of nominating Boris Johnson's intent to prorogue Parliament as a blurb, but this is perhaps more appropriate.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient, and the story is a major, but multifaceted story that would be difficult to write an all-encompassing blurb for. This is pretty much exactly what ongoing is for.  This story is likely to be a top headline, and evolving quickly, for the some time.  -- Jayron 32 13:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Big story and a robust article. Plus if we keep this as an ongoing event then there may be less debate over whether or not to accept nominations for smaller Brexit-related events for ITN. -mike_gigs (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Even as UK-centric as this news is, it's a big story that merits the ongoing coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - there and back again, exactly where we started after 5 months. Juxlos (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear support, also ongoing is a better choise than finding a single blurb. Posting. --Tone 14:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that unusual (except for the fact Brexit is about to happen just once) BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said it was established precedent to prorogue Parliament before a Queen's Speech, albeit generally more briefly, and rarely, if ever, at such a constitutionally charged time. --Pudeo (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The real story is going to be at the end of October and that will be a blurb. But there is enough news for the moment that we could do ongoing. Will have to see if it can be sustained. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - blurb first, ongoing later. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Poat-posting aupport obviously far too many different and changing facets for a blurb, exactly what ongoing is for. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, although we may soon need to address again the problem that got it removed some time ago (arguably wrongly, at least in my view, tho others may understandably disagree), when updates for the most recent events were being made to some of the many daughter articles rather than to the main article. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Tropical Storm Dorian (2019)

 * Oppose – Known effects thus far in the Caribbean don't meet ITN levels and we don't post weather events based on forecasts. Revisit down the road if major impacts occur. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Its only supposed to hit around as a Cat 2 storm, so we really should wait to see what damage may occur. --M asem  (t) 19:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close, renominate if something newsworthy actually happens. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing has happened yet; ongoing is not for weather events in progress, especially when there are not yet any effects yet. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, wait to see if a blurb would be appropriate - Better to post after it hits, as any blurb of a tropical cyclone should mention the effects that the cyclone had. We don't know yet, so I'd recommend revisiting this later this week or over the weekend. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be an especially destructive storm after making multiple landfalls (even Hurricane Nate was just a Category 1), but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 22:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I'm not exactly sure why, but we never do hurricanes as ongoing. It's clearly pre-mature for a blurb.  My crystal ball does say there's a 50-50 chance we'll be posting this later on. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Right now Dorian hasn't had a significant impact yet, and we can't predict the future. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No significant impact at the moment, may update later-- Booth  Sift  02:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thanadsri Svasti

 * Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Jessi Combs

 * Oppose Several unsourced statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced.  Nixinova  T <b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 02:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly more refs needed still.BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kanchan Chaudhary Bhattacharya

 * Comment DiplomatTesterMan, here we only discuss the article quality and major problems, not the notability (as the template above says). Please cite the awards section. The article looks good.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SupportThanks for the update. The article is ready IMHO. I have supported the nom. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Needs copyediting (e.g. "She had 33 years of a scintillating career behind her.") and more references in the career section.  Spencer T• C 02:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Icon tools.svg Working: Adding references. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Spencer, references and copy editing has been done. Please review again. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs more copyediting, as well as editing to reduce close paraphrasing from source material., I'll fix what I can and leave some additional questions on the talk page, if either of you could assist with those.  Spencer T• C 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chen Jiayong

 * Support – --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The sourcing looks good, but I think the lead needs to be reorganized to give a better explanation of all the reasons he is notable. It currently includes his political work, but not his academic work. Also, his involvement in politics does not seem to be explained in the "Biography" section. Rockphed (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now greatly expanded the career section and almost doubled the length of the article. Please check again. Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is much better. My support (at this point) is pro-forma.Rockphed (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - thanks for nominating this. I was planning to nominate it myself after finishing working on it. It's now done and I think ready for ITN. Also added  as an updater. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Pita Paraone

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Added the missing refs. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Lacks depth of coverage as to what he accomplished in his political career, but otherwise sourced.  Spencer T• C 23:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Indonesian capital move

 * Comment: There are probably only three reasonable possible times for this to go up – either now, when the parliament approves the move, or when it is complete in 10 years or so. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that it would be reasonable to post this both when Parliament approves it, and when the move is complete. Ten years is a long time.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose announcing plans. Although when concrete decisions are made, this is very notable.  Peace time capital transfers are rare, and just off the top of my head are limited to Brazil and Pakistan in recent history.130.233.3.90 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don’t forget Myanmar, Kazakhstan, and a host of post-independence sub-Saharan African nations (like Nigeria and the Ivory Coast)! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And Belize, and Malaysia, and Proposed new capital of Egypt well under construction (and still not named); it's not as uncommon as you'd think. &#8209; Iridescent 07:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, wait until a better time--  Booth  Sift  06:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Good faith nom, but wait until it happens (if it does).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now he has plans to move the capital but it hasn't been done. Maybe after it has been moved.___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   11:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint Assuming that editors agree the story is worth posting but only question is when, I'd suggest this may be the stage most likely to be "in the news." Unless opposition is expected, the parliamentary vote may be seen as an "old news" rubber stamping. And the move itself could be quite drawn out.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, the right point to post something lke this is when all government bodies needed have voted/signed off to initiate the process, making it a sure thing to happen. Yes, the move may take years, and when the move is formally completed that also may be ITN. And there also may be lawsuits or other citizen actions that slow it down or stall it. Comparing this to business news, this would like posting when two companies have obtained their shareholders' votes to merge being the point to post, but before necessary regulatory action to approve it. --M asem (t) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – A sprawling megalopolis of 10 million to lose its status as the capital of a far-flung country of 260 million? That's big news in anyone's book. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I believe this is the time to post. Does anyone know how long the formalities will take? If it's a few weeks, then we could wait, but as GCG said, this is the point when the most eyes will be on this story. Davey2116 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looking at the Jakarta post article, this still needs to be formalized into a bill and pass the Indonesian legislature. That is the time to post. Rockphed (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We can't wait until 2030 to publish this story. It's a presidential executive decision in a presidential system: in April he decided to do it, and now he decides to where it will move (between North Penajam Paser and Kutai Kartanegara, near Balikpapan and Samarinda). For anyone who has read sources, the urgency is clear: crowded Jakarta is sinking. The next big steps are the name, the bill annex budget (now $33 bn), the start of construction (2020), the start of relocation (2024) and the end of relocation (around 2030). The Vice President just today announced that Parliament needs to detail the plan and approve it, but is there a hint of a political opposing voice yet? (Did anyone express any serious argument yet – except those into orangutan and rainforest conservation activism –  however orangutans can't vote and indigenous people weren't consulted  ?) I'm unhappy to say it, but I'd consider it almost a done thing. Wakari07 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Update: I found exactly one dissenting voice in parliament, in the Nikkei Asian Review. It prudently called last week not to "throw away money only for the sake of something unclear, only for the sake of reputation". Wakari07 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wait until the Indonesian legislature approves the move.  Calidum   20:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post "announcements of plans". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments on how it would be more appropriate to post this as a news item once the plan is actually approved. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually happens. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - I am not opposing it but Wait. This will not be realised until 2024 and a lot can happen until then.BabbaQ (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as much as this is notable, it's currently a plan - when it becomes law, we can post a blurb that says: Indonesia's parliament approves President Joko Widodo's plan to move the Capital of Indonesia from Jakarta to East Kalimantan Juxlos (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Isabel Toledo

 * Oppose – I have tagged the issues I found. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much work to do at this time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pal Benko

 * Oppose – I have tagged issues I found. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to have been reverted. It does need more references though. The "Notable Games" section may be an issue as well as it's not clear in such sections what selection criteria are being used.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have cited everything. I recall Robert Morgenthau had the same "notable cases" problem, but it was solved by changing 'notable' to 'selected'. Davey2116 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Great work by Davey2116. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It could use more work, but fine for RD. The 'notable/selected/illustrative games' sections have been an issue in the past. If that is an issue here, the section could be removed and copied to the talk page until more references are added to prevent it being an indiscriminate list. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not familiar with the prior debate on this, but the games section seems fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been ready for some time, any admins around?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Gavin Watson

 * Oppose – This is a stub in disguise (Early life, some criminal implications? and death). Also uses a primary source redacted court document (Ref #1) and an unreliable (Ref #2). This is not a BIO. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support seems fine to me - we've posted way worse. Primary sources are not inherently objectionable, and the claim tied to ref #2 is covered by the many secondary sources cited.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is missing a career section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems decent enough for RD,BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C, it's not sufficient in depth to cover the whole career, just a section on some purported criminal activity is undue and doesn't constitute a suitable biography for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

P. V. Sindhu

 * Support (both blurbs) The only event of its kind in Badminton. BWF is the sole international badminton org with 191 member countries. BBC also covered the event. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The BWF World Championships consist of men's and women's singles and men's, women's and mixed doubles events; why is the winner of women's singles event the only one mentioned? Also, is being the first at winning something enough to warrant mention in ITN? - Vishal dh (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vishal dh good point. Do you have an alternative blurb in mind ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to box adapting the formula used for the tennis French Open. The article for the 2019 BWF World Championships isn't great though, just a bunch of lists and stats. Vishal dh (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Supported both blurbs. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the event is ITNR, and the target should be 2019 BWF World Championships which is pretty woeful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we target the athlete, I don't think this sort of thing merits being posted on ITN. The event article, which should be the target, has 2 sentences of text and 3 pages of tables. Even if the article gets fixed, I would only support the alt blurb. Rockphed (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The BWF article is not an article – "a piece of writing" – in the usual sense, and not suitable as a target. I leave the nominated target, P.V. Sindhu, to our seasoned corps of sports cognoscenti to judge. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that it is appropriate here to use the event as the featured article (alt blurb), but unfortunately I think it's fairly underdeveloped and not fit to be featured, per The Rambling Man mike_gigs. (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per others -- Booth  Sift  06:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ferdinand Piëch

 * Oppose for now, the biography section still needs some sourcing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks comprehensive but sorely lacking in references. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Ray Bowles

 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe What's that "2" stuck to footnote 5? If it's cool, so am I. But if not, out with it! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the reference 5 has 7 pages. The "2" tells what page it is from. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a rare format on Wikipedia. Refer to Help:References_and_page_numbers%23Inline_page_numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Tidier than using three direct links. Good to go! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support sadly no reason not to post. Not the world's biggest fan of promoting capital punishment, but we have no policy around that, so it's good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arun Jaitley

 * Strong Support: Between 1999-2019, He is either cabinet minister of Union government or leader of opposition in parliament of India. Very remarkable politician. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: per above very notable politican.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that notability is not at issue for Recent Deaths nominations; the only purpose of this discussion is to judge article quality. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know after the RFC only the quality of the article and just giving my support briefly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh of the Wizards, 331dot wants you to talk about the article quality (or problems if any) which you haven't yet done. any comment that underlines the notability is useless here, this isn't AfD. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I agree with you have updated the lead.Will be precise in futurePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. Will stick to that in future. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose at the moment. It's mostly there, but there are some unsourced claims (Vajpayee Govt section), some problematic grammar (" He demitted the office of the Minister for Shipping with effect from 1 September 2001 and as Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs on 1 July 2002 to join as a General Secretary of the BJP and its national spokesman"?) The last paragraph of the 2004-2014 section looks like we're criticising Jaitley in Wikipedia's voice.  Some parts aren't clear to anyone not familiar with Indian politics ("he played a vital role during the talks of the Women Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha and also supported Anna Hazare for the Jan Lokpal Bill" or "On June 20, 2017, he reaffirmed that the GST rollout is well and truly on track."). Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * to fix above, Black Kite, thanks for the review. regards-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good enough now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see a couple of citation issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sherenk1 I have added the missing citations along with copy edit. please review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - per Pavan santhosh.s --<b style="font-size:15px;"> Ashok Ashoka Chakra.svg  Talk </b> 17:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - influential politician. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Damascus airstrike (August 2019)

 * Oppose. Bellow ITN-level threshold. Also, no blurb, which at least would serve as an attempt to establish overall significance. El_C 11:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't suggest any level of human injury to a great degree, and otherwise par for the course for countries in that part of the world. --M asem (t) 14:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above on notability, and per the problematic wording of the proposed blurb (would Iran really have started dronebombing Israel if it weren't for Israel attacking the capital of Syria first??? that may not be how it's intended to be read, but that's what the wording currently seems to suggest)     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 21:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not even an attempt at neutral point of view with respect to the blurb's wording and sources from one side only. On notability, Israel admits to hundreds (NYT) or thousands (JC) of air strikes in Syria alone. It sounds strange to me that this blurb was proposed after Israel's unprovoked drone attack last night in Lebanon, a first since 2006 . I mean, how far can you push WP:BIAS? Wakari07 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Call me biased, but if there's one thing neater than a drone crashing where it shouldn't possibly have, it's two of them. If somebody nominates this one, I'm for it. But I'm neutral on whether someone totally should. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the Beirut attack was the first of its kind since the 2006 Lebanon War, I do see a stronger argument for the notability of that attack than this one. Of course, its proposed blurb would need to lack the glaring POV issues that this one has, but I'm much more inclined to support such a nomination on its merits. The target article for the attack in Lebanon doesn't appear to have any quality issues (aside from how short it currently is).     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 03:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Call me old-fashioned and ignorant, but are we talking intentional Zionist robot kamikaze here or accidental double plane crash? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're asking about whether it was purposeful or an accident, it's anyone's guess. What we know is that multiple drones flew into Lebanese airspace, crashed into suburbs, and exploded; what we don't know is whether or not Israel intended for that to happen, because they won't comment on it when asked. I still don't have any strong opinions (despite how I'm more open to it than I am with the Syria attack), but it appears that nobody was hurt.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 03:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meanwhile, I've removed the "attack" parts. When we know, we'll know. If we don't, we won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If a white supremacist's drone ends up exploding next to my head, how likely is it that it would be judged an accident? Wakari07 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with your sentiment there; the only thing that seems to be ambiguous is who/where the intended target was. It's certainly not ambiguous as to whether or not the Israeli military intended to conduct strikes. We just don't know if the drones crashing into buildings how Israel intended to use them. That aspect of the story very well could have been an accident. I would not recommend removing "attack" from the articles.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 06:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how or why white supremacists would use expensive drones to hurt you, and I don't know why the first one here didn't explode if it was supposed to (or why the next one did if it wasn't). I just know no sources in the article even suggested an attack when I reflected them. Now some do, so it arguably makes some sense to buy what they're selling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My one drone-minding acquaintance told me the parts needed to build a 5-kg-carrying quadcopter would cost around 1000 € ( Is it plausibly deniable for Israel to eventually involve itself in an experimental "low-budget" military swarming operation?  ). Hezbollah claimed today that the "reconnaissance" thing that fell on their roof carried about that much explosives . Then nobody claimed the pair flew straight from Israel. As for the possible motive, here is an interesting one, though the source may be disputed. Now "some Hebrew media" add oil to the fire:  that's talk sourced to Channel 13 (Israel) about claims to having destroyed a "planetary mixer" – or whatever. Regards. Wakari07 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Koch

 * Support Was just about to nominate this myself. Significant person in American business and politics.  No CN tags, no big tags  p  b  p  13:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Article looks pretty good, but is still mostly written in the present tense. The biggest problem I have with it is the "Criticism and recognition" section title; the section seems fine, I just think the title is a little off (though I have no idea for a better one).  Also, the personal life section has a claim that isn't referenced about his being on a flight that crashed (on the ground it seems).  I'm not sure if it is encyclopedic or not and it doesn't seem contentious, so I let it stand. Rockphed (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added 2 sources for the plane crash. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I just re-read the whole thing and couldn't find any present tense. I might be overlooking something but could you maybe point out examples? Regards So  Why  17:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely notable enough. Jokullmusic 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support "Criticism and recognition" contains criticism and recognition. Concise, precise and properly cased. What's not to love? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Sheila Steafel

 * Oppose Article at this point is mostly a list in prose format; needs more depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 12:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Junior Agogo

 * Oppose – Sourcing issues including the stats in infobox. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment He really isn't a very well known football player, I thought about posting this here, but decided against it because nothing really stood out in his career apart from sadly he died really young. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be rude, I just thought that Agogo wasn't notable enough for inclusion, his page is a little bit messy and a lot of content could probably be added. As for stats in the info box, they are covered by the soccerbase external links. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were being rude, I simply pointed you to the fact that notability is assumed, quality is all that's important. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Under-sourced. There are no citations for his career in the US or for Bristol Rovers. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pawnkingthree. C'mon! Basic, basic stuff here!--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Fischer

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Just got rid of the last couple of "citation needed" tags. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive, duly updated and well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go 8 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll bet the recent death of a US Vice-President wouldn't just sit in here in a ready but unposted state for 11 hours. Wikipedia's inherent bias against things in "unimportant" places is fully on display here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go 11 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Celso Piña

 * Oppose You are correct that lots of sourcing is needed-- Booth  Sift  03:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russ Conway (journalist)

 * Correction: He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, but did not win. However, he was honored with the Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award, which is the journalist's equivalent of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Flibirigit (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flibirigit, corrected. It doesnt matter for this discussion though. Cheers.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Everything in the article looks reasonably well-referenced, although I did see a slight over-reliance on references #1 and #5 (as 45% of the citations in the article link to one of those two refs, out of 14 total sources). I don't think that's a problem in terms of the article's nomination to RD, but I figured it was worth mentioning just in case. TheHardestAspect OfCreatingAnAccount IsAlwaysTheUsername 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – non-traditional style (for section heading) but that is not a concern for ITN. Sourcing is good and not reliant on a single source. Note that Houston & Shoalts is also used, so there are actually 3+ dominant reliable sources. That is more than enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well done, at least well referenced. Good to go IMO-- BoothSift Talks  02:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go 15 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Giovanni Buttarelli

 * Oppose – Majority unreferenced and external links in the body. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is mostly unreferenced. -- BoothSift Talks  02:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Babulal Gaur

 * Oppose As you say, sourcing needs work. It looks like 2/3 of the article is not footnoted. Also, I hope "His education qualification was B.A. LLB" can be expanded.SupportRockphed (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Rockphed (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The sourcing definitely needs work at this moment. -- BoothSift Talks  02:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * to resolve the issues. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues have now been fixed along with issues pointed above. Please review again. courtesy ping User:Boothsift and Rockphed -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Issues have been fixed, Needs a fresh review.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Brazil wildfires

 * Comment – The surge marks an 83% increase over the same period of 2018... and is the highest since records began in 2013, according to National Institute for Space Research (Brazilian space agency) via Reuters --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me-- BoothSift Talks  02:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - All referenced and notable Sherenk1 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Whle these have been going since January, only yesterday/today did the media seem to realize this was a significant problem. --M asem (t) 05:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above MSN12102001 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support uh, I guess this is going to impact mankind or entire life on earth. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as an "Ongoing" event. --<b style="color:#000000;font-family:Rockwell;">Bageense</b><sup style="color:#AA0000;">(disc.) 15:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It should go up as a blurb (it has been ready for 6 hours or more) and if the event is still taking place when the blurb gets to the bottom of the template, it can then (at the discretion of an admin) be transferred into Ongoing rather than just roll off. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob. Now I'd like to suggest a new image to be added, but I don't know where to do it, Wikipedia domain pages look too confusing. This is the image I want to propose. --<b style="color:#000000;font-family:Rockwell;">Bageense</b><sup style="color:#AA0000;">(disc.) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Either here or at WP:ERRORS would be fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted per WP:IAR. Yes, I know it's my own nomination, but I didn't contribute to the article, consensus here is clear, and nobody else seems to be around. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Giuseppe Conte

 * Comment If I am reading these articles right, this is the announcement of the plan to resign. If that's right, let's wait until he actually does. --M asem (t) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose (for now) I agree with Masem: when he actually does announce, this would be better to post (pending the update of his wiki article) --mike_gigs (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I understand things, this is just a formality preliminary to a general election. The election and any change in government is what we would post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed the ITNR tag - "Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits."  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – He's "tendered his resignation," but has been asked to stay on as a caretaker PM until ... the ice cream melts? A separate article on 2019 Italian Political Crisis would be appropriate. (Ongoing?) – Sca (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics; userbase bias. Italy is a country of 60 million people and is not a great power. We can't possibly post every time some government resigns in some country somewhere in the world. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC) blocked IP sock
 * Of course we can. Opposing based on population and perception of "great power"ness is absurd.  This will, however, be posted once a new head is elected. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, the UK and France are both permanent security council members, yet they have "small" populations as well. Your reasoning is really absurd. -- BoothSift Talks  06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to the IP editor, we post about every country, big or small. That said, it's bizarre to consider Italy - the 23rd largest by population out of 193 UN member states - to be too irrelevant for ITN. That would be an example of what you call "userbase bias." Cheers,     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 07:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now until he actually resigns-- BoothSift Talks  06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, his resignation is official since August 20... chaos was replaced with crisis, as the NYT eloquently summarized in a headline. Wakari07 (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no strong opinions waiting until the resignation actually occurs, but I do recall us posting Theresa May's intentions to resign long before she officially did so & certainly before the leadership election produced a replacement.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That nom was quite contentious for the same reasons. The supporters largely argued that the breadth and depth of coverage was the reason to post, which I find specious. Of course the big anglophone countries are going to get more media coverage - due to the media bias that we seek to ignore in our decision making.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: does anyone know how long it is likely to take to select the successor? I'm hesitant to post the same story twice in rapid succession, but a change of PM in a G8 country is important enough for ITN and it's in the mainstream media now. If the process will take more than a couple of weeks, I support a blurb that says 'announces his intention to resign once a successor has been selected' or similar wording. If a successor will be in place faster than that, I prefer to wait for a combined blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Without having spend the effort to actually see what is going on, it looks like the last PM to resign mid-term took 3 days between announcement and resignation. The PM before that tendered resignation 13 Feb 2014, had it accepted on 14 Feb, Matteo Renzi formed a government on the 21st, was sworn in on the 22th, and received parliamentary support on the 25th.  So we probably have about 2 weeks before the new PM takes office and this leaves the news.  Then again, it might result in a new general election which will take months to sort everything out.  As a note, the last time an Italian PM resigned without a general election we didn't post the resignation but did post the replacement.Rockphed (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that Italian prime ministers resign with numbing regularity – there have been nearly 60 since WWII. – Sca (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Italian president said tonight that he gives the parties four days to talk. He said that Tuesday, he'll have new consultations (implying he'll then make a new declaration on either an alternative majority or new elections). But I guess he could also announce that he needs more time...Wakari07 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

+Comment The article to be linked to is Conte Cabinet. I briefly updated it for the events after 20 August 15:00 GMT, that is after Conte expressed in the Senate his intention to resign. Wakari07 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We can't wait until the ice caps melt. This is a major, ongoing political crisis in a major country. Wakari07 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Now that he has officially resigned, it's ITN worthy. Despite the fact that Italian governments tend to change more often than people change their underwear. Regards So  Why  07:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coalition governments are fragile by their nature, making their collapse a fairly routine occurrence in the parliamentary system. No rationale has been brought forth to justify why this is special.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a fairly unjust generalization imho. Germany has had coalition governments since 1949 and maybe a single one could have said to have "collapsed" (Schmidt, 1982). Regards So  Why  17:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll remember that when the nom concerns Germany. My point is that (globally) a PM resigning is a routine event, which usually triggers a ITNR election. So posting the resignation means a double post, and that should require something special. There is no special here - just a weak coalition falling apart as weak coalitions do. If the only rationale is "Italy is an important country" that's a slippery slope. And Italy changes PMs like most people change socks.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This chaos/crisis is special because it makes headlines for weeks now.  Investors are in an odd wait-and-see lethargy.  It's also unique that "If the country does head to new polls in the coming months, the current parliamentary term would become the shortest in Italian republican history." . Plus: the entire Senate was recalled from recess, and if elections are decided it would be the first time they'd be held in autumn or winter  etc. Of course, Salvini has the poll numbers in mind. For me, it's like WP:Snow in summer.  Wakari07 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - resignation of the head of the government of a G7 country is definitely ITN-worthy. Whether it's a coalition government or not is irrelevant. -Zanhe (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close because the eventual new nomination will have a different target article, wording, effective date, etc.130.233.3.90 (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Stale. Sca (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will be archived automatically in a few hours anyway, but Prez Mattarella has reserved tomorrow for more talks . We can then probably complement the proposed blurb with early elections or a different coalition (Conte?) government. Stay tuned 🧐 Wakari07 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Interstellar iron-60 detected in Antarctic snow

 * Oppose. Interstellar 60Fe on Earth was discovered 20 years ago and has been confirmed several times e.g. . Finding it in Antarctic snow rather than sea floor sediments does not justify an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MG. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. The discovery on Earth would have been ITN-worthy but confirming its presence in the snow of Antarctica is not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need for this to be include in ITN as per MG-- BoothSift Talks  06:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Snow way.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harry B. Luthi

 * Weak support just above stub, but what's there is alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well referenced but does not meet minimum content standards for RD in terms of subsections and depth of content.  Spencer T• C 20:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer Thank you for the kind review, please guide me to the relevant standard for RD that states this. IMHO this is not a stub and the content covers the subject's life. Whatever public information we have on the subject is already added, what do we do now ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My standards are to have at minimum 3 fleshed-out paragraphs with appropriate depth of coverage for the key aspects that made the person notable. Not everyone who has a non-stub article on Wikipedia will have an article that meets completeness standards for RD. For this person in particular, there is a list of political roles that he served in (Mayor, City Council Member), but no information about what he accomplished in those roles. Local sources - which are likely harder to access - could potentially have more information.  Spencer T• C 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Perkins (reporter)

 * Support Fixed one unsourced statement. --M asem (t) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose at least one unsourced claim exists. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the one unsourced claim pointed by The Rambling Man. thanks -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment still good to go 6 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go 9 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guo Zhenqian

 * Comment The article appears to be in good shape, however, 3 of the 4 sources are in Chinese with no obvious translations available. It would be appropriate that a native bilingual check before posting.130.233.3.115 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in plenty of English sources, but I haven't added them because they're not detailed enough. See this book, for example, which does mention some of his major positions. -Zanhe (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Happy to AGF on the sources based on Zanhe's previous work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 11:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohammed Zahur Khayyam

 * Oppose Entire paragraphs are unreferenced, including the entire Early Life section as I am aware. You are indeed correct that sourcing needs work. -- BoothSift Talks  00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work-- Booth  Sift  21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Notable singer of India who left a good legacy. However, I agree that paragraphs need sourcing as person is recently passed away.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support I'm switching to "ws" because the amount of work done has been excellent, the article needs a serious copyedit and a proseline assassination attempt, but it's far better than it was. Great work.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One of the best known music composers of India who has received state funerals and numerous national awards during his career Manish2542 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one is questioning the notability, but the article is junk. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sourcing issues in the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks for your kind review. I understand that all the controversial (or challengable) facts in a BLP need sources. Several editors are working to improve this page. It will be helpful for all of us, if you can add Cn tags in the article or point them here or on the talk page. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues have all been fixed. Took tremendous amount of work and teamwork with User:Fylindfotberserk and User:Vrishchik. The article needs a review again. Courtesy ping User:Boothsift, The Rambling Man, User:Coffeeandcrumbs-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Twelve hours and still waiting. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Could use some more copyediting and sections in careers, but meets minimum standards and there is consensus to post.  Spencer T• C 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jagannath Mishra

 * Weak oppose sourcing poor in some areas. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tense problems and general language issues throughout. Many terms ("lahks[lots?] of teachers", "mince his words", "the Center", "draconian", etc.) are not understood outside of India, editorial, or otherwise problematic. Many of the claims, especially in the lede, seem hagiographical, and I am not in a position to know whether they are true because there is no source for them. I assume that the suffix "-ji" to a name indicates then unsuffixed person in the Bihar Press Bill section; this makes for rather confusing reading. The Publications section is lacking entirely. It's a little suspicious that someone with so long a publication history would not have a single reference to even one.130.233.3.115 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 130.233.3.115 thanks for reviewing. I have removed lakhs (FYI lakh =0.1 million). The suffix ji is honorific, and I have removed them. Lack of sources may be attributed to Internet WP:BIAS. I am working to fix your other concerns as well. Some help in copy editing will be appreciated. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the issues have been fixed. Kindly review the article again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Adequately updated and sourced; and prose is improved.  Spencer T• C 20:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) US missile test

 * Oppose We just posted the withdrawl. And it was known that the US was getting ready to do this test ASAP after the withdrawl. Not a significant event for ITN. --M asem (t) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose just business as usual now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Yes, we did post the US withdrawal from the ITN recently. But I don't think it was clear then or was a given that U.S. will quickly resume testing that had been prohibited by the ITN, and the consequences of such a possible resumption were not clear as well. For example, it was possible that there would be a push of some sort to conclude a new treaty. However, on Aug 22, after the U.S. test, there was a UN Security Council meeting, called by China and Russia, and it became apparent that nobody is in the mood to push for a new treaty. China then explicitly stated that it is not interested in negotiations for a potential new treaty . Then Putin ordered the Russian military to prepare a "symmetrical response" to the U.S. test . So now it appears that a period of a missile arms race will follow. That seems significant enough to me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Jack Whitaker

 * Oppose sourcing far from adequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * lot of improvements made since you last reviewed. The Rambling Man, Please review again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support one minor claim left unreferenced at this time, article is improved, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. I have referenced that claim now.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kathleen Blanco

 * Oppose Not in close shape for posting. --M asem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This article may have been edited by a serial copyright violator with a particular interest in Louisiana politics – please check this link. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Canary Islands wildfires

 * Oppose local event that happens commonly, without casualty figure or anyother reason that makes it notable of blurb. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some 8,000 evacuated; fires said to be "out of control," spreading. (Two sources added.) – Sca (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should this cause significant damage then it would make sense to post, but just the existence of wildfires or the evacuation order isn't sufficient for posting. --M asem (t) 16:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait As of right now it has not yet caused sufficient damage to be internationally notable. However, if the fire threatens a major population centre, or if the fire destroys the UNESCO site on Gran Canaria, then that would change.  And I will note that the fire is rather close to both of those. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem & NorthernFalcon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – No fatalities (yet), but this 24,000-acre (38 sq. mi.) wildfire remains out of control despite 1,000 firefighters and 14 water-dropping helicopters and planes. By any standard – including those of the Western U.S. – that's major. Let's keep an eye on it. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Possibly a candidate for Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Didn't take long for the California fires to be posted, as I remember that was before reports of people dying, and I think a good part of an entire island with threats to a WHS is more important internationally and historically than celebrities' houses, as sad as any kind of destruction is.
 * And I'm pretty sure the Tenerife fire on the 18/19 was actually within the Teide UNESCO WHS already. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * fwiw the California wildfires in November 2018 (I'm assuming its these, specifically the Woolsey Fire because of the celebrity homes) were posted with 25 confirmed deaths and the near-total destruction of Paradise, CA in the Camp Fire. It was nominated when the destruction became evident, and the deaths were confirmed by the time it gained support for posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is fair and sad, but a wildfire in one of two island volcano WHS (not caused by the volcano) and another WHS that only got designated this year is also pretty tragic, whether there's people killed or towns destroyed. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Number of evacuated grown to 9000, affected area grown to 10,000 ha (over 6% of the entire island). Article updated to reflect latest information. Vishal dh (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Cedric Benson

 * Oppose whole unreferenced paras, and Early life (for instance), whole section unref. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling for NFL experts to help with sourcing. User:Bagumba please take a look. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kip Addotta

 * Support from this Dementoid. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article looks incomplete (mainly about personal life) and insufficiently sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequate sourcing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 17 August 2019 Kabul bombing

 * Support alt blurb. This news is the headline of every news site across the world. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - headline news.BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle due to high mortality. However, two-thirds of the current article consists of comments from assembled notables, while descriptive text is a spare 170 words. Further, the article's statement that "there were no immediate claims of responsibility" is misleading, as RS reports from AP, BBC, the Guardian and AFP say the local 'IS' affiliate claimed responsibility. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - High casualty, hence notable as well - Sherenk1 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - not the most comprehensive article imaginable but covers the bases satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - Article may be short but that's about as much as major sources are reporting this morning, so should be fine. --M asem (t) 15:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't link Afghanistan please. Common geographical location.  Plus, consistency in the template too.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --M asem (t) 15:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What a terrible blurb. Who proposed this first blurb? – Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&type=revision&diff=911353180&oldid=911341836 --5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Snide. – Sca (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Still quite thin. – Sca (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I spot checked the latest news on this and there's not much else to say, that doesn't get into politicizing the incident (which is mostly speculation on the current US-Afghanistan talks, which we shouldn't post.) --M asem (t) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Masem please make it 80 dead and 160 injured : src reuters-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW fixes like these should goes to WP:ERRORS (so more eyes see it). --M asem (t) 13:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Masem thanks, I will post there as well. I would not call this an error. Current events are expected to evolve and would need updation accordingly. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Damodar Ganesh Bapat

 * Weak support very brief, but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man thanks for the feedback, I have further expanded the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ammarpad (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Richard Williams (animator)

 * Oppose. Filmography needs more sourcing and there's no prose about his death, just a single reference in the lede. Spengouli (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: José Nápoles

 * Comment Generally regarded as one of the great welterweight fighters. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are 7 sources listed, but it looks like none of them are in the main article text. Rockphed (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Peter Fonda

 * Comment I can see someone arguing for a blurb here, but before we go that road, this is a poorly sourced article. And if someone tries to sweep the filmography (unsourced) to a separate article, that's not appropriate per recent discussion on the ITN talk page. Let's get this up to RD quality first before we talk a blurb. --M asem (t) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose far from ready, but never a blurb in any situation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD, support blurb We've posted some black woman writer I've never heard of a few weeks ago simoply because she was a black person with a Nobel prize (in literature!). Fonda clearly deserves a blurb then. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the criteria that says if 5.44.170.9 hasn't heard of someone, they can't be posted. I think it's also mildly offensive that you indicate Morrison was posted because she was "some black woman" who received a Nobel prize. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Find me another nobel prize in literature winner who's death was posted as a blurb on english wikipedia over the past 10-15 years. It's self evient she was only posted because she was 1) woman 2) black for anyone who isn't lying to themselves 5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The fact that my comment is considered to be "offensive", and was even removed as such speaks volumes about the state of this website in 2019 as well as confirms what I said. No wonder the vote succeed, if all opposition is declared offensive and is immediately removed/banned from the website. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We would have blurbed the first white man to win the Nobel Prize in Literature when he died too! Does knowing that make you feel better? --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the state of Wikipedia, perhaps you should find somewhere else to spend your time and make your offensive statements. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is trolling. I deleted their original comment for race baiting, but was reverted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to be making a WP:POINT. If someone who knows how comes along it would be worth collapsing this convo.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb This blurbed death thing is getting out of control. Not every really famous person gets a blurb just because you like them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To note, I would be against this as a blurb myself, but was only cautioning here because of how his death was being handled in newspapers as "oh gosh, a major loss!", and wanted to address the major block to that point first. --M asem (t) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wanted to do the same thing. RD only. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose both Unsourced early life chunks, disproportionate Twitter beef, just OK in his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As per Muboshgu-- BoothSift Talks  20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – In view of the subject's somewhat checkered film oeuvre. – Sca (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm not seeing blurb-level fame here. Should be RD.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is locked, but I've left my suggestions for CN resolutions on the talk page. It's a shame to see RD half-filled with barely-not-stubs of completely un-notable people, while a widely-recognized name gets left off.  Oppose blurb, died of natural causes.  I take that other IPs point, though, I think it better to not repeat mistakes.130.233.3.115 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a well-grounded reason why Fonda is still ignored in RD? --Biafra (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RDs for the ITN box on main page must show a level of quality representative of what WP can be. Fonda's article remains drastically poorly sourced throughout, and no one has bothered to update it. --M asem (t) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * understood. i'm just wondering that lot of other persons who were (still are?) visible there are with poorer and weaker quality... --Biafra (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Felice Gimondi

 * Oppose about half the bio unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support excellent work on the article, good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple entire paragraphs are unreferenced -- BoothSift Talks  21:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good work, good to go now. -- BoothSift Talks  00:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Have done some extensive work on the article, mainly sourcing. Maybe and  can reevaluate as well? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good work! I've listed as the updater. -Zanhe (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Princess Christina of the Netherlands

 * Oppose Early life section looks to be entirely unreferenced, and other issues thereafter. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article needs some spit polish in several areas.  In the realm of referencing, there are many more inline cites needed.  While some stuff is uncontroversial and easily verifiable (like the fact that she had three sisters, etc.) other stuff which is more open to interpretation or not readily available in the public record, like "Christina was a bright and happy child, with a considerable talent for music. She also had a capacity for languages and as a young girl delighted the visiting President of the French Republic, René Coty, by conversing fluently with him in French." and the information on the faith healer, and several other places, needs direct inline citations.  Furthermore, the article is woefully incomplete, it looks like she did nothing of note between changing her name in 1963, getting married and having children in the 1970s, and dying in 2019.  Surely in four decades there's something worth reporting that happened in there?  It does need some work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Lets get people looking this article and fixing it!  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC).


 * Support per improvements. Weak Oppose - A few missing citations left in a couple of sections, as editors above have pointed out. If this is resolved, please ignore this !vote or consider it a support !vote.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 05:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * all major issues. A lot of good work has been done by several editors to improve this. It needs a review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Still missing citations for some areas. Kingsif (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * added more citations for the missing ones and expanded the article more. Now every major info is reliably sourced. please review. courtesy ping, The Rambling Man, User:Jayron32, User:Vanilla Wizard, Kingsif-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work, thank you! I've struck my previous comment and replaced my !vote.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 19:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Vanilla Wizard thanks for reconsidering your !vote. I have made some further improvements to the page as well. Hope it gets posted before getting archived -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks good to go. Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tone, can someone give the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * now done by Tone.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. B. Chandrasekhar

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support start class with good sourcing.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready to post 10 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks to be in reasonable shape. Nsk92 (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready to post 22 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support enough delay already! -Zanhe (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ural Airlines Flight 178

 * Oppose - I know it's refreshing to see an airline story that isn't a catastrophe for once, but "plane lands safely" is not really newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A successful emergency landing with no casualties isn't a significant story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Miracle on the Hudson was a "plane lands safely" "with no casualties" story and it was posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Over a decade ago. I'm not convinced it would meet today's ITN criteria for that exact reason. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. When was the last time pilots made an emergency landing of a large wide-body jet on rough terrain with full fuel tanks after both its engines failed and managed to avoid any deaths or serious injuries? This is a miracle on Hudson-tier event, IMO 5.44.170.9 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the distance and angle from the runway, it seems that the plane did not climb to any significant height or yaw/turn from the "liftoff vector" (pardon my terminology). As such, a successful ditch is not nearly as remarkable as that if 1549.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It reached about 750 ft above ground level according to sources. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty ironic because in [this https://meduza.io/feature/2019/08/15/piloty-uralskih-avialiniy-posadili-airbus-na-kukuruznoe-pole-srazu-posle-vzleta-eto-kruche-chuda-na-gudzone?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=live&utm_campaign=live] article on Meduza an actual pilot argues that their lower altitude was precisely the reason why their situation was worse: the pilots had less time to drop the speed and less space to manoeuvre the plane 5.44.170.9 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It is good that there were no fatalities, but a successful emergency landing does not quite make it to the INT level. There are several other Russia stories, such as the 9M730 Burevestnik situation and the current mass protests in Moscow, that are a lot more significant. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think the idea that "if they'd only all just died, this would be postable!" is pretty nonsensical. Banedon (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Nonsensical" is quite a strong word here. You can simply disagree with the opposers without it. Our opposes are based on the fact on the ground not because we relish death. If they indeed all died, the story would have been completely different. The Russian government, Aviation stakeholders, US and Airbus would have issued series of statements. Media would have gone agog with scoop and images, flights would be delayed/canceled. A high-level investigation panel would have been established, technical investigators would have been imported from US/France to start studying the remnants of the plane. That's a STORY and what differentiate the others with this. There are almost 10 air crashes that happened after the last one we posted here. This one is not different from them. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A nice "brite" (as they used to say in the noozbiz), but not really significant. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Banedon. I believe this is notable enough for ITN and the article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The article is good, but I believe this is not notable enough for ITN. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's a good news story but is already getting stale. Not much of encyclopdic long-term value, aircraft routinely suffer bird strikes, we won't be learning an awful amount from this incident other than a tick in the box for the pilot and for Airbus.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others above-- BoothSift Talks  06:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This would be like not posting Apollo 13 because the astronauts lived.  Sometimes a "successful failure" is still notable. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would further add the points that there were more injuries here than with the Hudson River event, and we don't often post things related to Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think comparing a bird strike (daily occurrence) and successful controlled descent into terrain (from a few hundred metres) with Apollo 13 (the third ever attempt at a moon landing, tens of thousands of miles in space, 50-odd years ago, employing the scientific minds of NASA to find a solution....) is the biggest stretch of imagination I've seen today. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not making a direct comparison other than the fact that people do not have to die for something to be notable. Please link to stories on double bird strikes that brought down commercial aircraft from each day of the last week(since these occur daily). 331dot (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apollo 13 was not heavily followed by the public until the astronauts were in danger. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why bring up Apollo 13? There are dozens of aircraft crashes in the past few years where nobody died.  We haven't posted any of them.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you read my comment correctly, you'll see I said that bird strikes are a daily occurrence. This was a bird strike.  It has no long-term encyclopedic value, will have no impact on flying and hence my weak oppose.  It's great that everyone survived but it's happened plenty of times.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bird strikes do happen daily. Bird strikes that take out all engines of an airliner and result in a crash landing in which everyone survives is pretty much a "less than once in a decade" event. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but ultimately it was a controlled descent into terrain in which everyone survived. That has happened more than one a decade.  You can intersect as many different aspects as  you like to make it unique, but ultimately it's just crash from which everyone escaped but nothing will change, the EV is very low.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What definition of EV are you using? 331dot (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly one that's wildly different from you as this is in no way comparable to Apollo 13. This is a minor story with no long-lasting impact, it's borderline trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And FYI, some light reading which demonstrates that on any given day in the US alone, seven years ago there was an average of 28 bird strikes per day. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But that does not mean that 28 commercial airliners are brought down in cornfields with injuries every day. So, since this isn't notable, I guess the Hudson River incident article should be deleted. Maybe they should take the plane out of the museum, too. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, other stuff definitely exists. I guess after a point we stop making a fuss over things that are relatively routine.  Or we don't make a fuss about it at all because it happens in other countries.  Who knows?  As you know, they even made a movie about Sully, so it's unlikely that the Hudson page will be deleted.  And also unlikely that this will be deleted either, but as for EV and newsworthiness, it's down at the bottom end of the scale.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not kept track about how often things related to Russia are posted in INT. But this story is really small potatoes compared with several other Russia related stories that are happening now. The 9M730 Burevestnik story, nominated below, is a much more significant event, both nationally and internationally. But by far the biggest story in Russia now is the ongoing protests related to the 2019 Moscow City Duma election. Thousands of people have been arrested, and the protests have spread significantly beyond Moscow. These are the largest protests in Russia since 2011-2013. If any current Russia story deserves ITN posting, it is that one, rather than a story about an aircraft birds strike. Nsk92 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per 331dot. Also, there is precedent as 5.44.170.9 points out above, with US Airways Flight 1549 which was posted to ITN when it happened. Regards So  Why  08:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot and SoWhy. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose A passenger plane crash in which everyone survives is quite common. For example:      and this only includes large passenger aircraft since 2018.  At least one of those stories involved a plane landing in the water similar to the Miracle on the Hudson.  I will grant that of these six crashes, this story is the most notable because it involved the largest aircraft.  However, while it is a heartwarming story, I don't believe it is notable within an international context. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Opposing this is not easy because it may sound like expressing some pessimistic thought because no one died. But a plane crash in which everyone survives is really not news and would be forgotten soon, in a matter of weeks at most. Whereas those with heavy fatality tend to make lasting impression to the families of victims, affect government procedures and aviation industry in general. That's why we post them, not because we relish fatality. It's just how human mind perceive events since time immemorial, we cannot change this here on Wikipedia. I've to add that, the analogy to old posting (10 years ago) is not relevant here. The same thing would not be posted if it were to be judged with today's criteria. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment An American plane, with American passengers, landing on an American river would not be reported these days? Don't make me laugh. Complete fiction. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly per Ammarpad, though I disagree on 1549. There's a big difference between a control descent 60 seconds after liftoff on your original trajectory and maneuvering an engine-less A320 to avoid crashing into a dense urban area. I would agree it was much fluffed up by having occurred in the "capital of the world."  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on the principle that we have posted near-disasters in aviation before, and otherwise meets quality and newsworthiness, and that its clear if we didn't at this point, we are showing bias. It's still being considered a major accident in terms of aviation - it is being given the same thorough investigation that a crash would have had (for those asking about lasting impact). Even if the "difficulty" of the safe landing between this crash and the 1549 flight is far different, it still was fast action to save a large number of lives. --M asem (t) 14:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per 331dot, basically, but I'd more like to point out that this is definitely on the news from what I've searched, so there is at least a notability aspect to it. Plus, it was still an accident, so it's not like nothing happened, though I wouldn't call it an Apollo 13. Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A large commercial airliner landing in a cornfield is not a routine occurrence. That there were no fatalities should not be a bar to it being significant or newsworthy. -- KTC (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)




 * Comment – Now he's officially a Hero of Russia – demonstrating that hype knows no borders. What next – a jaunt to the ISS? He was just doing his job, for which he evidently was well-trained. – Sca (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Asterisk TimesNewRoman.png
 * Support – NPOV. Precedent shows that if this happened in U.S., France, UK, Australia, or Canada, we would have posted it. We should set our personal feels aside and post this. It is in the news and the Hero of the Russian Federation is a nice kicker showing high notability. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF - the rationale given in opposition is perfectly reasonable, there is no cause to imply bias. And only one prior nom has been provided for precedence, and it is 10 years old. ITN has changed a lot in that time. Read that discussion; its crazy it got posted.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I include myself in bias and bias is not bad faith. It is a fact of life. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready - article in good shape, awards of Russia's highest civilian medals to crew adds much weight to notability, its in the news and Russia is generally under-represented at ITN. Support reasons seem to outweigh oppose reasons. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should know much better than to mark your own nomination as ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking one's own nomination as ready is allowable, as an independent admin can either post it or overrule. What is an abuse of admin tools is to post one's own nomination, especially where there are opposes. You will notice that I have not done this. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I understand that a simple majority is not enough to be considered consensus, but how can consensus exists when the majority of editors are in opposition? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment can we switch the image please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Asterisk TimesNewRoman.png "I really don't feel like a hero," Capt. Yusupov said. "I did what I had to do." – Sca (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vidya Sinha

 * Oppose several statements outside the filmography also in need of reference. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues have all been fixed now. The Rambling Man please review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support looks good. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ready to post. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 15 hours later and still ready to post... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support been ready for a while. -Zanhe (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks Tone, can someone post the credits. regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * now done by Tone.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Tsao

 * Support Short but adequate. One could wish for a few more references for diversity of coverage, but the ones cited appear to be RS and the article is acceptably cited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be preferable to have a couple more sources since ref [1] goes up to [r] but otherwise fine. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources and content, including several published books. I've only included sources with in-depth coverage of him. -Zanhe (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) August 2019 Philadelphia shooting

 * Oppose Limited long-term impact. Given the US's history of shootings, article doesn't make it clear how this event stands out among the dozens of other ones that have happened this year.  Spencer T• C 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails WP:BODYCOUNT. Mass shootings are far too common in the US to post all but the most serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is nowhere near ready for the main page as of now. But lets be honest, people don't shoot at cops every day in the U.S. This is not normal. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This looks like they got shot while on duty, responding to a general gang shootout. While sad, this is equivalent to military personnel dying in aircraft accidents. It's nowhere close to the previous shooting events. --M asem (t) 01:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no deaths (Thank God!), and as said earlier not really newsworthy in the U.S.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Nyonoksa evacuation

 * Comment is this related to the 9M730 Burevestnik nomination below? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. --M asem (t) 18:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okeydokes, then "one nomination at a time please". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ningali Lawford

 * Support especially when the Women_in_Red get to her as August is Indigenous Month in that Project. --Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Support Poked around; looks is good enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seven hours later, still good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Polly Farmer

 * Oppose A few unsourced patches, but the article is not far off. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of references that cover his awards, and membership of premiership teams. Are there other concerns? (Maybe you could cn them.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support he is probably one of the first Excitement Machines of the VFL and WAFL. — Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a notable Australian Rules Footballer recognized as such across Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a sprinkling of [citation needed] tags in there which must be resolved before posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All fixed. OK now? HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Literally considered a Legend in his field.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that Aussie rules is a big enough field though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Waverley Park's field was originally 200 metres long and 160 metres across. That's a big field in my book.--WaltCip (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's a sport you're obviously not familiar with. I suggest you have a look at the attendances at games. See List of sports attendance figures. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was never going to get a blurb, HiLo48, that was the only point I was making. Attendances have nothing to do with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You made no point that I could see, and it was a typical comment from someone not familiar with a particular sport, and consequently denigrating it. And you're still doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD referencing issues appear to have been resolved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hussein Salem

 * Support. References probably adequate, though a bit patchy in most of the "career" section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 13 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 14:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Lekima (2019)

 * Support - biggest typhoon of the year, major damage in multiple countries. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support important and of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in both quality and importance, but I would not include the damage cost in the blurb. It would be better to find an estimate number of injured or displaced by the storm here, going back to past natural disasters. --M asem (t) 02:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Added an improved altblurb (at least, IMO) --M asem (t) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's one Twitter source which I'd prefer to be replaced with a better source, but overall this is ready. Alt blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I've added another altblurb to add more affected regions and remove the unsourced cropland phrase. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 09:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Altblurb II, but waiting for image to clear protection queue. --M asem (t) 15:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: DJ Arafat

 * Oppose predominantly unreferenced, and still marked as a double-stub(ble). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose needs a proper copyedit for English and encyclopedic tone. I just modified a sentence which read He had multiple motorcycle accidents one of the accidents happened in 2009 was a serious accident which, to me, would be completely unacceptable to promote on our Main Page.  Other similar (but not as bad) issues exist.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch, I have done a recheck on the article to copy edit for problems. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Stub article and very unreferenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yup, I am working to address these. Some help will be appreciated. :) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues. The article is expanded. Now it is a Start Class article with excellent sourcing. User talk:The Rambling Man and TDKR Chicago 101 please see if you can now support this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It looks quite better now than when it was nominated. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Updates mentioned above look fine. --M asem (t) 14:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: José Luis Brown

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lu Yonggen

 * Support AGF on Chinese sources. Looks overall good. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to goBabbaQ (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support g2g. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergio Obeso Rivera

 * Support Appears to be fully sourced, no obvious issues. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we really have a "Controversy" section in this article?. I think not. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've merged the paragraph into the Biography section. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 09:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And it surely looks quite more neutral now. Marked this nomination ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support dreadful proseline but I was holding off because of the undue weight issues with a whole controversy section, better now it's been merged. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(READY) 9M730 Burevestnik

 * Support. Pretty important since this is a notable weapon and explosion left radioactive contamination. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I understand there's no consensus among experts that the reason for the radiation leak was the Burevestnik rocket. As a reminder, the official response was that the disaster happened on a "nuclear battery unit", whatever the hell that means. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The story is still developing, but relatively little information has been made public and the article still needs improvements.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: Yes, but since every proposed blurb is a variant on "9M730 Burevestnik explodes" and we have no indication that the explosion involved 9M730 Burevestnik, these opposes seem reasonable enough. "Something exploded, the investigation hasn't concluded what, and the evidence is pointing towards it being an accident involving an RTG (of which there are hundreds scattered across Russia) rather than a missile failure" is a tricky headline to write, let alone an article. &#8209; Iridescent 20:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So we just stick with RS and attribute the spike in radiation to what RS are claiming.  It's not that tricky.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now, the mention in the article is enough. Also it is claimed that the exploded rocket used liquid fuel, and Burevestnik uses solid. And also, I think the amount of radiation released supports the claim that contamination was from a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, not a reactor. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The developing and important story is not only that some sort of nuclear accident occurred, but also Russian authorities’ spotty, reluctant, and self-contradictory release of information about it. —Michael Z. 2019-08-14 14:24 z 
 * Weak support this has re-entered the news where I live, it's clearly a very rare nuclear accident, but I think "explodes" rather than "blows up" might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be a significant developing story with staying power. Nsk92 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, perhaps with an expanded blurb about the recent evacuation of the local populace (see above; I mistakenly started a new nomination not realizing this was the same event.) -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not on the story, but I would not be highlighting the Nyonoksa article - it is in poor shape and dominated by the missile issue. The evacuation should be covered in the missile's article. --M asem (t) 18:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note CNN reported this evacuation has been canceled. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Oppose Too soon for any conclusions. It's still not known whether the accident has anything to do with the development works on the Burevestnik cruise missile. BlackFlanker (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one denies that. However, not much is known about the cause of the accident and the device being tested at the site. Russian MoD probably won't dislose these kind of informations any time soon. BlackFlanker (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And, like North Korea, they probably will never disclose any information. So we go with our RS.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This story seems to be growing in significance as time passes, due to the possibility of radiation contaminating the environment. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Weak oppose Its in the news, and the article on the rocket is fine, but the more I think about this, the lack of firm details that we have, most of it being feed from the Russian government which we know we have to take with a grain of salt, I think its the type of story to avoid featuring right now because we can't be 100% of what's actually happened. I'm sure the 7 people have died from a test rocket explosion, but most of the other factors are iffy. I'd not oppose posting this outright, just that I think this is not a good story to feature. --M asem (t) 20:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well how odd. We have verification that people died here and we have that same verification that radiation has spiked.  This is like a North Korean missile test.  Why is it "not a good story to feature"?  I think this is the strangest oppose I've ever read from you Masem.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more from the article quality stance. We know people died from the missile accident, but how much of the rest is verified. If this isn't a concern to others, then we're ready to go, but I feel this is something that has been an issue in the past (eg I want to say that the initial posting of the Mueller report were cautioned because we had no idea what was in it). --M asem (t) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose – Agree with Masem. Given the relatively small number of victims, and the arcane nature of the incident, I'm not convinced this event is of ITN-level significance. And at 270 words, the article is rather sketchy. – Sca (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable story, with global significance and coverage. Article is short but is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose / wait: this is tricky. It's clearly an unusual accident which is attracting a lot of media attention, but almost everything we know about it is supposition and outsider estimates. The amount of radiation released seems to be very small, though it wouldn't be the first time a cover up hid the true extent of the problem. We don't even know which missile system was involved; Burevestnik is just an educated guess which would make some Russian statements inconsistent. Based on the factual information available, I think we should treat this like any other explosion that kills seven people; so probably doesn't merit an ITN blurb. However this could well develop into something more significant if further details emerge. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the reports I've seen said the radiation spike was 20 times background for one hour. That is very small, less than the amount most people receive in a day and roughly 80 banana equivalent dose. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Modest Genius. The verified facts in evidence don't raise to a blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As yet it's a content-free article. There's certainly interest, but as yet we have little content to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Rugby Championship

 * Oppose – Charticle. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This would be good to post, but needs a prose summary of the tournament. Currently it's just a series of tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Explosion in Morogoro, Tanzania

 * Support alt Blurb II. I have merged my duplicate nomination above as well as the article. The article is a well referenced start class article and ready IMHO.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "The event was similar to one that occurred in Kenya in 2011, in which 100 people were killed." Really, says who? --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb II. Significant mass casualty incident. The problematic commentary referenced in the above oppose vote has been removed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above MSN12102001 (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per aboveBabbaQ (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, but both article title and blurb must specify that it was a fuel tanker truck that exploded. In Eng.-lang. usage, the phrase "fuel tanker" may refer to a ship or an airplane. Ready notation therefore removed. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, adding "Truck" per Sca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks User:Masem. Can someone post the credits ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by User:Ammarpad -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted to RD; no consensus to post blurb): Jeffrey Epstein

 * Not because of the person but the situation around him, this may be blurb-appropriate, somehing like "While facing numerous charges of sex trafficking, Epstein commits suicide while in a New York jail." or something like that. --M asem (t) 13:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's definitely noteworthy enough for RD but, as pointed out above, the case around him was very notable. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:65B5:3AF9:D9B7:A502 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, I also believe this individual "deserves" a blurb. A period for this indivual. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated into a blurb. Obviously gigantic story that will capture the media attention for days if not weeks Also, support alt-blurb 3 blurb. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Note that Epstein is a convicted sex offender. He was convicted of soliciting underage girls. We can't say "alleged pedophile" because he has already been convicted of a crime that in layman's terms is tantamount to pedophilia. He is a convicted pedophile facing new charges. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for 'Recent deaths' section. Störm   (talk)  14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb, a local case with limited repurcussions. Should be published as ITN RD if there are no other issues.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The trafficking case involved notable figures from all over the world including, allegedly, Prince Andrew, Duke of York. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blurb that says committed suicide. Suicide is legal in New York and is also not a federal crime. Support altblurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Committed suicide" is standard language in the US. We know in other countries suicide is a crime and we'd have to be more careful on wording, but in the US it's standard terminology. --M asem (t) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , NOT TRUE. Many U.S. media are consistently saying "died by apparent suicide". The NYTimes is the only source I found that says committed suicide. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is true, from my admittedly anecdotal experience, that "committed" suicide is the most common phrase used for that action. 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider the source: The NYT remains the No. 1 newspaper in the U.S. and arguably the world. Further, "commit" doesn't necessarily denote a criminal act. – Sca (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Patently untrue, I don't know of a single person in even the UK that reads the NYT at all, an American option here would be WaPo, but even that's uncommon; it's not even the most circulated or bought newspaper in the US, actually, let's not base an argument on clear hyperbole Kingsif (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you should widen your circle of acquaintances. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * PS: Note that the hed on the AP story now says, "Officials: Jeffrey Epstein dies by suicide in jail cell," while that on the NYT page one promo says, "Jeffrey Epstein Hanged Himself in Jail, Officials Say." – Sca (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article in NYTimes used to say committed suicide less than an hour ago. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason why the media is mostly using "apparent suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is because there are doubts circulating as to whether Epstein actually died by suicide. For example:   Thus, the usage of "apparent suicide" in this circumstance would not necessarily disprove the usage of "commit suicide" in cases where the manner of death is certain. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN has been over the "committed suicide" phrasing before, and I'm fairly certain it was agreed that it's fine. I'm not sure objections based on such wording should be counted, given past consensus. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With significant objection. Also see sources cited above. Consensus can change. Can you offer a reason not to use altblurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably that at this point in time, the cause of death is suspected suicide, the investigaton is not yet complete. (He was supposed to be under suicide watch, so there are several questions floating around). --M asem (t) 15:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hence the apparent. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Died of suicide" is too wishy-washy, IMO; "killed himself" is the best (assuming it's true and reliably sourced that he did, of course) as I've said before. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Subject was of scant general significance; notable mainly for the lurid details of his past – support RD only. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the rub - the way the case was going, with this week revealing a number of high profile individuals that were claimed to be involved with Epstein's sex trafficking, there was a likely high chance we would have posted the results of the conviction - this is a high-profile trial even if it only "local". The fact that the individual decided to end his involvement via suicide - well, he won't be convicted, but there will continue to be ongoing investigation, and the case remains of high importance. Hence why a blurb makes sense here. --M asem  (t) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He may be important to whatever other cases may arise from this situation, but posting his death as an RD is sufficient for the record. – Sca (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Wikipedia is (in theory at least) meant to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a gossip magazine. Similar to Sca's comment above, the only reason this is deemed to be newsworthy is because of the nature of the allegations against him. It's extremely likely that most other people in the finance sector are not deemed to be worthy of a blurb upon their death. Chrisclear (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD only This guy is notable enough to warrant ITNC RD and I see no CN tags on his article. Multiple sources have reported his death.  However, I see little hope of us ever getting the blurb correct and I'm not sure that his death warrants a blurb anyway.  p  b  p  15:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready for RD RD is a no brainer. The article is in good shape including solid referencing. Weak Support for blurb. Although there is a sensationalist element to this story, his death does seem to meet the criteria for a blurb at WP:ITNRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb The circumstances around his death are sufficient in my view to warrant a blurb. I don't think it's being gossipy to acknowledge that. As Masem said, this was a significant trial implicating multiple high-profile individuals, and the death of the central figure seems significant. Regardless, his death should be posted as an RD if not as a blurb. Cwilson97 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb Epstein may not seem like a hugely significant figure, but this story goes beyond him. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 Deserves a blurb, Epstein shouldn't be in bold if the story is not just the death but also how big the case was and the connected relevance (i.e. he wouldn't get a blurb on his own, don't make him the target). Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection except for the spelling of paedophile. That is not common spelling in the U.S. Also see concerns by Masem of not clear cut that he killed himself. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added Altblurb3 which combines the best of both altblurb and altblurb2. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support one of the altblurb: This isn't just a death, this is a major development in an ongoing news story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Clearly. The death, rather than his life, is indisputably the story, and it is front-page news internationally. This is a significant development in his already-notable case. Davey2116 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Just RD? What the hell. STSC (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this enlightening comment. – Sca (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb – Specifically altblurb. This is a major news story. Kurtis (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Blurb discussion open.  Spencer T• C 16:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb 3 per others. Clearly meets level of significance, and has implications outside of the U.S. Spengouli (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Clearly" is one of the two most overused words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this enlightening comment. :) Spengouli (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Inconceivable!" --M asem (t) 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. He might only have been a name in US politics until a short while ago but now his death is prominently reported around the world. Here are some examples: Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany) (third item on their homepage), Le Monde (France) (first item on their homepage), Corriere della Sera (Italy) (fourth item), The Guardian (UK) (top news story). Regards So  Why  17:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "prominently" is pushing it a bit. Its coverage on Le Monde is now at a par with a story about a provincial hospital. On Corriere it is not even the top ranking US story, and is ranked behind this important bit of world news. This is really a US story only, and not a particularly prominent one either. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this bit of world news. – Sca (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. There has been a significant creep towards blurbs for RDs. These should be really exceptional. His criminal record is hardly enough to justify treatment as a world leader, and there are plenty of other financiers. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of a death of someone at the top of their field. The blurb is proposed because the death, rather than the person himself, is newsworthy (as per the death blurbs criteria at WP:ITNRD; 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). Davey2116 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the use of the word "may" there. I presume you are not suggesting that suicides are intrinsically "newsworthy" so you must be referring to the reporting of it. I must admit I do not see this at all. It is true that there has been a fair bit of rather bland coverage, but there has hardly been a "newsworthy reaction". —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb of any kind. This is a case of what-might-have-been. If he had stayed alive and his criminal case proceeded, he might have named a lot of powerful and rich people who were his "clients" and that could indeed have had major repercussions, in the U.S. one beyond. But with Epstein dead, none of this is going to happen. Also, I find the phrasing "apparent suicide" highly objectionable. There has not been any suggestion in any of the RS reporting the story that his death was anything other than suicide. Calling it "apparent suicide" casts doubt on this fact. We should not be promoting or worse yet, creating, conspiracy theories around his death. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it has not been confirmed as suicide at all. Hence we must say "apparent" or somesuch, if we have a blurb in the first place. I would lean towards not having one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "apparent suicide" is used in many RS reporting on the death (e.g., NBC News, WaPo, CBS, WSJ, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - we post blurbs based on real world significance, not on sensationalism. An accused rapist killing himself is not blurb-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the criteria for death blurbs are listed at WP:ITNRD. This appears to meet that criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , when the accused rapist is tied to Trump and Prince Andrew, he's not just "any old" rapist. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb it is still the #1 news article on BBC.com, and it is of international news significance as well. Here in Finland they ran it as a segment in the evening TV news. It is certainly a bigger news story than what's the current top ITN now, Toni Morrison dying of old age, in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Zanhe, Sca et al. Sensationalized trivia. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. And for the record I believe "committed suicide" is fine, it's totally standard usage and doesn't imply a crime at all. Although in this case it's complicated because the suicide is not confirmed. Best to stick to RD.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , and all disagree with you about the use of the term. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. It briefly hit the headlines, yes, but there's no substance in any of the stories beyond "he committed suicide and also he was convicted of these things"; no sense that the death itself is widely significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's being investigated by the FBI. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the fact that it is a suspicious death making it a death of global significance. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as I am hearing a lot of Jeffrey Epstein in the news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb An RD is significant enough. While this is the news section, Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: obvious international significance, and its newsworthiness is only amplified by the "he ran into my knife ten times" nature of his death. Sceptre (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I was thinking of "Who said anything about sabotage?!" but YEAH. It's CBALL to say imply unproven facts, but that doesn't mean we have to be so obtuse as to pretend this was a regular old pedophile who offed himself. Also, "committed" should be avoided because it is quite likely he was murdered. "died by apparent suicide" is factually true.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb given Epstein's high status. Altblurb II (which I slightly modified to use American spelling) is the best, IMO. "Dying of suicide" isn't as direct as "committing suicide", and since the latter seems to have some objections "kills himself" is the best. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb just another criminal avoiding justice? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't libel the dead. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't have strong opinions on whether the blurb should be posted or not, but could we not use "convicted pedophile"? As explained in the lead of pedophilia, pedophile is not the same as child molester (nor do I see pedophile being used by WP:RS); "convicted child sex abuser" or "convicted child sex molester" works better, although RS generally seem to refer to alleged child sex abuse. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anywhere in the article that he was "convicted" of a crime called "child molesting" either - if we want to headline a person about their past crimes, we should ensure that the headline matches the article. (The article may need improving if this is lacking). — xaosflux  Talk 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That his victims were children should be in the blurb, but putting "child sex offender" can mean that he was a sex offender who was also a child. "Sex offender of children" works but is clunky, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Discussion of his testimony and impact on high ranking individuals is speculation, nevertheless clearly significant story with international impact as evidenced by being lead story on UK news media. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:A46A:4F7A:3702:2CF (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Meets notability for ITNRD. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per concerns raised above, since pedophilia is not a crime and one cannot thus be "convicted" of it, I have edited all blurbs that contained that phrase to "convicted child molester", which is a crime. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb 3. Cause of death itself is a major story, so meets notability for ITNRD.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Per the supports, the circumstances surrounding his death are obviously suspicious and are causing a huge media frenzy. Merlin  s  orca  02:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. And “commit suicide” is fine as it is standard usage and does not equate to “criminal act.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments. I'm fine with the "commit suicide" verbiage, it is a common phrase.  As far as the "child molester" phase, this isn't used in the article at all.  The article does say he has an actual conviction of "procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18", and that he was a registered "sex offender". I'd support more a blurb that used this phrasing that is already in the article lede (American financier and convicted sex offender). That, or improve the article to better support that headline first. Procuring appears to have a different definition then molestation according to their articles as well. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally is also common verbiage but we don't use that either because it is ambiguous and misused. "Commit suicide" is "outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase." --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We can use "American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) kills himself while in U.S. federal custody, facing numerous charges of child sex trafficking." --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That wording looks good. Like Xaos, I was also concerned about whether the charge he was actually convicted of can be called child molestation, but didn't have time to look into that in my original comment. I've added that as alt blurb 5 (with slight rewording to fix grammar issues). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Captin Eek, TRM, etc. (And 'commit suicide' is perfectly acceptable English). - SchroCat (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help. by World Health Organization --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you really think that this story is all about avoiding stigma? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, It appears you brought up several links to stories and thinkpieces to show that 'commit suicide' is like a wrong grammar, obsoleted phrase or like we're 'committing' a serious grammatical gaffe by using the phrase. I think it's time to challenge that narrative. 'Commit suicide' is perfectly correct English. Period. Individually commit means to to carry into action deliberately and suicide means the act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally: that's from American dictionary. No amount of thinkpieces and language engineering can change these meanings. Not in this decade and not even in this century. No one, not even United Nations (or any one for that matter) can prescribe overnight 'commit suicide' is wrong. So please spare us more links. We know there are attempts to dissuade its usage for some reasons, but we also know it's correct English with unambiguous meaning. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have never claimed it was "wrong grammar" or "grammatical gaffe". I am claiming it is IGNORANT, offensive, disparaging, and inaccurate to say that someone "committed suicide". It is an outdated and stigmatizing turn of phrase. Most importantly, ITS USE IS NOT NECESSARY! You have a perfectly accurate and acceptable alternative. Epstein killed himself. Simple, accurate, grammatically correct, use of active voice, and not a euphemism. Insisting on using "committed suicide" is POV pushing. The BBC story used to say "apparently commit suicide" and now says "apparently kill himself". We are quickly becoming the last legitimate place on the internet that uses this ignorant term. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. And as there's some debate over whether or not he was on "suicide watch", I don't think this terminology is going away any time soon from many mainstream reliable sources.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A quote does not count. I will email NYTimes and I guarantee you they will change this. They have done several corrections in the past 48 hours. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb significance of this compared to, e.g., ongoing Romanian / Hong Kong / Russian protests which involve tens of thousands of people over a long period of time is very minute indeed. Banedon (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. "In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link."  Suicide is a quite common response to imprisonment and serious criminal accusations.  It's still the case that his death is newsworthy because he was a rich man accused of loathsome crimes.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppport alt blurb (I) Contrary to some opposes above, the suicide itself is also now a story with federal inquiries, including the FBI.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The FBI handle lots of cases in a year, but that doesn't particularly raise them to the threshold required for ITN. This is a local-interest story, and while his death was unexpected it's not hugely significant on a global scale. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shrug. Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, big international story and definitely blurbworthy. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, "big" = relentlessly hyped because prurient. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please consider striking this. Prurient means titillating or appealing to lustful or sexual desire. By saying this is hyped because it is prurient, you are suggesting we're all secretly getting off on stories about kids getting raped. That the crimes are of a sexual nature is true, that doesn't mean interest is likewise derived. The key points of curiosity here are 1) a rich person getting away with crimes because they are rich, and 2) connected to powerful people 3) who may themselves be complicit, 4)despite the crimes being of the sort that are not typically swept under the rug.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This user does not reply to 'users' who do not exist. – Sca (talk)


 * Comment The template appears to support only up to four altblurbs, and since no one seems to be supporting the original blurb I moved the former Altblurb V to the main "Blurb" parameter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – FYI, four European Wikis – German, Dutch, Spanish and Norwegian – list Epstein under 'recent deaths,' but none include him in their versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But the Chinese one does, and this is all WP:OTHERSTUFF.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One must wonder at the relevance of the Epstein tale to Chinese society. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One must wonder at the relevance of Solomon P. Sharp to Chinese society. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I stress this part from ITN guidelines about deaths: . There is definitely an allowance for this story, due to the unusualness of the death (in the midst of a major story, and now with several questions being raised of how he did it when he was to be on suicide watch). It can still be opposed, but I think most supporting are not doing this in recognizing Epstein as a transformative leader. -M asem (t) 16:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly 5,000 Americans committed suicide in custody in 2014 (1) and it is probably higher now. Is that unusual? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How many of those 5,000 Americans have substantial ties to many important people, including a sitting US President, a former US President, and a member of the British Royal Family? 331dot (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per User:Masem and User:331dot above. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 blurb - in the news, unusual death, significant alleged criminal activity.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Boldly reopening. I see 25 votes supporting a blurb and 15 opposing one. How the f*ck is this not a consensus? 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That percentage would not pass an RFA, and in any event consensus is not a majority vote; the discussion above resulted in significant opposition that did not appear to be assuaged in the course of the discussion. Having said all that, I have no position as to whether the discussion should be extended. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miriam Rivera

 * Comment please find a way to remove the COPYVIO deleted YouTube ref. Subject appears to be notable but I would also avoid refs to The Sun tabloid. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  18:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind feedback. I have removed the Youtube refs. Sun is not being used for anything controversial. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is adequate but has almost nothing on the modelling/reality television aspects which are presumable the source of notability. Seems a rather big gap.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough for RD now.BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Findley

 * Support Article has good sourcing and he was known for his anti-Zionist views. (Nonstopmaximum) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Colón

 * Weak Support While the article is of reasonable length and covers the career. The lead needs to be expanded. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no justification for uploading a non-free image within moments of this individual's death. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support assuming all those works are backed up by the one source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Overall ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine on the whole. Sam Walton (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosie Ruiz

 * Support Article is in good shape. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This happened on July 8, not August 8 and therefore I think this is rather stale. Rockphed (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the death was not announced until now, it's eligible. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article had it on 8/1 (uncited, but the details are accurate) and again on 8/5 (this time with the ref). Running Magazine had it on the 5th. This is stale.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not stale. Your dates are both within last week in August. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose an unref para in there. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I removed the unreferenced paragraph, rationale is in my edit summary. If someone disagrees please ping me, otherwise the article is fully referenced now.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fabrizio Saccomanni

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Saudi Arabia loosens travel restrictions on women
Oppose Even if true, a totalitarian dictatorship like Saudi Arabia taking one incrimental step in women liberation all the while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Yemen, Syria, and across the world (as well as in their own country) doesn't deserve a mention on the third most popular website's main page next to anything mentioning positive change there 5.44.170.9 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Law isnt passed until August next year. This is just a stament of intent at this point and changes nothing. This should be brought up if the law is actually passed85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. Unless this gains sufficient notability to justify its own article, I would likely oppose its renomination as well. That said I would gently remind those who may be unaware that we do not weigh nominations based on any political criteria. Nor do we encourage politically pointed commentary in our discussions. Please see... WP:RGW and WP:NOTFORUM. And lastly, while we may discuss to our hearts content, we ask that editors actually vote only once (even if your IP changes). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The two IP addresses are the same person? -- BoothSift Talks  17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I can't be sure (hence my decision not to strike the latter vote), there are some remarkable similarities in their style of commentary. So yes, I strongly suspect they are the same person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the same person.... and no idea how you would come to that. I am unfamillier with how to format pages so i copy whoever is above me, still learning and my work computer wont let me log into my account. Pleasae assume good faith85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, without prejudice when/if it actually becomes law. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if this were significant enough to post (I am ambivalent on that), it has now fallen from headlines. It was first reported late July and most mainstream media by August 1. Nothing substantial thereafter. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In the global scheme this administrative change would be of only passing significance. Sca (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kary Mullis

 * It's very close, but the last sentence of "Personal views" about being called an AIDS denialist 100% needs sourcing, and the awards need sourcing. Should not be hard to get this up before it slips off as stale. --M asem (t) 14:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * References added. sentausa (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted though it will likely slip off shortly. --M asem (t) 13:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Suicide Blast in Afghanistan

 * Support. This number of victims is remarkable. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We're going to need a standalone article on this before it can be ITN. --M asem (t) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone else has made one. -- BoothSift Talks  22:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the article but it's far too short for ITN. And checking news -- coverage is surprisingly light. I mean, we have BBC and NYTimes covering it, but its not bringing up as many hits as I thought. We do need to consider that this region is unstable, there are similar bombings happening all the time, and the news tends to be weary of it, hence the lack of coverage.  --M asem  (t) 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit to the article. -- BoothSift Talks  22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, still a stub. Spengouli (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated now and it is currently start class. -- BoothSift Talks  05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, good work. Spengouli (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support as long as we post mass shootings in the US, there should be nothing stopping us posting these terror attacks in other similarly-afflicted countries. Weak because article isn't pulling up any trees, but just adequate. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It seems initially this was nominated without a standalone article, but now we have something and it looks presentable. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sketchy – 190 words of real text – and such bombings are virtually commonplace for Afghanistan 18 years after the ill-fated U.S. invasion. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of mass shootings in the US has also increased in which there are 250 already in 2019 only. That is probably more than the amount of bombings in Afghanistan so far. -- BoothSift Talks  05:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose – That article just doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid. Gonna need quite the revamp until its eligible to be on the front page. jack chango   talk  22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Article seems good now. Significat enough attack. jack chango   talk  04:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, , I have updated the article. -- BoothSift  Talks  05:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - major lethal attack. Article is now in good shape. -Zanhe (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henri Belolo

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Berman (musician)

 * Support Berman was an influential musician in the indie scene whose return from hiatus last month drew with significant press attention, including profiles in Pitchfork and the AV Club as well as a reddit AMA. The wiki article is well written, thoroughly sourced, and up-to-date. Diabolical Dr Ely 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced paragraphs. Also the "Beginnings" section is mostly unreferenced as the one source listed supports only a small portion of the section. Possibly the case further throughout the article but I am not going to check at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are entirely unsourced paragraphs throughout the article. More references are needed-- BoothSift Talks  05:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unref at this time. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of improvements have been done in the sourcing area to make it worthy for ITN RD. Requesting a review again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Article issues appear to have been resolved. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - Concerns above appear to have been resolved. Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Samwalton9. Can someone post the credits? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Samwalton9-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Tardigrades on moon

 * Comment In the unlikely event we post this, we need an actual reliable source; the one you've misleadingly labelled as "BBC" is actually Newsbeat which may technically be part of the BBC but is about as much a reliable source as a typical comic book. This story is considerably less of a story than it appears; although tardigrades do have the ability to enter cryptobiosis, they certainly won't have the ability to revive in a dry vacuum. The bacteria from Neil Armstrong's boot probably have a greater chance of lunar propagation. &#8209; Iridescent 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not due to lack of reliable sources (e.g. CNN), but ITN-level significance not established. Cute picture, though! El_C 22:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "That's one small stumble for Israel Aerospace Industries, one giant leap for moss piglets". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Om Prakash

 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While well-referenced, the article has no sections and is too sparse in its coverage of the subject (the article and talk page still state that it's a stub); there is no lede/introduction; a good portion of the article consists of listing information in prose format (movies he produced and directed); and the longest paragraph currently in the article consists of just 3 sentences.  Spencer T• C 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer Thanks for the useful feedback, I have expanded the article since you last reviewed. May I request you to take another look if you can support this.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks much better now. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zhuo Renxi

 * Support – --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny Doyle (singer)

 * Comment - the article seems to be incomplete at the moment... It has a "Background" section and a discography, but where's the "Foreground" section?! The main body of the article should be describing his career in a bit more detail than at present. The Books section is currently unreferenced. Other than that, this looks OK. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Amakuru thanks. The background is now renamed to Biography. The Book section is now referenced. The article is a start class and covers everything that I could find in online sources. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The only thing giving me concern right now is the "Selected singles" section. That always makes me wonder who did the selecting, and whether it's a representative list. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA there really should be some objective and sourced methodology used for the selection. I'll be happy to see what others say though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Discogs is not a reliable source. It is user-generated/crowd-sourced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Coffeeandcrumbs Thanks for the catch, I have replaced Discogs by better sources. Please review again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mrs YGP

 * Support - I've renamed the article to Mrs YGP, as that looks like the common name (it was only moved to yesterday anyway, from ). Sourcing and content looks OK for a start-class article, and death is cited.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with page move. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - fully sourced, marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sushma Swaraj

 * Support While there are a few places where we need some sourcing, this is a well sourced article on the whole. Sam Walton (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Citations still needed. More importantly, there is an unnecessary WP:CSECTION. Even Donald Trump, the most controversial person in our time, does not have a controversy section. This subject certainly does not deserve one. The section needs to be merged into the relevant sections about the respective times in her career. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A well sourced article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Couple citations required. Otherwise good to go. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: important article, citations should be imporved, and death section needs improvement/expansion. Will work on it. --Titodutta (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - one of the highest-ranking women politicians in Indian history, unexpected death only months after her departure from politics. Article is almost fully sourced. The few unsourced sentences are unessential and can be commented out to prevent holding up the posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Regards So  Why  06:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb): Toni Morrison

 * Support good article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some minor but necessary sourcing problems: about 6-7 lines in the body (roughly one per main section) are unsourced. All the books should have sourcing or at least ISBN numbers. Awards should all be sourced. But it's not so far away to be fixable in a few hours. --M asem (t) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Counting sourcing by line seems arbitrary. Are there contentious statements in those lines?  p  b  p  16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A few may have been fixed but " In her position at Princeton, Morrison used her insights to encourage not merely new and emerging writers, but artists working to develop new forms of art through interdisciplinary play and cooperation." in "Princeton Years" is certainly a statement that cannot go unsourced in WP voice. --M asem (t) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for opposing. I think I got every taken care. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That definitely all looks better, and so I'll go ahead and post this as RD, leaving the blurb discussion ongoing. --M asem (t) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support p  b  p  16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest blurb - Nobel laureates who are also household names probably meet any reasonable criteria for having been a "major transformative world leader in their field". Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I would also say Toni Morrison was a major world figure, massively loved and appreciated all over the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We do want to avoid "popularity" as a reason for a blurb. That got us into a mess with people like Carrie Fisher. Accomplishments is a different matter though. --M asem (t) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. An iconic figure in the U.S. and world literature. As the WaPo headline puts it, "Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate who transfigured American literature, dies at 88." In the interim RD is OK too, while a blurb option is being discussed. Nsk92 (talk)
 * Support RD, no blurb I don't think the reactions to the death have or will become so newsworthy, as it did with Bowie, Mandela, Prince, etc., to merit a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Muboshgu.--WaltCip (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Globally acclaimed author, Pulitzer and Nobel laureate, clearly at the top of her field. The so-called "Thatcher–Mandela standard" is not policy and is much too restrictive; and if we're comparing Morrison to Bowie and Prince, then I believe Morrison definitely qualifies for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the "Thatcher-Mandela standard" is about whether the death is in the news or whether the death is the news. The Thatcher/Bowie/etc deaths were the news. Morrison's death is in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reactions to her death are pouring in from many other authors and even many politicians, far exceeding the average RD death, so I'd say Morrison's death is the news. Besides, the news of deaths of pop-culture or political figures have greater reach partly due to the inherent nature of those professions, while our job is to be even-handed in giving blurbs to all who are at the top of their field. Davey2116 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Nobel laureate and first African American woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. Quite obviously a transformative leader in her field as evidenced by, e.g., Atlantic Magazine obituary headline referring to her as "peerless". Maya Angelou, along with two dozen other authors, cosigned a 1988 letter in the New York Times Book Review saying of Morrison, "For all of America, for all of American letters, you have advanced the moral and artistic standards by which we must measure the daring and the love of our national imagination and our collective intelligence as a people." By all accounts, satisfies our criteria for a blurb. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to expand on the significance of the 1988 letter. A group of some of the greatest African-American writers of the late 20th century believed that Toni Morrison was of such importance to literature and her snubs in her own country so acute, that "the legitimate need for our own critical voice in relation to our own literature can no longer be denied." They explicitly pull rank, the authors point out their own standing in the field and canon, in order to emphasize the esteem in which the field of literature holds Morrison. That these two dozen authors and critics published a joint letter in one of the United States most respected book reviews to praise not simply Morrison's work, but Morrison herself is indicative of the impact she has had on her field. For anyone mulling over whether she was one of the greatest living authors, I encourage you to read the answer her peers give to that question. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Wugapodes. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak support on blurb The article is in good shape aside from the awards list. Regarding the Mandela-Thatcher level, it was a good thing that we expanded potential blurbs first towards internationally significant personalities outside of the Western sphere, and then towards non-politicians.  Does Toni Morrison meet the Mandela-Thatcher level for authors, however?  Would I describe her as one of the greatest living authors?  My first instinct was no.  The Nobel Prize does assist in establishing greatness, but at the same time if a Nobel Prize was an automatic blurb then we'd have twelve new blurb-worthy people every year.  But I decided on a weak support after noting several sources acclaiming Toni Morrison as one of the greatest female authors ever, living or dead, dating from before her death. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has been remarked above that Toni Morrison was the first African-American woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. Looking at the List of Nobel laureates in Literature, it appears that so far she is the first and the only black woman, of any nationality, to have received the Nobel Prize in Literature, and one of only two black people, again of any nationality, to have ever received this prize (the other recipient being Wole Soyinka). Nsk92 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Derek Walcott. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - remarkable woman. Article is ready as wellBabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – A transformative figure in her field. I have taken care of the needed citations. I hope no one minds that I added myself to credits. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD but discussion on the blurb should continue. --M asem (t) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Her peers felt she was of Mandela-Thatcher level importance. If you make a list those you perceive to be the greatest living authors and they are mostly white men, that should tell you something.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Transformative character, and I'd say we're nearing consensus at this point. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Meets the transformative figure test, and her death is front page news. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shifted from RD to blurb. Consensus is in favor of posting as a blurb.  Spencer T• C 01:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bjorg Lambrecht

 * Support Much improved since I saw this page about 12 hours ago. Great work for thos involved.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - improvements completed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose some good work here, but a [citation needed] in there now, and why are the various cycling events sometimes in italics when their articles aren't?  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I've done some more work which might appease as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willi Tokarev

 * Weak oppose just one [cn] as far as I could see, but otherwise what's there appears (assuming good faith on the Russian language sources) to be fine. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I added a ref for the sentence that had a [cn] tag and added an extra citation in that paragraph. I also spot-checked a bunch of the Russian sources cited in the article and things were OK there. The article looks to be in fairly good shape. Nsk92 (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) India revokes special status for Kashmir

 * Wait until this becomes official. That might only be a few hours at this rate, but it is not currently official and no timeline has been provided regarding exactly when this will become official.  This may eventually require a new article if the expected widespread protests over this move actually happen. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NorthernFalcon, The President has given his signature so this "IS" official now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant. Impactful to the Kashmir region, India-Pakistan relations, terrorism and Indian politics. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with better blurb and if article quality is there. Not sure which article should be bolded. Hugely significant for the region and for India-Pakistan relations. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb II. Alt Blurb I is speculating something and Wikipedia should not be into speculation business. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Wait – Tangible effects on the ground? – Sca (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been an increase in Indian tropes in the major cities; major utilities have gone done; non-Indians in the area have been staying off the street fearing for their livelihood. Its unstable with concerns protests could break out. --M asem (t) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tropes" – you mean racial or ethnic slurs? "Gone done" = gone down? (If so, how is that related to today's constitutional order?) The AP story is headlined "unrest feared," and BBC paints a picture of uncertainty. Under the circumstances, an ITN posting seems premature. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The state has not been divided yet. It's that there is consideration in play to split per NYTimes. --M asem (t) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Historically and politically significant, but as for the consequences only time will tell. --Saqib (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is of great significance and is related to Kashmir, Indo-Pak relations, India's internal politics and many more. Blurb is a bit too short. Alt blurb is a bit foreboding and judgmental of future. So I'd support Alt blurb II. Amir (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - politically important. BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality of the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Quality is often overlooked when we get tied up parsing the blurb. I'm voting "meh" myself, but would appreciate others thoughts.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support and added Alt III and Alt IV . I think the movement of troops and establishment of Ladakh are notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC); Edited 17:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, do we know if the split of territories already occurred? I can see special status is revoked, but I'm not sure the new Union Territories have been established. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt III India had already stationed almost 5,00,000 troops in Kashmir, I am not sure if additional 35,000 troops really deserve a mention. Rest is still acceptable. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the linked articles. There's an additional "tens of thousands" of troops being sent because of autonomy being revoked. This is definitely significant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of it. Dawn reports 8000 additional troops were sent. My point is why do we need to mention the additional 8k troops when Kashmir is a conflict zone with already half a million troops. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Copyediting, checking tone. Support otherwise. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently averaging 2.5 mil views. No better time to post imo. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 15:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notability has been established. Article has been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb IV: Important and notable. (the articles needs be copyedited, of course). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To restress: the state has not been split yet though the bill is currently in play in the legislative body. See CNN (updated 2 hrs ago). --M asem (t) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait till the bill comes into effect, but it is significant, because it's a major event in one of the longest-running geopolitical conflicts in the world. Also, oppose all blurbs as currently written; the term "special status" is POV and misleading. Substitute "separate set of laws" and I'd support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the sources have called that section a "special status", as it had a unique gov't relationship compared to any other Indian state. This change revokes that. I don't see that as POV. --M asem  (t) 20:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a direct article which we could use. But that is being considered AFD as of now. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmt: AFD snowballing towards keep. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alternative blurb IV: Important and is very major event not only to south asia, but to larger diplomatic and global affairs. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until there's a blurb wording that actually explains the significance of this. To anyone unfamiliar with Kashmir, "Revokes special status" could mean anything from an increase in the rate of sales tax, to the introduction of a two-tier system of local government, to a full-scale ground assault and the imposition of martial law. (All examples from the real world; these are what "revokes special status" would mean in the context of Heligoland, Alaska and Hong Kong respectively.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that I still cannot see confirmation that the area has been split into two separate states yet (its still in legislative process), I would recommend a blurb like "India revokes the special autonomous status for the Muslin-populated Kashmir state." Understanding the full impact takes at least a paragraph, but I think identifying that Kashmir holds a Muslim majority should give the main page reader a rough idea of the problem, with the expectation that a reader knows India is generally Hindu. --M asem  (t) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a significant event which will determine the peace (Or lack thereof) of South Asia in the coming years
 * Support and in particular Masem's suggestion above. "Special status" should be more specific. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted There was clear consensus to post. I went with ALT IV; if there are further suggestions to refine the blurb wording, I encourage you to post at WP:ERRORS. I will do my best to check back for alternate suggestions but cannot guarantee my availability. Best,  Spencer T• C 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull – We do not post orange tagged articles. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why was Article 370 of the Constitution of India article selected rather than Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019?Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kanti Bhatt

 * Support - looks good to me.___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support: very-well updated, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs copyedit from native English speaker. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Coffeeandcrumbs and User:DaGizza have done extensive copy edit of the page. User:The Rambling Man may I request you to review the article again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – An oeuvre of "more than 45,000 columns" seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The estimate is cited to the Indian Express. It doesn't seem that implausible for a prolific, veteran columnist.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 45000 ÷ 68 = 661 per year
 * 661 ÷ 365 = 1.8 per day
 * less than 2 per day, doesn't seem shocking to me. Sca are your Arithmetic skills questionable ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)




 * Hypothetically possible if someone wrote columns every single day, day after day, for 68 years, achieving an average output of 13 per week, but most Eng.-lang columnists write only one or two columns a week over, say, a couple of decades. Seems unlikely to me, but just asking. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nuon Chea

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims but mostly okay. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good, and a somewhat big deal (not enough for a blurb, but I digress). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is OK for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Dayton shooting

 * Support – I'd support Alt 1 or Alt 3 once we can link reliable sources that are reporting on these massacres together (though I believe there's no connection between the two gunmen if I'm not wrong). As a standalone story for Dayton, I'd have to recall that the Virginia Beach shooting didn't get included on ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Mass shootings are increasing on frequency. But this isn't ready yet. We need more info to expand the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I've added altblurb 2 which I think is better because the other one might suggest the shootings are related (which we don't know yet). Johndavies837 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If a combined sentence is used, I suggest changing "mass shootings" to "separate mass shootings". Makes it slightly more clear. — RockMFR 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Is it worth noting that 52 others were injured? That number seems especially high. Adding Alt 3 (but again, might be worded in a better way.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment we certainly must have a combined blurb, this isn't supposed to be a mass shooting ticker. We've already super-rapidly posted one irrelevant shooting, so we might as well post the second. As such, alt 3 is the only one with wheels right now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's hardly "irrelevant" when a racist Trump leads to an increase in domestic terrorism. That's what happened in El Paso, at least. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The shootings that take place are irrelevant because nothing changes. "Thoughts and prayers".  When people argue against prison riots in Brazil which kill 50+ yet argue in favour of shootings in the US which kill 9+, there's clearly a serious problem.  There will be absolutely no long-term effects of either of these shootings, we all know that.  It's a war zone, and things like this happen every day, just like prison riots in Brazil and bombs in Iraq.  But more importantly, since we rushed the El Paso one to the main page, there's no reason not to do the same with this one, and a combined blurb is essential. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not go down this rabbit hole today. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. I wasn't surprised at all to wake up this morning to see El Paso was posted, plus ca change!  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not going any further, just establishing the importance of these shootings. And the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting last weekend, also by a white supremacist, which I don't believe was nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "trying to" establish the importance. White supremacy killings have been going on for decades.  It's just a lot easier now.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you wouldn't. So I'm not replicating previous discussions here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you edit your comment? Or I misread something. No matter. I'm not going down this road with you again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Your comment makes no sense.  And presumably as this is all new "white supremacist shootings", there's no replication or going down "this road ... again" in any case.  A baseball culture of records and statistics means there will always be some kind of record broken or new reason to continually seek to post these kinds of action I suppose.  From the outside, it's just another (bad) day.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Collapsed, per WP:FORUM and despite being warned. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. The Ohio article is a stub and will need expansion before it can be posted. Support Alt blurb 3 in principle once the article is up to scratch. However the word "after" is not grammatically correct and should be replaced with "in." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated, with the blurb now using the word "in" three times. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need "In the United States". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of people outside the US wouldn't otherwise know where El Paso and Dayton are; the only hint would be mass shootings, which are unlikely to happen elsewhere, but not impossible. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, so you could put "Texas" and "Ohio" in there instead. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "In the United States" is what connects these two shootings (if we are to post one blurb about both events). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Replaced "in" with "during." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks just good enough to support now that's it's no longer a stub. Because it's a separate incident, I'd prefer a separate blurb, but I understand the motivations for combining them. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt III. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would normally oppose just the Dayton one because its of the smaller size -- but unfortunately the timing with the El paso one would make us seem bias to not mention both (as well as the fact the media is barrelling down this route). That said, not of the blurbs are currently satisfactory as they merge the two events. We need to identify the two events separately, including separate death counts. There's clearly no connection between the events beyond timing but a combined blurb is looking like they are. --M asem (t) 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that this is best suited for a separate blurb per Tavix and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say a separate blurb, but the phrasing of a single blurb needs to be distinct between the two. Adding 20+9 is very much inappropriate and suggests the events are tied together. --M asem (t) 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I prefer a separate blurb, but the current alt blurb 3 (added by Kingsif) is okay. Davey2116 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, when I posted this comment, the alt blurb 3 was: "​In separate mass shootings 12 hours apart, 20 people are killed in El Paso, Texas, and 9 are killed in Dayton, Ohio.". Davey2116 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Added alt4 (as alt3, removed alt1 and moved others up) - names cities rather than United States, and separated the attacks and death counts. Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's creating a lot of confusion as other editors expressed support for the old alt 3. Just create a new alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did originally, but it didn't want to show 4 alts, so I did the logical thing and bumped the first one off. In previous noms having to do this hasn't created confusion, and as seen in a comment right above, people quickly got their heads round by writing "the current alt blurb 3 (added by Kingsif)". Potential confusion is something I considered, but wasn't worried about, since people are generally smart. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "People" ≠ one editor. And saying doesn't help. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to an editor who hadn't !voted yet. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you insist on continuing, I'll say that I don't want to, and that I don't accept your points. Okay? More in the collapse, for explanation, because this is off-topic and shouldn't clog the page. Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to ""People" ≠ one editor. And saying doesn't help. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to an editor who hadn't !voted yet."
 * Well, it was only relevant in the one comment, but that one editor shows how easy it was for someone to immediately read the comment.
 * An editor who hadn't yet voted would vote on what they saw in the nom box, and below the comment. Anyone looking through the votes could easily distinguish between the votes above the comment saying they'd changed, and the votes below, and apply them appropriately, because people are generally smart.
 * You sound like you're preaching at me, your first comment was rude and did not AGF, and you keep trying to preach at me off-topic about being wrong and how people aren't smart - both irrelevant to the ITN-worthiness of this, which has already been posted, and treating me like I'm dumb. And since I'm a regular at ITN, I think I know what's off-topic. I'm not enjoying this "debate", and I don't know why you want to continue, since I can't imagine it's any fun for you, either.
 * But I will apologize: I didn't realize you'd added a comment when I reverted the edit, I thought you'd just un-collapsed your first comment (it's back in the collapse to give context to the off-topic conversation in here, and because of it's tone. Honestly, I feel your more recent comments adding to AO's should also be in here). Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for coming off as rude and if I made it seem like you swapped the alt blurbs to confuse editors voting. Let's carry-on as the blurb has already been posted. (Also, I added a separate collapse section just for consistency in reading). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't swap Alt II and Alt III after many editors voiced their opinion to use one over the other. That causes a lot of confusion. I've reverted and restoring the original Alt III. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not what I did, but okay. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Point being you changed Alt III into Alt II. Best you could do is admit that your edit could've caused confusion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved everything up, and I said that I moved everything up, and I said that the new suggestion was now alt3. I think that made it clear. The way you phrased your (pinged!) accusation made it seem that I wanted previous !votes to now apply to a different blurb, which is rude in the least and in no way AGF. Then you say you both reverted and restored, as if I broke something. Best you could do is be polite. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Blurb and Altblurb and Altblurb2 are all inappropriate as they do not mentioned the country in which these events took place. Thankfully altblurb3 includes the country. Chrisclear (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it up with TRM, who passionately disagreed with including "United States". I'm all for keeping it in any blurb that goes up. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. El_C 18:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – In U.S. journalism, and in general usage, El Paso is a (borderline - !) headline city while Dayton isn't one. Suggest change to "shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio." (There's a Dayton in Texas, too.) – Sca (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As pointed out here: "In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.


 * On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…


 * 500 to Medical errors
 * 300 to the Flu
 * 250 to Suicide
 * 200 to Car Accidents
 * 40 to Homicide via Handgun


 * Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data." Count Iblis (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Franky Zapata

 * Oppose target article is tagged. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Great accomplishment, but the article is bad referenced. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this news? The nom isn't signed and didn't provide sources. Article has a big orange tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is better suited for DYK, if possible. --M asem (t) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as sports trivia. This nomination does not meet the minimum standards for being seriously considered here. Suggest close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cliff Branch

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - satis indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prose and source missing for highlights listed in the infobox.  My concern largely stems from those raised at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news about the nominator removing verifiable (though unsourced) text to expedite RD postings.  The prose for the corresponding infobox highlights was commented out here. It should be verifiable. While information that is unlikely to be true can be boldly removed, infomation should not automatically be removed merely because they are not easily cited from recent obituaries. This seems counterproductive to the spirit of RD.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba please see WP:BURDEN if an editor raises concerns on unsourced content then the right thing to do is to find the reliable sources and give the issue its logical conclusion instead of arguing to keep the unsourced content. I am sure you are aware and honour the WP:V of wikipedia. Please open a thread on the article talk page and make your case why these commented out parts dont need a source. I say they need it.  I would request you to !vote on your assessment of the current article status and point out major problems if any. I would also remind that this is not a GA review. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BURDEN states: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. People are objecting, and are also wary that might have a conflict of interest to fast track RDs to "success". Pro Bowls and All-Pro honors are easily verifiable. If you are you not familiar with American football, just ask for help.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference in making an article ITN Worthy vs Accusing to fast track RDs.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to verify Pro Bowls and All-Pros? If you do not, why remove it instead of tagging it for more knowledgeable editors to do so?—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba Please cut the crap. You are making accusations against me and despite being an admin, you lack the basic understanding that you have to provide diffs to back up your claims. Please start a thread on the talk page with the content that you believe I have wrongly commented out and then we can talk there.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose The career section is too light for a three-time all-pro. I've seen longer for guys that washed out of the league after one season.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I have added prose from the contentious infobox information to the body of the article, and referenced it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "contentious" indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment After cleaning up some dead links in the college section, it seems that a couple of the sentences are not supported and have now been tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba Thanks a lot for for your help and good work in improving this article. I have corrected the first statement and moved the second to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this ITN/C-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not "fix" it, you again removed verifiable text. I have restored it with minor copyedits and added citation.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Which is another way of fixing the problem of unverified and unsourced content in a WP:BLP. I had moved the content to the talk page after sincere efforts from me to source it. Thanks for giving a helping hand on this article. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 El Paso shooting

 * Wait – We do not have solid information or a well-developed article to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – But don't give the manifesto Main Page free promo. Something like "racially-motivated mass shooting" is preferable but our standard neutral description is probably enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on significance but wait for further updates to the article. 22 is a very large number even for the US, and certainly wouldn't be considered an annual occurrence if you look at List of mass shootings in the United States. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's (just barely) long enough to post as it is. And it's a significant event in the ongoing catastrophe that is gun violence in the United States. Thoughts and prayers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I support it's inclusion on the main page, but I think we should wait until a motive is established, and have it mentioned in the blurb. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We almost never mention motive in blurbs about crimes or terrorism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "kills xx people" and yeah, let the dust settle first. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait There are conflicting reports on casualties and the article is a stub. Moving to support. See below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Articles need to include information on the supposed manifesto, but other than it should be added as "at least 20 dead" as that's the current death toll. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support due to scope and scale of this. Wish I can contribute more to the article but I'm not at my computer at the moment. If anyone has time, please expand on the article so we can put it up as soon as possible. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Twenty killed and there is credible evidence that this was a terrorist attack. I have updated the death toll in the initial blurb. Either is fine with me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is a terrorist attack and hate crime. Notable. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good condition now. Updates can be made as more is known. This incident is also particularly notable because it happened very close to Mexico and involved Mexican citizens, so the Mexican government is now directly involved in assisting the victims. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mind adding this information about interstate assistance to the article? Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I already did. I added the sentence about the government of Chihuahua providing assistance. More will follow once more is known. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Good article on a notable event which is in the news around the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article is in better shape now.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get this one up quickly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a strong consensus to post with no opposition. Marking this as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, sorry I'm late to the party--I wish this were a bit less passive. It's a human being who killed these people, not an abstract noun--"One subject killed at least... etc." With an "allegedly" in there or whatever. Or, to be more correcter, "one white dude". Drmies (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The wording of both proposed blurbs is pretty consistent with how we report these kinds of things. We typically keep blurbs to a dry "just the facts please..." form. But feel free to add an alt blurb if you have a preferred wording. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. El_C 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I went with the alt blurb, since it seemed like the one that read most naturally, but if anyone find that phrasing to still be awkward, I also encourage you to propose a different alt. El_C 02:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. We try to be careful with blurbs about controversial events so as to avoid any appearance of using the main page for editorializing. We have reported G-- knows how many terrorist bombings, but we never mention who is behind them & etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the verb kills has the subject A mass shooting. A shooting "leads to" or "results in deaths". People kill. But I also hate calling it "deaths" because that is a weak word. I don't know. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We should go with: "At least 20 people are killed in a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You just ed me. I was also going to say we should lead with the victims. "At least 20 are killed in a mass shooting in El Paso." – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 03:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not opposing this posting at all - it is clearly more tragic than other US shootings, but in it wake, a statistic to remind editors here why US shootings tend not to get posted: per USA Today, the US has had 250 mass shootings through the first 215 days of this year. Exceptional cases like this should be posted, but not your "average" one. --M asem (t) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Masem. I have to admit, I came to this discussion section after seeing the blurb posted on the main page and I was very much expecting more (any?!) oppose votes. I'm not sure I understand the distinguishing characteristic here. Is it number of deaths? I'm also considering the decision to post this blurb to the main page in light of 2019 Dayton shooting, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "At least"? It's not a typhoon or earthquake, the bodies have been recovered and counted. Twenty. Complications kill later sometimes, but if so, update rather than sound pessimistic till then. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That still does not signify absolute certainty and it's what reliable sources say. The counted are 20, yes, we know that; what of the uncounted?. So this is not about sounding pessimistic, it's about reporting things the encyclopedic way. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There were also 20-some shot and injured in non-stable condition at local hospital. Those would add to the tally if those shots prove fatal, and hence why "at least" is used. --M asem (t) 14:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Second shooting? Should we change the blurb to incorporate the second shooting in Ohio? Dalran (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, unless the events are related. If the Dayton shooting is to be posted, a separate discussion is needed. --Tone 09:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ironically I would tend to agree that both (or neither) should be posted, 29 dead in a matter of a few hours in two separate shootings, neither of which will change anything at all, regardless of the clear tragic nature of such events. (For context, a total of eleven people were killed in London by shooting in the whole of 2018.)  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Combining the two shootings, arguably related thematically and timewise, could be done. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If they're going to be combined thematically and timewise, should the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting be involved as well? It's close in range.  50.1.50.14 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to draw the line somewhere. The garlic festival shooting was even more trivial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood - As a Californian, it certainly feels relevant (I was in Gilroy the day of the shooting), but I leave judgment to you guys. 50.1.50.14 (talk) 18:35, 6August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Longthorne

 * Support. Well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Joe_Longthorne is pretty underwhelming: right now there is 1 sentence each about his show and his 3 albums. Since this is what he seems to be notable for, there could be greater depth of coverage about this area.  Spencer T• C 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this conversation: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news. While the discussion regarding hiding content should be there, I think this highlights how limited the article is in covering his career in its present visible state. Best,  Spencer T• C 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer Please tell me how I can convince you to support this. I have expanded the article and refs, since you have voted. The article has a long way to go before it gets GA status but I dont see that it has any surmountable problems that it cannot be promoted to mainpage. regards-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My issue with the article isn't with referencing; you have done a great job with that. My concerns are over the depth of coverage of the subject's career for which he is notable. Reading the section on Television, I see several TV programs listed that he was involved in, such as The Joe Longthorne Show, Les Dennis Laughter Show and the Royal Variety Performance. But what is he known for doing on these shows/what is his role? The article mentions that he has 3 albums: what genre was it? What was the reaction to them? Similar information like that. Otherwise, I'm left with what's essentially a bulleted list in text form, without a lot of "meat" to the bones. For me, RD-worthy articles need to have sufficient depth of coverage in the work that the subject is principally known for, and based on what I see in the lede, this is what Longthorne is known for. I hope this provides more clarity. Reasonable minds may disagree with my assessment of the article, and I understand that. I hope this provides more clarity behind my reasoning. Best,  Spencer T• C 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the TV section and his career expanded as suggested. I have added whatever meat I could find. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jocelyne Roy-Vienneau

 * Support satis (nom moved from 4 to 2 August to match her DoD). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deepak Obhrai

 * Support - article looks good.___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) US withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

 * Support This is notable per nom. Article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – End of an era in relations between two major world powers. Article looks well sourced and well kempt. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support In the past nomination it was argued that Congress should do the thing. But in a quick glance of recent news I didn't find any mention of Congress voting to withdraw from the treaty. This suggests it was Trump's unilateral decision. The update would look better with clarification of this issue and whether there was a formal written executive order. Brandmeistertalk  19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized on that articl there wasn't a para on the actual withdraw, which I have expanded on, including that article from NBC, and added a few other details that are clear from reporting (that a new US missile test is going to happen RSN now without the treaty, and Russia wants to try to talk more). --M asem (t) 20:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The demise of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has been a foregone conclusion since since last year when both sides announced they would withdraw. Its formal expiration on Friday has little practical impact at this point. Keep in mind the INF treaty doesn't govern long-range nuclear missiles, which are covered by the New START treaty, due for renewal in 2021. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But also remember the nuke with the shortest distance to travel will likely be the first to land. Won't matter much if MAD works. But if it doesn't, it'll be even bigger news than McGregor dusting Aldo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This is a significant development in global and especially European security. The article looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this really isn't making international news at all. And per Sca, please contextualise this, it's pretty small fry.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The terms of the deal have been broken repeatedly (and allegedly) by both sides already, so it died back when, if you ask me. But I also opposed the Iran deal blurb, which posted regardless, and at least this one might lead to bombs. If it wins, I prefer Alt Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support major international development, regardless of how well the terms were adhered to recently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT. Consensus is in favor of posting.  Spencer T• C 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: D. A. Pennebaker

 * Oppose per nomination comment, several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harley Race

 * Oppose pretty much most of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Man, myth and legend seem quite tangled together, even by wrestling standards. Would need a lot of work, probably not feasible in time. Prove me wrong, though, and I'll move. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose virtually all of his career is unref'd.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why are wrestling articles so badly referenced so often?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's all fake?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, it's no excuse. All entertainment lies, doesn't stop the respective press from covering it. If Bobby Eaton can be a Featured Article, anyone can. Probably more to do with wrestling fans historically being jerked around by the glossier magazines (who said everything's real) and the mainstream newsprint (who said everything's fugazi). Kind of drove us underground, to dirtsheets, Usenet, shoot tapes, worked shoot DVDs, Angelfire, podcasts and that guy who was at the show and swears he saw it. Not exactly "reliable", relative to White House drama or Wimbledon acts, but the gap is mending lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Race was most relevant from 1965 to 1985. The people who care and know about Harley Race don't edit Wikipedia. The people who edit Wikipedia well don't care about Harley Race.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I normally edit Wikipedia well enough and care to catch up on wrestling history I mostly missed in real time. I'm just sandbagged lately by an onscreen keyboard, lack of copy/paste and no recourse if I get edit conflicted after wasting time trying regardless. Besides, I've seen fine and poor wrestler bios from every era; it's not so simple as blaming a generation, sadly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - your bias is showing. Plenty of stuff is fake / fictional - Romeo and Juliet, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Batman, Pokemon. Also almost all religions.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. If I can’t find any refs that mentions the unsourced information, the article needs a trip to AFD.  I Need Support  :V 20:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CBS Sports covers him managing Super Invader and Vinnie Vegas. That reporter fell for our plagiarism trap, though, mentioning only who Vegas "really" was, screw his Heenan Family "brother" Hercules. But that part still actually happened on TV, I promise. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Toddbrook Reservior and Whaley Bridge

 * Oppose nothing substantive has happened, the evacuation has affected a handful of people, trivial in the big scheme of things. If the dam bursts and massive damage/loss of life occurs, perhaps this is worth considering, but right now, it's just a preventative action which is a mild inconvenience.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Yes, a rare occurrences for the UK. But even for the Whaley Bridge article the event has warranted the addition of just two sentences. If the dam does burst, that will obviously be a very different scenario. Even then, however, loss of life would seem to be unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. If the dam breaks, then maybe it will cause enough damage to be worth posting. A precautionary evacuation does not merit an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Modest Genius already said what I was planning to say. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait If the dam bursts it will probably prove sufficiently interesting to merit inclusion in ITN. While I disagree that loss of life should be the determining factor, I do agree that it is a factor. Since nobody has died, the evacuation is fairly small in scope, and we aren't even sure that the dam will burst this is hardly noteworthy enough to be put in the articles. Neither article mentions previous evacuations below the dam, but the dam had its spillway damaged in the 1960s, so there might have been previous high water events. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently this is summed up in just one line per article. Hopefully nothing happens to the dam, but if it does, then maybe a stand-alone article would be more apt.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)