Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2020

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

RD: Éva Székely

 * Comment - Probably could have been posted, but looks too late at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Odile Pierre

 * Support - Could use more references but overall I think it meets the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - posthumous article, marginal importance, marginal article. Maybe it "squeaks by" the minimum requirements but I would prefer better candidates for RD space. 1779Days (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about your criteria. By now, France musique also noticed that a unique influential woman died. For me, Recent deaths could have space for foreign women in culture, not only UK and American men in sports and politics which will be noticed anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)*:
 * I may be mistaken but isn't it practice that the only actionable opposition to an RD nomination is article quality? There's no notability/importance bar to clear so long as the subject meets notability for an article. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD gives three conditions for inclusion here, and none require notability to be present: notability is assumed by the fact they have an article not nominated for deletion. So you would be correct. PotentPotables (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. As noted above relative notability and significance are not factors for RD, as long as the subject has their own article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) Blurb/Ongoing: Malaysian political crisis

 * Wait - I want to support but I think we need to wait just a little bit. The YDP Agong has appointed Muhyiddin Yassin (whom the Agong believes commands the majority support of the MPs) to be the next Prime Minister. However, several hours after this announcement, Mahathir claimed that it is him who commands the majority support. I think it is unlikely that the planned swearing in ceremony in the morning of March 1 (Malaysian Time) for Muhyiddin will be canceled, but the dispute could continue even after he becomes the PM. My proposal is to nominate a blurb if Muhyiddin is sworn in. If for whatever reason the ceremony is canceled, or if the dispute continues after he becomes PM, then I would support posting this as ongoing.  Masjawad99  💬 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Since Muhyiddin has been sworn in, I support blurb for now and also ongoing in case the crisis continues.   Masjawad99  💬 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Wait for what? Malaysia has a new Prime Minister. That’s ITN. The fact that he’ll be lucky to last the week is immaterial. Note that Muhyiddin hasn’t yet been sworn in, but he has been appointed, which is what matters.—Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'd have nominated this a while ago if I'd been aware of the article. Banedon (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support qualifies for ITN even without the entire crisis Juxlos (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a way to blurb it before rolling it into ongoing? Needs a copyedit. "former arch-nemesis" no thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Muhyiddin Yassin is apparently now the prime minister, so perhaps something along the lines of "Muhyiddin Yassin becomes the prime minister of Malaysia following a political crisis triggered by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's abrupt resignation"? - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Something "apparently" happening doesn't meet ITN blurb standards. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is supported by valid references and a significant event though, why doesn't that meet WP:ITN criteria? - Indefensible (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Apparently" is perhaps a bad choice of word, but Muhyiddin has officially been sworn in per March 1 morning Malaysian Time. The only way Mahathir could challenge it now is by prompting the majority of the MPs to vote for no confidence on Muhyiddin's government, in which case a snap election might be called. In any case, though, the situation merits to be listed as ongoing.  Masjawad99  💬 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That could work. I support that blurb.  Masjawad99  💬 04:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to wait seems like it was a good call. However, the "crisis" might continue past Yassin's appointment as PM as you also wrote, in which case it might be appropriate to have a discrete entry for just the change of prime minister from Mohamad to Yassin plus the ongoing post for the crisis as the situation continues to play out. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting to ITN ongoing because nonsense. Strong support for posting as blurb because significant for politics in Malaysia. I also support altblurbs if not original blurb was posted. 36.68.232.203 (talk) 04:27, —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not prominent news – the BBC has the story buried quite deep. And the political situation still seems quite fluid and unsettled.  We should not be picking winners when the result is unstable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure quite what you mean by "picking winners". Malaysia uses the Westminster system; someone becomes PM when appointed by the head of state. It looks like some people are arguing Muhyiddin shouldn't have been appointed, but that's another thing. (And it isn't the first time that's happened in a Westminster country: see ex. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Confusing. AP says that soon after the king's appointment, 94-year-old Mahathir challenged it, naming "114 lawmakers that support his bid for a comeback as prime minister ... surpassing the 112 votes needed for a simple majority." Murky. – Sca (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is being contested then it can be posted as Ongoing as originally submitted. - Indefensible (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He’s been sworn in. 18 hours ago. Nothing to wait for.—Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. Will update image in a minute. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good post. There is consensus here for ongoing as well when it's ready to roll off it can probably be automatic. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb is semi-misleading? The political crisis started because some MPs quit the ruling coalition. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it’s ok. That was the cause. But Mahathir’s resignation was the trigger because only then was the Agong brought into play.—Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the words "following a political crisis", our blurb implies that the crisis would be over, and we may—as does Najib Razak —believe but we cannot know that : Muhyiddin leads a minority government and has not faced a vote of confidence. As of now, such a vote is not scheduled . Wakari07 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Afghan peace process

 * Please offer RS that call this a "surrender". 331dot (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera three days ago. I can't paste links on my phone, should be easy to find. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see an opinion piece from three days ago, but RS are not calling this a "surrender" by any side. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with 331. Much RS coverage, but is agreeing to end the war the same as ending it? – Sca (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Vox too, local Afghans complaining it's a surrender. I doubt you're going to get the Trump white house to say it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Local Afghans are not RS. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb It's a surrender, pure and simple. Let's not Gerald Ford our way out of this. WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We seriously do not play these types of games on WP. The terms are certainly not what US was aiming for, but we are absolutely not going to use ITN to play as a political message. --M asem (t) 16:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The article needs some expansion on the subject of the just signed peace agreement. It probably should have it's own section. Strongly Oppose the alt blurb as obviously POV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Ad Orientem, would like to see more at target article. Provided Alt3 to give an idea of the key agreement - troop removal in 14months. --M asem (t) 16:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I agree surrender is too strong a word, it's closer to reality than "peace agreement." There's nothing that requires the Taliban to stop fighting with the US-backed Afghan government, and no reason to think they will. They're promising only to not support terrorism, which they are unlikely to stick to (no CBALL needed). This is just CYA for Trump, nothing to see here.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The subject could use some article improvement, but is definitely a noteworthy enough event for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The alt can't be serious. Ythlev (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, but not alt blurb Obviously noteworthy event, but the bold article has a grand total of 2 sentences regarding the agreement itself. Surely there's enough coverage of it to create a workable standalone article. Juxlos (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2, very noteworthy event, strongly oppose alt 1.  Nixinova   T   C   22:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I created a separate section for the agreement. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Once the part about this agreement gets duly expanded. (Though extremely opposed to Alt 1.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditionally Support original blurb and altblurb II is preferred at this point. I strongly oppose altblurb I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.249.245.250 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems Afghan President Ashraf Ghani may be holding this deal in limbo by rejecting one of the clauses required of Afghanistan's government. Al-Jazeera English, NPR - Indefensible (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Article has been updated and this is a very noteworthy development for the eighteen-year war. May as well strike out Alt I, shows that some ITN editors have no respect for reliable sources or WP:NPOV. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT0. The section has been expanded, and there is rough consensus that is it worth posting. Clear consensus against ALT1 though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Coulombe

 * Comment - Needs better referencing I think, and one current ref link is dead. - Indefensible (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not quite there, one or two references to sort out. P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article's referencing has been improved, meets the requirements for WP:ITN/DC I think. - Indefensible (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed a dead link and mismatched citation. Content, which would meet minimum DYK page size, also checks out with references.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have added details and several citations. Note that an IP user moved my changes.SWP13 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Coronavirus stock market crash

 * Sort of support we definitely need to bump coronavirus back up to a blurb, not to do so is patently absurd. This might be the hanger for it.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not this blurb - I don't think this would be a good indicator for the significance of the coronavirus. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is prone to gyrations, and this one happened to be a particularly rapid one. It's also overdue for a correction. If we didn't post any benchmark news about the Dow Jones in the past, I see no reason why we should do so here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, the market fundamentals haven't changed. The stocks are falling on investor speculation. They will likely recover to pre-coronavirus levels later in the year.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, FTSE recorded its biggest drop in a week too.  Apparently this week has wiped $6 trillion off the markets.  It's a global financial meltdown.   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on investor speculation. Don't fall victim to the panic.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Walt, that's a  weird thing to say to me.  I'm not commenting on any panic.  I'm commenting on the fact that global markets have been wiped and coronavirus needs to be more than just "ongoing".  The actual fact is trillions of dollars have gone wayward this week and it's global news.  I imagine as soon as the virus reaches the US, we'll get a blurb again... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Panic or not, it's a current event. We're not in the WP:CRYSTAL business, so whether the market recovers in a month or a year from now is irrelevant. --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't disagree that we should post something. I just think the DJIA is a poor indicator because that darn thing goes up and down regardless of what's in the news. If we're going to post a blurb on coronavirus using economic indicators, we should use something other than that.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to focus on the Dow Jones. Global markets have been massacred this week.  It's fact, whether its panic or not.  As I said, when we have our first US victim, things will be very differently perceived.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is currently noteworthy as a ~10% correction by definition, but just going back to last October's level is not a "massacre." - Indefensible (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - This sort of thing isn't that rare as the Dow always trends upwards, so point-value rises and falls will be larger each time. Blurb also mentions "weekly" loss but links to the article for "daily" losses which is confusing. And let's wait until the week is actually over before quantifying anything.  Nixinova   T   C   20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it's rare, as the blurb suggests. This is the worst week's trading across pretty much all global financial markets for over a decade.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, then the blurb is pointless as it doesn't link to any further relevant information other than what is on the blurb.  Nixinova   T  <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what you're saying. The blurb is very clear, suggesting that the Dow Jones has been hit hard because of the caution over a pandemic.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The list article talks about daily changes, not weekly changes, so it's not of use, and the coronavirus article has two sentences which are the same as this blurb. There's nowhere to go if you want to compare weekly changes or similar events, or aftermath of this event. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While this may sound patronising, it's globally common knowledge that the markets have suffered their worst week in over a decade because of the virus fears, real or otherwise. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to reply to me? What does this have to do with the parent comment? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Info: it's the largest weekly loss in percentage points since 2008. --bender235 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support it's not just the DJIA, global markets have plummeted all week. The update belongs here with five sentences and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm open to posting something that focuses on other major markets besides the Dow Jones, in order to give a global perspective on the virus.--WaltCip (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - DJIA is only one stock index in the world. It might be the most important one, but it's still only one. Coronavirus is already in the main page. We could promote it to a blurb, but some other kind (e.g. "over 500 people are diagnosed with the coronavirus in X, Y and Z countries). Banedon (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stock markets fall because stock markets fall. A lot of the downward activity at times like this is brokers and investors reacting to selling by others, not the original speculated AND speculative cause. Linking the fall and the coronavirus in such an absolute way seems a bit too certain to me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In essence, that is my viewpoint as well. HiLo phrased it better than I could.--WaltCip (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I understand the desire to have something, but everything involving the outbreak remains an upward trend, and no critical line has been crossed yet (not declare pandemic, etc.) and choosing something arbitrary like a drop like this may be the wrong thing to focus on. We have the outbreak on ongoing, so to try to find some story to make it a blurb doesn't seem right. I want to stress that I believe we need to consider the fear and panic that the media is bringing to the situation here. the WHO earlier today say that not's not the time to spread fear on the matter and I think that's smart advice. Wait for MEDRS sourcing to panic and then we have every right to. --M asem  (t) 23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The first article, 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak, is already in the ITN box as an ongoing event, posting it again would be redundant and not a good use of the space. For the second item; the DJIA is not the best stock index to follow per the current 2nd sentence of its article, and the submitted article is a list page rather than specifically about the event--it could be that at some point in the distant future, this event will not even be actively included on that page. - Indefensible (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support irrational or not, this drop is the largest since the Financial Crisis - it's clearly not something that happens every other week and has elicited significant policy responses. Practically every RS links this to the coronavirus outbreak and for us to say it isn't would be improper. Juxlos (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IF we post this, we could say that "Practically every RS links this to the coronavirus outbreak", but we cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is linked. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all a big coincidence. Smoking doesn't really kill people, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have we posted that Trump caused the stock market to go up? Because he and all the people who voted for him said he did. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to that nomination. We'd need to count the !votes carefully. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Dow lost 14% in two weeks but recovered a bit Friday. Let's see if this dive turns into a 'panicdemic' next week, à la '08. That would have global effects. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm open to another blurb on this, but think WHO uprating the global risk to very high yesterday is probably more important. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The stock market is not the right angle for this story. P-K3 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Amend. This is not happening "in the wake of..." something that has ended. It is happening concurrent with the continued spread of a virus. Moriori (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On possibly a bad case of CRYSTAL, but if that pandemic designation shows up soon (now spreading person-to-person among many countries), that would be the blurb for this - can't have two in the box. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I wash my hands of this virus. Which reminds me.... 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Dow closed Monday up 5%. – Sca (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per post hoc ergo propter hoc. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Incertum quo fata ferunt ut solet. – Sca (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Well, the stock market is rallying today, therefore proving the uselessness of trying to tie economic and public health news to something as fickle as the DJIA. This story is now stale.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tuesday – Dow slid 3% Tuesday after Fed cut rates 1/2 percent. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fed cut rates specifically to offset the impact of Corona virus. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freeman Dyson

 * Support in principle, oppose on current quality given a couple of cn tags and the need for updating. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't need to support "in principle", that's a given, this an RD. Plenty of referencing needed.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, nice work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article was on my list of articles to fix up, but regrettably Dyson has died before I got a round tuit. I did a pass over the article this morning, added references, and fixed one error. The article still could use a lot of work, but it is fully referenced at least.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support image it's not terrible, and Mubarak has been up there a while --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - influential subject, article looks comprehensive and well referenced. - Indefensible (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support image or blurb per above. Prolific figure in his field. Davey2116 (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OBJECT TO IMAGE - established practice is that an RD image is only used iff there is no suitable blurb image. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove image - per Mjroots. Banedon (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support image per the Kirk Douglas precedent. Expand the caption to be a mini-blurb, e.g. Freeman Dyson dies. Andrew🐉(talk)<
 * Regrettable object to image per Mjroots. I respect Mr. Dyson quite a lot, but established precedent is to have it only in the absence of a suitable blurb image ... neither "Mubarak has been up there a while" nor "Kirk Douglas" are valid reasons to overturn such precedent, which should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Image pulled - from the above few posts, it's clear there's no consensus here for an image. And beyond the occasional WP:IAR case, the community has previously expressed opposition to using RDs in the picture slot, so changing that convention reuqires discussion or RFC on the project pages. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sun Yang
People may claim that doping in sport is routine, however this fellow has been World Swimmer of the Year and none of the top swimmers have been convicted of doping. At first FINA didn't want to pursue the case and other swimmers made public podium protests against Sun Yang. Secondly, there also has been a geopolitical angle in this, whereby other swimmers (and their swimming federations) who have spoken out against this fellow have been targeted by internet trolls/hackers (possibly/probably with the encouragement of the Chinese media/government) and received death threats. For example, when Mack Horton spoke out, Chinese government newspapers wrote nationalist editorials directly attacking Australia, not just Horton. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose would be good for a sports almanack, but not a global encyclopedia. Chinese athletes doping?  Really?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I did check BBC Sport, ABC News Australia, NY Times, CNN, L'Equipe and Gazzetto dello Sporto and managed to find it on all of the front pages. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On average, we post <1 blurb per day. News outlets post considerably more.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And sure, BBC Sport. Sports almanack, like I said. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - in this particular case I support. Have been reported on worldwide. Very notable athlete. Article looks ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe if it was Lebron or Neymar (though probably not), but this is an athlete who is as famous for cheating as swimming.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I will support this if he is stripped of his Olympic medals. Otherwise, it is just an ordinary doping case that is customarily concluded with a ban.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I support this as it is worldwide news. He owns Olympic Gold medals and An Olympic record. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is more a punishment for not cooperating in checking for doping, and not any proof or findings that he had used enhancements since prior findings. In other words, this is not because he was found to have been doping, but that because he had been found to have doped in the past, his actions in preventing blood tests to check for doping to be performed is what is being penalized via the ban. In other words, it looks more significant than it really is compared to real doping scandles (eg Russia's). --M asem (t) 14:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a previous Olympic gold medalist. If he was found doping in the past (which is was according to what you said), then being banned for missing a session would make it be suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to cast suspicion on something like doping. We can say that he was banned for failing to cooperate with the blood testers, and that he had been previously found to have doped, but that's it. --M asem (t) 14:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Athletics trivia. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's swimming, not athletics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is front page news (not 'mere sports news') here in Australia, (and was on the CNN and BBC home page, not just BBC sports) and will be massive news in China. Current world and Olympic title holder given a career-ending ban in highly controversial circumstances, with national governments previously taking stances on the issue. Melcous (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At best it was the eighth story on the BBC News homepage. It's trivial and there's no clear indication of its encyclopedic value.  Why would this be more or less significant than any other ban of any other successful athlete?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's that argument for never posting anything about American college football again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I get that you disagree, you have made your point of view clear, I'm also allowed to make mine. The sources don't seem to think it is trivial. Even the eighth story on BBC seems reasonably significant to me. And it's apparently the first or second in Chinese news sources. Melcous (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure but athletes around the world get bans all the time, even for skipping tests (see Rio Ferdinand). It's trivial, regardless of the perceived stature of this individual.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they generally don't make front page news all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, for a minute. Next. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per precedent: . Banedon (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Front page news in many countries. And that means getting sport onto the front pages! It's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem's argument. Ambivalent on the discussion of whether athletes are too trivial for ITN, but I'd support if it later came out that he did indeed dope. Sleath56 (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * His offence of avoiding a drug test is seen as more serious than simply doping. It has to be, otherwise everyone who has used drugs could just smash their samples. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that he had earlier had been found to have doped, and that WADA/CAS had given him 8 yr as the maximum they could do for smashing vials, if he actually had doped, WADA's rules suggest that this 2nd infraction then would have been a lifetime ban. If it were a first, it would have been only a 2yr. --M asem (t) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Burkhard Driest

 * Comment Having a (hopefully) temporary brain lapse, but isn't there a small waiting period after death before fair use photos can be uploaded? Should it be tagged F7? Otherwise the article looks good enough for RD.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Kees08 is correct, fair use can't be applied to a subject who's died so recently, there could easily be replacement images out there. I've removed the image, and otherwise the article looks up to scratch, so it's good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted (although noting that the intro said he died February 28th, I changed it to 27 to match the source)  Kees08  (Talk)   19:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suthep Wongkamhaeng

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Nexhmije Hoxha

 * Oppose under-referenced, only just beyond stub, is that it? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Another case of fame by name. And she was 99. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed)

 * Comment - support the idea of posting this, but article is currently rated stub-class. - Indefensible (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose More trivia than newsworthiness. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is new, so why not expand it a bit and submit it for WP:DYK? Regards So  Why  08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "mini-moon" is misleading, this is a temporary satellite a few metres across. This is essentially astronomic trivia. It will have no lasting significance beyond a line in the list of these rocks. --LukeSurlt c 09:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Send to DYK, a perfect story for there. --Tone 09:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, misleading as it uses terminology that the article itself does not. Also oppose the article itself, it's only marginally above stub level and would need some expanding before it is main page ready. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pages like Temporary satellite, Quasi-satellite and Claimed moons of Earth all note that this is an uncommon, but not unprecedented, occurrence. I agree with other users here that this might be more suitable for DYK than ITN. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Henneguya zschokkei

 * Support on the merits. This seems to be an important scientific discovery, and more science news in ITN is a good thing. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too arcane for ITN. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The name of the species is a mouthful, no question, but I'd expect the average reader of WP to understand basic biology to know what aerobic respiration is. (We don't need to dumb it down as the media is by saying "doesn't breathe oxygen".) It's a rather novel find. --M asem (t) 14:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But the name would make a great byline: By HENNEGUYA ZSCHOKKEI / Asocialated Press Writer. – Sca (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not read the paper yet, but potentially support on importance (well, I was fascinated) but oppose on stubbiness of the current target article. Also, looking at the lead of mitochondrion, which might be a better target, I notice that there's another example of a eukaryote completely lacking mitochondria, so that would need sorting out. Perhaps "first known multicellular organism"? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I think Im understanding what they are getting at, a single-cell species is neither animal nor plant, but when you get to multicellular you can make that distinction, with this species above being animal in nature. However, this level of biology is not my field (I nominated this because I also found it interesting for ITN). --M asem (t) 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know (and this has really surprised me) all plants have mitochondria; it's only bacteria/cyanobacteria and things smaller that don't. And thanks for nominating,, I'd missed this and really appreciated it. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All eukaryotes have mitochondria—except the few species that later went on to lose them—because they're what react oxygen with stuff to power the organism. Eukaryotic cells are much bigger and therefore need lots of energy. Plants have both mitochondria and plastids; the plastids (derived from ancient cyanobacteria) do photosynthesis, and the mitochondria "burn" the resulting molecules as needed, as in any eukaryote. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mildly interesting but the article is barely even a stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality There's room to expand the article given this new discovery, so I think it's possible this will eventually pass. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality This is a big deal in biology, but the article is a stub. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above This is a paradigm-shifting find in biology; we couldn't reasonably pass over a decent article on this and still call ourselves an encyclopedia. It has to be at least a decent article, though...130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article is a stub that give no more details than are in the blurb. Major expansion is needed before it could be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IANA L zoologist, but isn't there a certain circular reasoning here? Aerobic respiration is a definitive characteristic of animals. If you find an animal without it, is it really an animal?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It had been previously classified as an animal. Its anaerobic respiration quality had been discovered only recently.--WaltCip (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Modern taxonomy generally favors phylogenetic taxonomy, meaning classifying things based on their family trees. This means taxonomists today prefer "monophyletic" groups, known as "clades": groups containing a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This provides a definition based on evolutionary relationships and avoids classifying organisms based on arbitrary characteristics. If we define animals as a clade, we pick an ancestral organism and anything descended from that is an animal. (This is why most taxonomists consider birds dinosaurs now. If you define "dinosaur" as a clade, it necessarily includes all the living members of that clade: birds.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very cool discovery. I'm ambivalent on it for ITN because while the discovery is great it's not a tremendous surprise. Parasites very often lose lots of functions over time due to natural selection, since they can just "steal" from their hosts instead. Several unicellular eukaryotes that similarly lost their mitochondria were already known. In any case, I'd love to see it on DYK! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kazuhisa Hashimoto

 * Weak support - Good short article. Could use a little more prose about the death, but it's not a dealbreaker.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been trying. jp.wiki doesn't have much help here and the language barrier makes it hard to search Japanese sources directly. --M asem (t) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (Also dealing with alot of sites in talking of his death pointing back Wikipedia sooo... that's helpful :P --M asem (t) 23:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - No glaring issues, could use more detail / referencing, but meets the minimum requirements of WP:ITN/DC I think. The Konami Code that the subject was responsible for seems fairly extensive, so influence and significance appears justifiable. Archived some of the article's refs. - Indefensible (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Javier Arias Stella

 * A lot of the content is referenced to ref #1. But that reference link currently leads to a 404 page. It'd be good to fix that and it would be better also to link to the actual original source instead of rerouting users to Google translation. Not everybody needs Google translation, but those who do, would know how to find it when needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * good point, thanks. I've linked instead to an archived version of the original source. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Dmitry Yazov

 * Comment - death is not currently noted in the article except by lifespan. Article is currently rated as stub-class, although it looks decent and the subject seems significant. - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could also have better referencing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Article is a stub, and in particular, the person in question had many high posts such as being 5-star general and a defence minister and it is not really explained even at a basic level how this came about and how specifically he was removed from being defence minister. There is unsourced stuff about his legal problems and because the article is short, this material is a bit disjointed and the context is not clear, which is a problem Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for lack of refs, and like noted above, the text about his activities during the early 1990s is confusing and feels incomplete.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too much work to do right now, as evidenced by the myriad tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ping me when fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article seems to have been improved, with better referencing. Only one cn tag remaining, which may or may not be a blocker. Death is now noted. Most of the refs are in Russian though, so not able to verify how good / applicable they are. Article is still rated as stub-class as well. BabbaQ, you might want to take another look now. - Indefensible (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) North East Delhi riots

 * Support I've added a slightly different altblurb to tighten up the language a bit and avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. The article is short, but well written and well referenced, and the subject is being covered by major news sources.  Checks every box for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose when you take out the background filler sections, it's very light on details. Where in Delhi? Was it one large protest or scattered confrontations throughout the city? Total number of participants? Some kind of chronology of events? Way too thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I have updated the blurb -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm moving note of this article Delhi communal violence 2020 from a comment left in the wrong place by User:Rashid Jorvee. Have not yet checked if same thing. --M asem (t) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are the same news item but different articles. Should be merged (history merged ideally). --M asem (t) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have redirected it as a newly created duplicate to the existing article. The content hardly merits a hist merge. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

f">qedk (t 桜 c) 06:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb because there have a grammatical errors and problems whether it is eleven or 11 in numerical form, because it, I Support the Altblurb with more clear sentences and significance. 180.242.51.208 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the alt.blurb, seems constructive to me. Dey subrata (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support the alternative blurb in favour of my own.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. I have poked around on the article and it looks decent. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly ✅. Marking as ready, support from me, added altblurb2 since we don't write 189 in full words per MOS:NUMBERS (also takes up much space) and both blurbs fail MOSNUMBERS at this point. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-seri
 * Support but do fix on a blurb which meets our MOS guidelines, all numbers or all words for those comparative figures. Maybe rephrase so it can be all numbers while not starting with a number.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MOSNUMBERS specifically allows for numbers to be spelled as words if they are two words or less. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what MOSNUM says, it also says we use the same format for comparable entities in a sentence. So all numbers or all words.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're aware, TRM, that the problem had already been fixed for over half an hour when you made the above comment, right? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was simply noting that I had already pointed out the problem before the blurb was posted as I am fully commensurate with MOSNUM. Thanks for your input Jayron. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but I think it's important to mention that this coincided with the state visit of Donald Trump. There was barely anything going on on the 23rd, and there was a sudden outbreak of rioting and violence on the 24th. I think Donald Trump's visit is highly relevant to this. I have made edits to the blurbs accordingly. Karan (Karandotg) (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion but remove mention of Trump from the blurb. The article only mentions his name once, down in one the body and I don't think this is particularly relevant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Trump part from the suggested blurbs, and I sugest they be proposed as an alternative version if someone prefers that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru: I wondered about that too. Article says "violence appeared orchestrated due to the US President Donald Trump's visit to India". Awaiting further comments on this ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * well that's a quote, attributed to the government, rather than a stated fact. I just find it odd that our blurb would mention something that doesn't even appear in the article's lead section. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have removed it for now. If people feel strongly that it should be included, they can make their case &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and indeed we'll see - maybe others will think it's relevant. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * with a few tweaks to altblurb2 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the alt.blurb. But, it should be corrected. The death is now 24.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Hosni Mubarak

 * Support, maybe even blurb as nominator. Article seems well sourced for the most part. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb on significance - 30 years as a powerful head of state of an important regional power. --LukeSurlt c 11:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not terrible, it could in theory fall under WP:ARBPIA, needs to be closely scrutinized for BLP issues and may attract POV warriors. Still working through it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has some cns and an unreferenced section that need to be fixed, which looks easy enough. Once that's done, I will support a blurb - a major figure in the Middle East who ruled Egypt for three decades. Meets the Thatcher/Mandela standard IMO. We need a proposed blurb to discuss. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb infinitely more newsworthy than Weinstein, and my referencing concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once referencing issues have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. We've established the bar on this recently, with the Daniel arap Moi and Kirk Douglas noms. For those who die of natural causes, only those of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela get blurbs. Mubarak was leader of Egypt for a long time, sure, and in some ways transformative, but no more so than Moi, and he is not on that world-renowned level required. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mubarak was indeed of the stature of Thatcher and Mandela.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thatcher and Mandela were elected to briefly govern mostly-independent Commonwealth realms. This guy ruled Egypt on something more resembling an Elizabethan level. But unlike her or Anwar Sadat, his death doesn't change the contemporary setup (we rightly blurbed his political demise already). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb This is a clear-cut case as he spent 30 years in office as president of the most populous Arab country which now has almost 100 million people. His death is expectedly top-tier news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wording comment: Blurb text has him as prime minister. He was, but his period as president was longer and more notable. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hook amended. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 14:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, oppose blurb article is of sufficient condition for main page posting. The article has nothing interesting to say about his death other than it happened, as such, there is nothing to say in the blurb to justify it.  RD is sufficient for deaths where there is nothing to say other than that it happened.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once improved Obviously can't post either RD/blurb right now, too many CNs, but once cleared up, posting the death of a former long-term leader of a major country as a blurb is a no-brainer. --M asem (t) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once referencing is fixed. On the contrary to Amakuru's opinion, being forced out of office after 30+ years by some 2 million+ strong in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in an event given a moniker named after its start date ("January 25 Revolution"), is automatically sufficient for a blurb. As to the commonly used Thatcher and Mandela-trope, applying a strict criterion such as "created the political weather" (as Thatcher / Reagan / Mulroney did), which George H.W. Bush did not by any measure, even if his career began as a diplomat in the 1970s (?) and he was part of a political dynasty . Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Jayron, there is nothing to be said other than "dies aged 91", blurbs should be reserved for events where the death itself is the story, per our guidelines. (This is not one of the "rare cases" exceptions in my view.) The article is not yet ready for RD as there are a number of cite tags.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A leader of Egypt for three decades (Egypt is basically half of the Arab world), relevant in the recent Arab Spring events, numerous reporting in the media.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending quality, updates, etc. Mubarak meets the Thatcher-Mandela standard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – per previous two. An important historical figure (unlike Harvey Weinstein) – Sca (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - 30 years' president of a country of just under 100 million. Seems pretty major to me. Juxlos (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either as RD or with blurb. Notable subject, article looks decent--currently rated B-class. - Indefensible (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb because there have a grammatical errors and linguistic problems But i Support posted to RD instead because the article quality and significance for Egyptian politic history. He is also very notable for Middle Eastern politics as whole. 180.242.51.208 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the few sourcing problems are fixed. Mubarak was a transformative world leader, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb once the cn's are addressed, important Middle Eastern politician Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the image to CMP so it can be posted when the cn's are addressed. First time doing it so yell at me if I did it wrong or if it was inappropriate to do this early.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * support blurb - definitely blurb worthy. post when few issues are fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Political and military posts" section is very difficult to source and doesn't add much. Suggest nuking it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. 7 CN tags are keeping this off the main page. If every support above fixed one, this would be up by now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added 5 more citations; need 2 more.  Spencer T• C 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - seems obvious, deeply involved in Arab Spring. Banedon (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Per above. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support photo People remember his face and roles, but he was retired, and retired people dying is unremarkable beyond what the Deaths in 2020 link already covers. The fact that he ruled for three billion man-years until the Arab Spring was notable, so we blurbed it back when. This isn't that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support as one of the most important leaders in the Arab world for decades. He should definitely be listed under recent deaths and it's bizarre he hasn't been already. Blurb and photo? Maybe not as much but he's easily comparable to Qaddafi or Al-Assad in terms of stature & length of rule.Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, neutral on blurb. Article is getting pretty close, and editors appear to be fixing the remaining issues fairly quickly, but it's not ready for the front page just yet, for either RD or blurb, as there's still a few outstanding tags, and there's a few sentences here and there at the ends of paragraphs that are unreferenced. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RD only Did not died at height of career, death was expected (hospital bound for weeks prior), death has little effect on current events, not a transformational figure. Arguments here rely on that last notion, but "lifetime strongman in Africa/Middle East" is not exactly an unheard of accomplishment. Sadat was transformative, Morsi might have been, but Mubarak and Sisi are just continuing a long line of tradition for that part of the world.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – I took care of the last few CNs. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. I see a consensus for a blurb, though not universal. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see consensus for acknowledging his long reign and widely-reported overthrow were historic, but nobody seems to think the fact in the blurb (died at 91) matters on its own merits. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Readers can read the article(which is what we want) to learn that he was a long time overthrown leader, it doesn't need to be in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want dead retired politicians to pick up steam, you have to entice new readers with something memorable, a hook. Plenty were suggested, none made it. Odd, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I still Support photo, regardless of the newer Delhi riots. He's more visually appealing than they are. And no, that's not a fascist bias, it's just the thing about a welcoming smile. Even coming from "beyond the grave", it's inherently warmer and more comforting than the mass personification of rage and despair. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - has suggested at WP:ERRORS that we could note the length of Mubarak's presidency in the blurb, as a way of asserting the significance of his death, for example:
 * Hosni Mubarak (pictured), Egyptian president from 1981 to 2011, dies at the age of 91.
 * I know this wouldn't be the usual formulation (as per the death of George HW Bush) but something to consider, and I am neutral on whether this is better or worse than what is currently there. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If "former president" isn't enough of a hook, I don't see how adding the years of his term helps. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with 331dot. If some readers can't immediately recognise someone's significance, the bolded link directs to the article for more information. We don't need to post blurbs indicating significance when we have this page to evaluate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Former president" isn't a hook at all, potentially describing several unblurbworthy people just as well. Eight supporters found the long term the main point of interest, and none were excited about his age. If newsworthy aspects of a news story don't matter so much as giving readers a name to click, this could have just as easily been as uninteresting and clickable in RD. But whatever. Boring and scant lines aren't as bad as incorrect ones, at least. This occured "in Cairo," if anybody finds settings brief and cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example of why the RD-blurb criteria exists, and a clear indication that Mubarak doesn't qualify. But if we want to pretend that there was anything unusual about Mubarak's life or death, relative to his peers, then length of term is the only one. "ME/NA strongman" is a crowded field, but only a few make it to 30 years.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bob Iger

 * Support as nominator. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post run-of-the-mill business news, even when the business is one of the largest in the world. If there was some significant reason for his step down (eg was arrested on criminal charges) then maybe but this is a standard transition. --M asem (t) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't view this as run-of-the-mill business news in the slightest, or I wouldn't even have nominated this article. Iger presided over Disney as it made major acquisitions (including 21st Century Fox, PIXAR, and Marvel Entertainment for instance), produced some of the most profitable films of all time, and saw a record-breaking increase in wealth.  Saying this news is "run-of-the-mill" requires some stretching of logic. AlexKitfox (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the story was about him leading Disney, those feats would matter a lot. But it's about him leaving the top office now, for (seemingly) far less interesting or exceptional reasons. Has the new, unpictured Big Bob done anything to suggest the corporate future on his watch will be substantially different? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thank the nominator for his good-faith nomination and encourage him to do more ITN nominations in the future, but this is still ultimately business news that is inappropriate for ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom but this doesn't rise to the level that we typically deal with on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is included in WP:Current events but not sure it rises to the level of significance to be included in ITN. For example, contemporaneous to Iger's resignation as Disney CEO in Current events is Thomson Reuters appointing a new CEO, but that is not similarly nominated or posted. Even if Iger's resignation is unexpected, there may be no greater meaning or noteworthy consideration beyond that. However, if some significant reason does come up, then it may be worth posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability: standard business news. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret, because I'd really like more business news on ITN. However, apart from the timing of leave, there's nothing "noteworthy" about this. All CEOs of medium-or-larger corporations preside over various initiatives, acquisitions, etc. Chairmanship can end in death (would qualify for an RD blurb), ousting (could qualify depending on circumstance) or leaving (which is mundane and not notable). There is of course something going on at DIS which is not being told, but without RS coverage we've nothing to found our "noteworthy" arguments upon.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose person replaces person in business is not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but with thanks for the nomination. I think there would need to be some controversy behind the change or the individual was forced out. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Clive Cussler

 * Oppose for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are whole paragraphs still unreferenced. P-K3 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Serra Cary
Her death is notable as she was the last surviving star of the silent era (a few other child actors are still around, but she was the only real star). It seems quite well-sourced, every section has at least one source. --Clibenfoart (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support One CN tag noted but otherwise the article appears to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and note that she was indeed a star. That she was a little kid and ridiculously easy to rob shouldn't take away from the fact that she drew over a million bucks, at a time when a million bucks could buy a large swath of Africa (a continent much larger than most flat maps suggest, even today). If the "quotes" weren't meant to mock the magnitude of this "silly widdle baby", sorry for "getting all defensive" about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi InedibleHulk, I wanted to emphasize that she was the last star, because other silent film actors are still around, but they were never stars in the true sense of the word. So there was no harm intended. Greetings, --Clibenfoart (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks. I'd have found italics or *stars* a bit clearer, but was only mildly harmed. Barely even knew of her, personally. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I fixed the CN (Amazon Prime to the rescue! was able to confirm from her autobio). Also confirmed that the list of films is based on MOMA's list and so its singular source there is fine. --M asem (t) 06:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just glanced at it but it looks like there is a citation to reddit? Might be worth taking a quick look at source reliability.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per Kees08 point above. Good spot. The sources also include the now defunct fansite AStarForBabyPeggy.com &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the article. There's also a source called astarforbabypeggy.com which in any case is a dead link &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been able to replace the reddit and that second link with appropriate sources (huffpost and guardian). Additional NYTimes has its obit up and I started seeding that in there. There's more that could be added, but in terms of sourcing and fundamentals, it shoudl be there now. --M asem (t) 15:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Thanks to for sorting out those last few dubious refs.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olof Thunberg

 * Oppose stubby Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not see that it has been rated a stub. When it is clearly a Start.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The main body about his career is only 214 words. The rest is about his famous descendants and a long list of participations in events Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not a stub and adequately referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Harvey Weinstein convicted

 * Oppose on quality issues I forgot that we post on conviction not sentence, as I was going to post this when I saw it and added the news to the article. Note that I added an altblurb focusing on the charges he was cleared of which were the ones that would have carried the heavier sentences and that more people wanted to see. I note that when I added this to the trial article, there was almost nothing about the last two weeks about the trial at all which was in the news (at least, noting when the jury was given the case to deliberate). --M asem (t) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He still has another trial waiting for him in Hollywood, so I can't say this is ready to post yet since it's not over. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose seedy character convicted for seedy crimes. Happens every day everywhere.  This one happens to be an American prominent in Hollywood.  Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of what happens at future trials, this verdict will send him to jail. Key moment in the Me Too movement and fall of a key figure in modern culture is of global interest. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:20BB:11B4:8EE1:9D30 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle – This case is a very influential. See Weinstein effect. This conviction is the climax of a long controversy worth posting on ITN. Oppose the current blurbs. He was only convicted on two charges. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb II looks ready to post. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Celebrity crime/gossip we are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - We are stupid not to post this. This is definitively in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Walt, this is "in the news" in our shitty clickbait world. This isn't ENCYCLOPEDIC as far as I can tell.  Little wonder if this kind of shite is getting traction for the main page that we're now considering ditching ITN altogether.  Gets my vote.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)`
 * Support pending article quality This is not, as suggests, merely "celebrity crime/gossip". This case is a touchstone to the Me Too movement. Something like the Oscar Pistorius case is celebrity crime/gossip alone. This is much more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support --- this is as much ITN as anything else that's posted on ITN. TRM's comment that he's American is irrelevant. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, if he was Sri Lankan or Filipino or Greek you'd be supporting. Of course.  But your argument, it's ITN because it's ITN because everything else like it has been ITN and therefore this should be ITN is spot on.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Ad Orientem. No doubt this is on all the front pages around the world, and I'll be honest - that used to be my criterion for posting here per WP:ITN. But I have been told many times by ITN regulars, and consensus usually follows this, that despite our "purpose" of getting the day's news stories up on the main page, we are at the same time not a news ticker, and that means we don't post celebrity stories etc. just because the media do, but we only choose stories of genuine encyclopedic value. So if we're picking and choosing our stories based on encyclopedic value rather than newsworthiness, and hence rejected stories such as Brett Kavanaugh being appointed to the supreme court, then we should also reject this one which, despite the rhetoric, is ultimately just the trial result of an individual Hollywood celebrity and not even a massively unexpected result. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, this is not just a big-name celebrity news story (that would be something more akin to Kevin Spacey's current trial). Weinstein's accusations kicked off the entire #MeToo movement which washed through Hollywood and numerous other industries and not just in the US and yet remains probably the highest profile case. That seems to be the reason to post, its relevance to #MeToo, not because Weinstein was a Hollywood big shot. --M asem (t) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose because of referencing in the filmography. Weinstein isn't your usual sex offender, this kicked off "me too" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not have to bold link the bio. The cases have their own article. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as worded the blurb is about a single case. If this is about the Me Too movement, it needs to say so (although the "timeline" section in the Me Too movement article conspicuously starts from 2006). Banedon (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once quality is taken care of As said above, this did kick off MeToo. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly notable watershed moment of accountability for an extremely powerful man. Agree that this case started the MeToo movement. Attempts to redefine the purpose of ITN in this discussion are irrelevant, in my view, and should be discounted. The article(s) may not be 100% perfect, but they are good enough. Blurb should be posted asap. Jusdafax (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb errors: Only one count of rape He was convicted of two counts, but only one count of rape.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed that while adding a fourth blurb that summarized both convictions and acquittals. --M asem (t) 05:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer Alternative blurb II. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The New York Times calls it a "#MeToo watershed". Not just another "seedy character" conviction, as some opposers contend. Prefer simplicity of Alt blurb III, minimizing legalese.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment RE: BLP & BLPCRIME. Should this go up, it must include the least legalese and the crimes described in the blurb should be in layman's terms that are understood throughout the ENGVAR universe. Alt III is most suitable. Specific descriptions like "predatory assault" and even "felony" have various meanings. Specific information on the charges are in the article, but as a single line on the front page it should cause the least amount of misunderstanding. Terribly important in this case, as subject is in legal jeopardy in different countries and venues, which may have different definitions for some of the terms in the proposed blurbs. I add my Support !vote: trial is of immense international interest, subject was famous beforehand, topic is, well, topical.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Altblurb 3 as suggested. The Katherine Johnson photo just went up so I thought I'd leave it a little more, but someone can change it if they wish. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to post a picture of Weinstein on the front page? Similar to our not putting a picture at Today's featured article/February 21, 2020, I think there's a danger it would attract more controversy than it's worth. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we just leave it as-is. As Chris Kraft might say, "if you don't know what to do, don't do anything".--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * when you say "leave it as-is", do you mean we should include a picture of Weinstein, as that's the default, or do you mean we should not have one, and leave it as Johnson's pic? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That FA was regarding a person notable solely as a criminal, and not wanting to encourage copycat crimes. Weinstein, on the other hand, is notable beyond this case.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post posting support but I definitely don't want Weinstein's mug up there.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P-K3 why not ? you are supporting the name though. I am for both or nothing.-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that the top blurb must be pictured. And I will happily admit to a bias in favour of looking at Katherine Johnson rather than Weinstein for a week.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , In that case I propose that you as well as Wikipedia reading Humanity be forced to see his face like Clockwork Orange as long as possible, so that we may not have another Weinstein.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have reverted the use of Weinstein's picture for now, per the discussion immediately above. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should wait and see if there's consensus first.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather look at a inspiring academic than a despicable criminal, but I think we have a clearly established (and recently confirmed) consensus that blurbs get the photo over RD.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , lets not be hypocrites. Lets not introduce personal BIAS here. If you find it suitable to blurb him, it must have his picture. If a new blurb comes, his pic can be replaced, not until then.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully - that's exactly what I just said.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support restoring Weinstein image RD Katherine Johnson's image was the right IAR call at the time. But Weinstein is now the top blurb, and we generally put an image related to most recent blurb on top. Or is moral character now a criteria, like when Trunp was replaced with RD Kirk Douglas?—Bagumba (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If only real life was like that. We could have Michael Douglas instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's Trick when we finally need him? – Sca (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support restoring Weinstein image All or nothing i.e. pull down the blurb if you dont want the pic. But it is hypocritical to say you like to see his name there but not his face. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way whether Weinstein's picture appears, but we should leave Johnson up for 24 hours before changing. ITN doesn't have an inexhaustible supply of images, and there's no requirement for the top item to have the image. We should make full use of each opportunity we have, otherwise we end up with the same image staying up for ages (as happened with the Dail and Parasite pictures). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been up for 14 hrs already. It's about being as timely as possible. This isnt like rotating through Nobel winners on par with each other.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well, has now put the image back in place again. This is arguably a violation of WP:WHEEL, and it would have been nice if they'd consulted me first, but no harm done - there is probably a rough consensus for inclusion by now. Let's see if anything kicks off at WP:ERRORS or Talk:Main Page. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , IAR, I am glad, someone used his admin bits, to undo the hypocrisy. More power to unbiased admins.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies,, I was not aware that it had been previously posted. I saw that there was an image available related to a blurb, rather than a RD, checked that the image was protected, and inserted it. AFAIK, RD images are only to be used if there are no suitable blurb images (I think I commented to that effect recently). There was no intention to WHEEL. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and that's fine - thanks for the explanation. I get the point about RD and blurb pics, my only concern was that there have been objections in the past to posting pictures of convicted criminals and terrorists on the main page. But evidently there's consensus here, so no harm done. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's been times when I thought "do we really have to have that ugly mug there?", but it's the system we are working under. Best we can do is apply the system fairly and without bias and partiality every time, no matter what our personal feelings are on the matter. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support image newest post gets the image, otherwise it's editorializing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support image RD images are only if there's no suitable blurb image, and this is a suitable blurb image. (EDIT: There's also no requirement that the imaged blurb be the top one, but this is the "main" story of the ITN section right now, so it makes sense for the image.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support; the trial isn't newsworthy in and of itself; its newsworthy for its role in touching off the Me Too movement. Describing it as nothing more than celebrity gossip is...an interesting outlook. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Way overplayed (per TRM, Ad Orientem, Amakuru). Despite the interminable hype (there'll be more in Calif.), this squalid episode is of little general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe someone could photoshop some bars across his mug?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , would posting his pic above this image would work for you ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  16:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katherine Johnson

 * Support per intersecting multiple areas of international/intergenerational interest. ——  SN  54129  14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A recent deaths nomination is dependent only on article quality, so there isn't any argument necessary in that sense. (Unless you are proposing a blurb?)-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, by ITN I meant a blurb. Corrected my note :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is good and seems ready to go. --M asem (t) 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks in good shape.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we post the photo? Been looking at that empty room for a long time. 159.53.46.144 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support this being an IAR case of posting an RD photo (even if the Weinstein blurb above is posted). --M asem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support and I agree that we should post her picture. Davey2116 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d support a blurb. If you look at the children’s publishing world, she has rocketed in popularity as a subject of biographies. For example, DK’s children’s biography series has a title about her, putting her on the same plane as one Nelson Mandela. I think there will be a great deal of interest in this article. Zagal e jo^^^ 17:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is .. it's like just short of all metrics we're consider for blurb. She's an important mathematician but was not the top of her field. She was an important first-female type thing, but that's not a reason to blurb as well. --M asem (t) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have also added the image to WP:CMP; it may be added as soon as KrinkleBot does their job (I will be AFK for a while). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Picture posted It is Black History Month, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Coronavirus outbreaks occur in South Korea, Japan, and Italy

 * Oppose the story is in "Ongoing" which is fine. Both regional outbreaks seem to stem from interactions with Chinese nationals, no evidence of a wider pandemic. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is this is no longer contained in China with just isolated outbreaks elsewhere. If it keeps on increasing like it has in Italy, South Korea, and Japan, it will be one. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html PANDEMIC is being mentioned in tons of news articles now. These outbreaks are quite notable on their own. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is more notability in the panic induced 4% drop in the FTSE 100 and DAX 30 than in 225 cases with 3 fatalities in Italy. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's no special factor of these cases in S. Korea or Italy as to reblurb the outbreak. It already had been spread well beyond China already. It is similar here to climate change, and only want to make to blurb stories where there has been massive change. If, for example, WHO reclassifies this to a pandemic, then that calls for a blurb. --M asem (t) 14:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but not to the extent of a thousand+ being infected. It was pockets of double digits in countries. All the news sources are screaming pandemic. I would say thousands of cases outside China is quite a change. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A little perspective: CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 29 million flu illnesses, 280,000 hospitalizations and 16,000 deaths from flu.. This is just in the USA. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * News sources are screaming it, but lets wait for the medical/disease experts to make the call first. We want to stress the importance that readers know about this virus, but at the same time, there is a lot of misinformation about it and we can't be sharing the same sense of panic as media has on that. And I don't expect these three countries to be the last to have >100 cases before this is over, given what we know, and we're not going to post each time a country gets above those numbers. --M asem (t) 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * South Korea has almost 1000... I see no reason not to blurb that the virus is rapidly spreading in places outside of China since it hasnt been done thus far. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well ITN is not a news ticker, and there is no requirement to blurb every development on every single story. The coronavirus is clearly a major deal - the likely overall mortality rate of at least 2% and the potential for global spread makes it more worrying than the winter flu cases mentioned above - but probably we should wait for a more major development before re-blurbing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ongoing is the right place for this.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is big news affecting three of the top economies in the world, on two continents. It is funny that some people think the WHO's calling it a pandemic would be considered more notable than this. 50k people in Lombardy are in lockdown.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Several million people in Wuhan have been in lock-down for weeks, as have smaller numbers in several other countries. Why are the Italians more notable? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. For now, ongoing is the right place for this. Things do seem to be escalating so I'm open to re-posting a blurb once something major happens, but these localised cases aren't substantial enough yet. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * CLOSING: Closing due to lack of notability expressed by the opposition. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Kiki Dimoula

 * Oppose this really needs to be expanded; it's a stub and there is very little about her life.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub missing refs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sardar Patel Stadium

 * Oppose Second-largest stadium is second-largest and thus not record-breaking. Even on this, I would oppose the blurb focusing on Trump, just announced that the second-larget stadium by seating was opened, there is no need to make this potentially political. --M asem (t) 05:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the biggest cricket stadium. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Purpose is irrelevant, though I would make a distinction if we were talking between indoor and outdoor stadiums from an architectural standpoint. --M asem (t) 05:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly irrelevant. You can't even play serious cricket on most soccer grounds, and soccer fans don't like watching their game on big, wide cricket grounds. Note that we are talking of the two most popular sports in the world here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant but not necessarily significant enough to be posted either. Undecided on this one currently though. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the key factor is "largest", then it is an architectural facet, not a sporting one, to figure out the way to support that many seat, though the sport itself is going to partially dictate why they need that many seats (eg , there's a reason why several of the largest ones are American college football) --M asem (t) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Comment The building (and perhaps the opening) of the stadium is the news here, not the fact that Trump opened it. Stadiums are noted for their size, tenants, location, and many other things, but never for who opens them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Change Alternative Blurb II to say opened rather than inaugurated, and I will support it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not the largest and Trump inaugrating it is irrelevant, ITN is not a press release. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 06:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability as the blurbs need a lot of qualifiers to prove notability. ("Largest cricket stadium" doesn't seem to be a bit deal.) Article also needs copyediting. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 07:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose because grammatical errors. Grammatical errors like assumption that it has largest stadium world is false. Because grammatical errors, it not sufficient to include in ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.122.197 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced you know what a 'grammatical error' is. You appear to be criticising a factual error. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a part of Trump’s visit to India, which in itself is nowhere near when Trump and Kim Jong-un met in terms of importance. Besides, the stadium itself is the largest among cricket stadiums. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a new stadium, but the article is a mix of info about the new stadium and the one which stood previously in it's place. Strip out the trivia from the old structure and there isn't much left. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral on significance, oppose on article quality. The opening of a large stadium is pretty uninspiring, especially one that isn't record-breaking, though I suppose we do need some new items on the template. However the article is mostly about the old stadium, full of unencyclopaedic cheerleading, needs a heavy copyedit, and hasn't even had the tenses updated. If posted, the blurb certainly shouldn't mention Trump, who is irrelevant to the story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mahathir Mohamad

 * Oppose For as long as the target is, I can't find an update in the suitable section (Second term as prime minister) . Updates to the infobox and lede are lacking in detail. I am therefore unconvinced that this resigning is any more impactful or notable than any other.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Prose updates are now at least in the correct place, but there are still no details regarding why this in important. Indeed, the updates make it sound as if nothing is actually changing.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A change in PM is not always notable outside of a general election, mostly when the incoming PM is of the same party and policies are not expected to change(don't know if that's the case here). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The CNN & Guardian sources above make it clear this was unexpected, seems to be excluding the person who was previously thought to be the most likely successor, and will lead to a new coalition. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "The Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of government and the highest political office in Malaysia. The prime minister leads the executive branch of the federal government.". We really need to get over this inane head of state vs head of government fixation. I'll change to full supprot if I have a chance to read the target before the nom is SNOW closed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - has the change of leader actually taken place yet? I suggest we wait to post this until it's known who is successor is, and the reins of power are handed over. Then we can mention both of them in one story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems he's the interim prime minister while a new government is formed. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Unexpected resignation, high quality article. Mahathir_Mohamad seems enough of an update. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The forming and dissolution of governments in the parliamentary system are not generally significant enough to be posted (though general elections are ITN/R). New PMs are posted on a case-by-case basis, but he is still the PM for now and could remain so in a new government.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose post new PM per ITNR. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and GreatCaesarsGhost. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support of course its note worthy enough for the main page, the change of a government outside an regular election cycle is significant. The fact the King has asked Mahathir to stay on as PM until his replacement is resolved, is also significant as it shows his government the crowns support even if the parliamentary processes dont. Gnangarra 01:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I'll tell a bit about the situation. Mahathir Mohamed is supposed to appoint Anwar Ibrahim like what had been planned where he'll take the position just for 2 years (written in news) but he resigned which make the appointment of Anwar Ibrahim as a new Prime Minister is off. So, there's a plot twist phenomenon there as Mahathir Mohamed doesn't seems to put off the position when the Agong of Malaysia appoint him as Interim Prime Minister. I think he's notable enough to be in the front page because he's one of world phenomenon.CyberTroopers (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This sounds like domestic political intrigue, and I don't think it's suitable for ITN absent some other criteria.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but wait This is clearly dominant news over in Malaysia, and is also covered significantly by international media (would probably be more if not for the entire virus affair, but what can you do). However there is still plenty of uncertainty so best make sure we at least know what's going to happen first. Juxlos (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Judging from recent developments, I think it would make more sense to nominate 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis as an ongoing item.  Masjawad99  💬 06:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, perhaps we should wait until it is clear that either Mahathir or Anwar gains enough support to form a new government, or whether a snap election would be called to resolve the deadlock.  Masjawad99  💬 06:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis seems more applicable for posting as an ongoing event, as the subject seems broader than just the person of Mahathir Mohamed. However, the article looks like it needs some cleaning up currently as well. - Indefensible (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lulusword seems to be doing an excellent job with creating and maintaining the article and providing extensive referencing so far. - Indefensible (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the rec. I am doing what I can, but I can only edit on mobile, so it will probably experience slow updates. Lulusword   (talk)  08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If Australia (population ~25 million; compare with Malaysia's ~32 million) had been mired for years in political scandal, the Prime Minister resigned, and then the Parliament had a dispute over forming a new government, I suspect we would post something, subject to the quality criteria of course. I do agree we shouldn't be hasty and might want to wait until either a government is formed, an election is called, or if the dispute drags out, post it to ongoing. Context for the unfamiliar: Malaysian politics have been rocked for years by the 1MDB scandal, with lots of politicians implicated in corruption and some going to prison. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II

 * Support &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A rather nice article about an event with high RS coverage. Would be nice to get it up before stale.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We don’t see boxing a lot at ITN and this is a decent article with enough prose. P-K3 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Dally-Watkins

 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hisashi Katsuta

 * Support – Looks good to me. AGF on sources. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Thich Quang Do

 * Nominator comment am expanding and adding sources. The patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, banned under the communist govt of Vietnam. Nominated for Nobel Prize and other things for dissident activities Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too soon for a fair use image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed image Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. This seems to be happening more and more, and it is a breach of the WP:FAIRUSE terms, so soon after the BLP's death. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed image. Is anything else required? Regards, Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . Now almost good to go, but I think the WP:LEAD section needs a bit of expansion, so that it summarises the body of the article. Currently it is limited to saying he was a patriarch, and mentioning one of the awards he received. But lacks any info on his life and career, particularly anything mentioned in the "Political opposition" subsection, which comprises the majority of the article at present. Once that's done, sourcing is good so looks good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded - I forgot about that, thanks for the prompt Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the speedy turnaround! Support now, and marking as ready. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , requesting opinions on whether the diacritical form Thích Quảng Độ is appropriate or not &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: B. Smith

 * Support was coming here to nominate after reviewing state of article, which appears to be fine. --M asem (t) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems ok for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted --valereee (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Hughes

 * Support - It is ready as far as I can see for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Surprising, really. But then again, not. Article in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisel Mueller

 * Comment - the line in the lead about her being the only German-born poet to be awarded the Pulitzer prize doesn't seem to be cited. Other than that, good to go. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like citing issue has been resolved.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Dreher

 * . Let the WTFBBQ commence! El_C 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - obligatory WTFBBQ. This seems pretty thinly sourced and more appropriate for the German Wikipedia, but hasn't even been posted there. - Indefensible (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What specific statements still need sourcing? Also, any article of sufficient quality is eligible for RD, it doesn't matter what the German Wikipedia does.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a single person supporting this between its posting and its nomination, and even the poster anticipated "WTFBBQ" as a reaction. While the subject was notable enough to have an article, it was start-class and deemed low importance, with only 5 references of which only 1 is in English. The fact that there is only 1 English ref and that there was no posting in the subject's native language Wikipedia suggests low notability. So the nomination seemed lacking in support and significance. - Indefensible (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That position is indefensible I'm afraid! 😎 RDs can't be opposed on significance, only on quality and referencing. 5 refs of which 1 is English, and start class, are probably sufficient. If you really think it's not notable then AFD is the place, but here we generally assume it's notable unless very obviously not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination still lacked any support between the posting and the nomination, regardless of significance. But if that is really the case, that means anyone who has a start or better class Wikipedia article who dies should be posted, which is obviously not the case. If an article has sections that lack ref'ing, they should just be removed so that the remaining content is fully ref'd. - Indefensible (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unusual for RDs to be posted with support from only the nominator - but it does happen. There's no reason to hold up posting if the admin is satisfied that it meets the RD criteria. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your second sentence. If an RD is nominated, then yes - if it is Start class or better, referenced and not stale, it should be posted.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The point in the 2nd sentence is that there is inconsistency in behavior in the relationship between article quality and nomination/posting. This can be seen from the numerous people who are not nominated or posted despite being notable enough to have an article about them listed on Deaths in 2020 (and I'm sure there are many more who are missed from that page as well) and are above stub-class and meet the subjective quality criteria (e.g. referencing). Michael Medwin might be an example, from a quick glance. Whether having an article should be enough to meet the significance criteria is a separate issue, although I am inclined towards having a higher threshold than that. - Indefensible (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dominican Republic Election 2020

 * AGF, I'm going to make some suppositions about how this sort of nom goes. The election (and its suspension) will not be seen as sufficiently significant. Protests are non-stop around the world right now, so those are not significant per se, though the size of crowds (not documented yet) would be considered. Deaths are significant, but the passive voice ("left at least two dead") suggests less malicious intent (a heart attack, maybe?). This could develop in to something, but it's not there yet.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: These are sub-national elections, so would not normally be posted. Sufficiently major protests could be a blurb of the own, but there is one sentence about them in the nominated article. The two Dominica Today links provided have just a few sentences, and the international media haven't paid any attention. Unless I'm missing something, that does not indicate sufficiently major protests. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article now has a decent section on the protests. However the Miami Herald source used there (the only one I can read) says there were 'hundreds' of protesters. That's substantial but protests with hundreds of thousands usually don't make it onto ITN. I'm afraid I must oppose this nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius' explanation which is well accurate. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The OAS is now investigating the situation. I doubt this makes a difference, but this now involved the United States and other countries. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Protests begin outside of the Dominican Republic because of the election problems. It is now very notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Elijahandskip, by "OAS" I assume you mean the Organization of American States. It seems that the election has been postponed to March 15 though and the situation has largely resolved for the time being until that date. Per what <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> wrote this probably does not meet the threshold for posting even with the additional protests currently, but perhaps it is part of something larger as you wrote that should be documented in a separate article. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wallan derailment

 * Oppose not particularly encyclopedically notable. Accidents happen when people try to rush.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I call into question the validity and relevance of this justification for opposition. Labelling the fatal derailment as an accident caused by the driver "rushing" (which has not been confirmed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau) does not make this event any less notable. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Call it into question as much as you like. It's simply not that notable.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still not picked up by a majority of worldwide agencies, don't see much notability here, sorry. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it has. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the non-American part of the world's media ignores college football. These arguments are silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per TRM. Unfortunate, but a comparatively minor accident. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite what it may seem, this accident was certainly not minor. In fact, looking at the photographs of the incident, it is surprising that there were not more casualties. The entire train (except for the trailing locomotive) derailed, causing the front locomotive to fall onto its side, and the first four (out of five) passenger cars to buckle. The train has ripped off the tracks from the ground, and appears to have ploughed through up to 100 metres of trees on the side of the tracks. This is not a minor derailment. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The term is relative. From a railroading perspective, the damage could be considered major, but in terms of fatalities (which are important, regardless of what anyone says) it was far down the list of current events in the world in which we live. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: AFAIK, the jargony term "XPT" would not be understood by a majority of readers. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support With Blurb Fix  I support as it is notable, but the blurb is wrong. The official report was 2 dead and 69 injured. (Check current events portal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2 dead, 69 injured refers to a motorway pile-up in Canada. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with blurb fix : As indicated by the nominator, this incident caused two fatalities and 12 injuries, which certainly makes it notable. As far as I can see, this also appears to be the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003. A fatal passenger train derailment is inherently notable due to the fact that rail travel is, by several metrics, one of the safest forms of transportation in the world. Regarding the blurb, it should read "derails" rather than "is derailed", because the latter suggests that the train was deliberately caused to derail. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb has now been updated, so I have removed my suggestion for the blurb alteration. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Question Was this a case of a SPAD, or is it too early to say? Does that have any bearing on notability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is known so far is that the signalling system was in a degraded condition due to a previous fire in an equipment hut. Trains were being diverted into a passing loop as work was being carried out on the other track. Both driver and pilotman were killed. First fatalities on an XPT since introduction in 1982. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The "pilotman" was a woman. It doesn't seem to be Australian English. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it is definitely too early to say for sure. Although, it does seem clear from the photographs that the train derailed at a set of points. After the crash, a passenger on the train apparently walked back and discovered that the points were set to direct the train onto a passing loop on the left. News reports indicate that the signalling system on the entire stretch of line from Donnybrook to Kilmore (about 30 km, by my rough measurement) was inoperable due to a fire two weeks prior, and the points were also being operated manually. I would assume that this meant the driver did not know that the train was due to be directed off the main tracks (these points had been set to straight for the last few weeks apparently) and thus did not slow down. The speed limit for this set of points is apparently 15 km/h, and according to a passenger estimate, the train was accelerating through roughly 80–90 km/h when it reached the points. So, I guess it is a result of poor maintenance of the signalling facilities and a breakdown in communication between the driver and the main control centre. Clearly, going 600% of the speed limit is not going to end well. Ironically (but certainly not in a humorous sense), one of the two people who died had actually just boarded the train to assist the driver in navigating the section of track in question. Very sad indeed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very clear summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Of course, this is all just speculation until the accident report is published. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was a cynical attempt to criticize the necessary parsing of borderline cases. Nothing about that kerfuffle changes the accepted consensus (globally, not just at WP) that a disaster with a high death toll is more significant than one without.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So if there was another disaster, with three dead, this one would lose out. But there isn't. Or do we need to wait for one with 12 deaths to trump Hanau? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * whilst it is accepted that the more deaths there are = greater weight to the case for notability, I do not accept that a lack of deaths = a lack of notability. In this case, we have the first fatal accident to those on a particular type of train in 38 years. This, and possibly the cause of the accident, is what give weight to the case for notability. In anyone thinks the accident is not notable, the AfD is thattaway! Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Claiming that an incident is not notable due to a lack of fatalities based on the premise that a large number of fatalities implies notability is a logical fallacy—specifically, denying the antecedent—and is therefore logically invalid. An incident need not have copious fatalities for it to be notable. To assess notability, one must consider the nature of the incident itself and what it represents rather than just looking one-dimensionally at the number of fatalities. For example, this accident took place in Australia, where events like this are rare occurrences. By my check, this is the first fatal derailment of a loaded passenger train in Australia since 2003, and according to the nominator, the first death on the XPT in its entire history. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you missed the strawman you were aiming at and hit me, allow me to clarify. The logical fallacy is "There is no such thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, so let's not cite the lack of deaths as a reason to oppose." The extent to which a disaster results in deaths or financial loss is material to the significance of that disaster. It's not the only thing that's material, but preemptively dictating that it is not up for discussion is a bad faith argument.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True. I agree with your comment regarding the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS thing in that the number of deaths definitely impacts on the perceived severity of the disaster. My point is more that (and I realise that you did concede this, so I'm not trying to be argumentative) the number of deaths is not the only thing which contributes to an accident being notable. I disagree that the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS comment was made in bad faith, though. Cynical? Sure. But cynicism only arises when there are things which fuel it. I think the nominator was just trying to say that the nomination shouldn't be rejected solely on the basis of the fatality count. Anyway, I think we've said enough on this issue. ChocolateTrain (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support An entire train derailment seems unusual and the article, while short, is sufficient to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose because of grammatical issue whether is just XPT or have a long form name, what is the abbreviation of XPT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.214.207 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is short for Express Passenger Train. It is just what the train is called. It is not a grammatical issue. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * XPT is its common name. It's the Australian equivalent of the British HST, which it was based on. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IP180. You don't need to oppose. You just need a different blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If IP180 doesn't adjust this. I trust the assessing admin will see it's not a "strong oppose" to posting per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the explanation. I now Support it to be posted. 180.245.214.207 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Reading what our article says, this is a case of an accident that had some unfortunate deaths but could have been a lot worse (as described by most reports). That "lot worse" is where we would have posted as it would have been a mass death accident but right now this is just a unfortunate case of a lot of things gone wrong in the prior 24hr. --M asem (t) 15:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking ready - IMvHO, the strength of the supports outweighs the weak opposing arguments. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Weak' and 'strong,' to say nothing of the frothy variants 'very strong' or 'strongest possible,' are meaningless in terms of votes on ITN nominations. – Sca (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Bad form. With six opposes and three supports, this is hardly clearcut "ready" for posting, and you shouldn't be judging consensus on your own nominations, especially in such circumstances.  Deary me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Two of the opposes are of the form "I haven't seen this in my local news", which we all know is not a valid reason to oppose. If this page was properly administered, and Admin would instantly delete such rubbish comments. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I now count four supports. Although we all know it's not a !vote, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was six weak opposes vs four strong supports (my nom counts, remember). It is not bad form to mark one's own nom as ready, as it merely indicates to other, uninvolved, admins that a decision is needed. Posting it would be, and an abuse of the tools, which is why I will never do it. Now six weak opposes vs five strong supports. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The strength of support/oppose is up to the assessing admin, and should not be up to the nominator to even really comment upon, let alone attempt to claim ready to post when the opposition clearly outnumbers the support.  If the nomination has a consensus, it'll be assessed and posted by an independent admin.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As this is not the first time we've disagreed over this issue, I've raised a discussion at WT:ITN, where all editors are encouraged to participate. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So perhaps show the courtesy to the community to allow the discussion to continue before going ahead and doing what you were going to do regardless. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - This is ITN worthy. Deaths, plenty of coverage. Article is not long but sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the argument that they are the first deaths in the history of the line, starting in 1982.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * first deaths on board the XPT, not on the line in question, but thanks for you support. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved admin please decide whether the strength of arguments in favour of posting outweigh the strength of arguments opposing posting and post this, or indicat that further discussion is required? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could get Paul Theroux to rule on this. In The Old Pategonian Express he talks, rather nervously, about train wrecks. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Admin comment: Doesn't look like there is consensus at this time and I am continuing keeping the discussion open for a little bit longer. The nomination has been open for just over 24 hours at this point, and it's not unreasonable to allow discussion to continue a little longer.  Spencer T• C 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Let the discussion continue then... Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see this as similar to the recent Caspian Airlines nomination - a transport accident which could have been horrific, but is mostly a near-miss. This is tragic for the two crew members who died, but we can't post every transport accident that causes two deaths. I agree with Masem, the impact of this crash seems to be thankfully minor. Users shouldn't mark their own nominations as ready, especially if it requires dismissing some of the opinions expressed (whatever one might think of them). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support because there nowhere train incidents like this in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.187.159 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sufficiently notable to me, especially since in today’s OTD there is a modern (2007) train derailment with only one fatality. In the first world and modern age, even non-fatal train derailments are very unusual and make waves in news. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Modest Genius. I get the fact that train and plane accidents are usually far more talked about than car accidents with equivalent fatalities, but even so this one doesn't seem to rise to the level that makes it front-page ITN news. And as much as it may be making waves in some media around the world, I can say anecdotally that I have not encountered this story anywhere in my perusal of the news in recent days. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I NEVER see American football finals mentioned in the Australian media. Nor, probably, do you in yours. But we still post it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What, you mean the Super Bowl? That gets a surprising amount of coverage here these days, which may irritate some people. And It looks like it featured on the main page of your news sites in Aus too. Anyway, my point on that was mainly in response to the contention above that this is "making waves around the world",not saying that my having heard of it directly impacts its postability. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. I meant college football, as I had already mentioned earlier in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well I opposed the college football too, so you can't blame me on that one smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the similar Livraga derailment on 6 February 2020 in Italy was nominated and not posted; posting this event would be inconsistent with the most comparable precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, posting such a minor train derailment would be problematic since there are a slew of massacres and other mass death events in the last few days that haven't been nominated. People could say this is because they are happening in the third world. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fix it then! Write the articles and nominate them. What a ridiculous reason to oppose = OTHERSTUFFDONTEXIST. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles exist, but people refrained from nominating them here, as you should have with this article. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it was OTHERSTUFFNOTNOMINATED then. Of course this should have been nominated - major rail accident in Australia, first on-board deaths on XPT in nearly 40 years. Since nomination, further details have come to light which mean we can add in underlying causes as a further reason. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't stale at all, we still have a mass shooting from February 9 listed.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I come from the city this happened close to, so I was well aware of the incident before I saw it here. I didn't think of nominating it, and was surprised to see it here. However, the number of appalling reasons people are using to oppose this has led me post this support !vote to balance out the idiocy, bias and ignorance in the rest of the thread. (When will the Admins who watch here do something about the massive proliferation of rubbish posts?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Zealander of the Year Awards

 * Oppose. Local news. Good for DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree it's not suitable for ITN, it's also not good for DYK under any criteria used there. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely regretful oppose - I wish we could have more ITN stories from my home country...--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose referencing issues. Not one citation for the filmography, for example.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are generally not going to post any national honorary titles unless there's more to the news about them. --M asem (t) 14:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry, but doesn't rise to the level of English Wikipedia's main page notability. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Also suggest closing this per WP:SNOW. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Hanau shootings

 * Support. Brand news. BUT It is still a stub. It needs development. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support On notability and quality (two shooting blurbs on at the same time is a bit grim, though). Tweaked blurb. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a few hours just to see what additional news will come in, but on importance, this is appropriate to post assuming that the 8 reported deaths hold up. --M asem (t) 01:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently they have found the gunman dead in his home, so the "event" is over, though I've seen a death tool as high as 11. Either way, likely can be posted in a few hours.--M asem (t) 06:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait It's a stub and there is more that we don't know than what we do. Things are developing rapidly. Better to wait until we know what the bleep has happened and we have a credible article to link to. Obviously this will get posted once we have solid information and an article of adequate quality. But ITN is not a news service so there is no rush. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support after expansion - clearly notable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Have added some minor info. Not that much known yet, but can be posted imo, since editors are on it and constantly updating. Please refrain from calling it a right-wing attack in the infobox yet, so far, that is just speculation. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of grammatical issue whether it is "nine" in alphabetical form or "9" in numeric form, but I Support it for quality and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.214.207 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a really strange reason to oppose, doubly so because Wikipedia rules mandate that Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As of now, article has been expanded enough is, of sufficient quality and item is being reported sufficiently in news sources. Looks good to go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Current blurb says "at least ten" (10). The practice of including the shooter, who killed himself, seems decidedly odd. Further, all the extensive RS coverage I've seen quotes official sources as saying he killed nine people, so "at least" seems inadvisable as it gives the impression we don't know how many were killed. (True, there is one person who was "seriously" injured, but we don't know whether that person is likely to die.) . – Sca (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * PS: However, I see German Wiki's ITN blurb now says 11 "lost their lives" ("sind elf Menschen gestorben"), so maybe Eng.-lang sources will update soon. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose phrasing it like that. Yes, 11 people are dead, but one of them is the killer who killed 10 (other) people. Regards So  Why  16:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * So far, he has killed 10 people. And himself. Makes 11. I agree that it is a little confusing for the reader that the main page says ten and the article lead says 11, even though it makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could someone give the "credits"?--SirEdimon (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Mojica Marins

 * Support, though the article does need some improvements. I'll try to help improve it in the morning. — Matthew  - (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made some improvements, including adjusting and expanding upon much of the text, adding several citations (and a Bibliography subsection), and removing references to IMDb outside of the External links section. It isn't perfect, but we're aiming for a RD entry right now, not good or featured article status. — Matthew  - (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe we generally require citations in the filmography section.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. — Matthew  - (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose article needs proper and thorough referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted I believe all of TRM's concerns are addressed, give me a ping if there are any outstanding problems that would require pulling.  Kees08  (Talk)   21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Heather Couper

 * Oppose many references missing, and I'm not sure I saw any prose relating to her death. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still work needed to be done.BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - her death is noted, not in great detail but more than what is on Fernando Morán (politician)'s article. What other work specifically is still needed BabbaQ? - Indefensible (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft oppose - filmography table is unsourced and there is only a single sentence about her death. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the other opposes, citation needed tags, and an uncited awards section  Kees08  (Talk)   17:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pop Smoke

 * Support - I can't see any issues with the citing or article quality. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - The primary source for his death is TMZ. Pitchfork, a more reliable source has TMZ as its lead and says "allegedly killed", "reportedly pronounced dead", "Pitchfork has reached out to representatives for more information". The article has no problems for the rest of it, but there is no police, hospital or management confirmation of his death thus far. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As of 15:30 GMT all coverage is either tabloid or says "reportedly", or even has "death" in inverted commas. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not against waiting on a better source than TMZ, but in terms of reporting on deaths, TMZ has fixed their reputation of jumping the gun. I'd still wouldn't rush to put in a death based only on TMZ, but I would be expected to see other sources to confirm within a short time. --M asem (t) 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * NBC News are also reporting it, citing multiple sources who've spoken to them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Death being reported by reliable sources. Also, TMZ is typically a reliable source for celebrity deaths (see 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash) so it shouldn't be downplayed as a source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just point out that, say, 15-20 years ago, TMZ was known to jump the gun in its rush to be first and ended up w/ egg on their face (see cases on List of premature obituaries). They're still rushing to be first, but they do try to get firm confirmation before posting. --M asem (t) 19:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fernando Morán
*Oppose because unknown for their nationality whether Spanish or Catalan but Support for well-referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What?--SirEdimon (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, his nationality whether Spanish or Catalan needs to reveal before posting to RD. Yet I support it to posted despite nationality issues. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please could you explain a bit more what you want us to "reveal"? Because your point isn't clear to me. (1) the guy was born in Aviles, which is on the northern coast of Spain, nowhere near Catalonia. (2) even if he was from Catalonia, he'd still be Spanish as for the time being (unless and until it goes independent) Catalonia is still part of Spain. (3) the article does say his nationality, and it says he's Spanish. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for information and I now Support it to be posted because it is very notable for Spanish politics. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support start-class but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable especially because was the MFA he who led the negotiations for the accession of Spain into the current European Union and what this meant for this country. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Bonaparte

 * Support no glaring issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 Afghan presidential election

 * Oppose for now - sourcing is good, and I think this is probably WP:ITN/R, even though the election itself was some months ago. (It looks like we didn't post it at the time, unless I've missed it). It needs more of an update on today's news though. The lede has one sentence, but the body has not been updated yet, with details of what happened and why the result is now official. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to insufficient update. As noted above, we need more on this news; if this is a big deal, then the article should give it some weight in terms of some significant explanatory text.  There's a sentence in the lead and that's it.  Furthermore, I'm not entirely thrilled with the blurb, it feels like it buries the lead.  It makes it sound like the election just happened, perhaps if we changed the bolded text to "verified" or "confirmed" the results of the five-month old election in some way, I would like that better.  My skills are failing me at this point, but if someone can come up with something better, that'd be great.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still oppose until update is done, but when that is fixed, I would support ALT2. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose not a significant event for global history outside involving any of English-speaking country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Postings are not limited to being of interest to English-speaking countries. Presidential elections in any country are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. You know the US still has troops there, right? Certainly of interest to Americans. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * even if it wasn't of interest for Americans it should still be there.86.44.177.88 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose until duly updated. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support my alt-blurb. Election of leaders is always notable -- Rockstone   talk to me!   23:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR is for the final results of the election, so yes this counts. Unfortunately the article is not ready as we need a paragraph of referenced prose on the announcement, reactions etc. Even the table appears to list the preliminary results from December, not the final values released this week. Adding altblurb2, which hopefully addresses the concerns raised above without calling the legitimacy of the election into question (which we avoid doing in blurbs). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing: Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present)

 * Weak oppose for now. Article is well referenced, but needs some stylistic rewriting to avoid major WP:PROSELINE issues.  If someone could find a more natural and narrative way of writing than just a string of paragraphs that start "On ..." I would support posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps a blurb would be a better way of adding this to the template, rather than an Ongoing without a defined end point. Based on the nom it seems that there are notable events worth posting about.  Spencer T• C 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Something about "leaving the army in full control of the Greater Aleppo area." might make a good hook. Even if the daily proseline were glued together into a paragraph, it wouldn't be adequate for OG: too light on details. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose War never ends, and we can't post everything that is ongoing to "Ongoing." Given that this war has been posted many times in the past, I don't see enough here to post yet again.   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - The impending open war between Turkey and Syria (and their global allies especially) resulting from this offensive is a whole new story, compared to the Syrian civil war.--89.206.114.67 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this World War you are observing in your crystal ball would be blurbable, but for now we're just discussing the Syrian Civil War.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – I suggested a blurb. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strike that. There are 22 refs to a blacklisted source. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which source? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * southfront.org. I got rid of 3. Down to 19. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing but Support blurb per others because despite is the ongoing war, but not necessary to included in ongoing section. I think it should be included in blurb instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not appear to be significant based on the blurb (as said above, this always happens and while unfortunate is not noteworthy); having said that, perhaps the blurb is hiding the significance of this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am receptive to the idea of posting the Syrian civil war again, but I'm not sure if this is the right time to do so. The recent battles and territorial changes don't seem large (in the context of the entire war), so the significance seems to be more speculation of what will happen next e.g. with Turkey. Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, we should wait to see what events are triggered. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nomination title is "Ongoing..." but "ongoing = no" flag is set, so I am confused about what is actually being proposed. Additionally, article has plenty of CNs and some of which don't have the excuse of breaking news. Written style is the familiar play-by-play police-blotter type, which gives little in the way of context or weight. Article seems to be a continuation of a series, the last of which blossomed into an orange-tagged mess. As a matter of impact and suitability, I would maybe be in favor of adding something Syria to Ongoing, but not this blurb and hopefully not this article.130.233.2.197 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Yukos shareholders lawsuit

 * Oppose - The blurb itself doesn't establish the significance of this story. Other than being an international lawsuit that Russia may not even comply with, what does this event actually change? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any suggestions to change the blurb to make the topic show the notability? The court ruling in 2016 was overturned, which including the international lawsuit, makes it notable.
 * I have boldly set the target to the article on the lawsuit(s) that are involved against Yukos. Working out a better blurb. --M asem (t) 14:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as, after trying to update the target article on the lawsuits, this is just one of many, and Russia states their plan to appeal. While the case has international concerns, it still effectively is a bad business thing which we typically don't ITN. --M asem (t) 14:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per M asem . Not really significant enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not significant for English language Wikipedia main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The blurb is barely understandable, and from the article and NBC link above I cannot see these legal wranglings having sufficient encyclopaedic impact to justify an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tapas Paul

 * Oppose - although mostly cited, the article needs a bit of restructuring - the film information oin the lede seems to be longer than the "Film career" section in the body, which is the wrong way round. I also don't think there should be a dedicated "Controversy" section per WP:NOCRIT. The relevant facts should be described in another section of the article and in neutral terms. Also there's an unreferenced section and several citations needed. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think Amakuru nailed it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ashraf Sinclair

 * Oppose - the prose size is only 1149 bytes, which means it's basically a stub (1500 bytes is usually considered the minimum). Filmography also unreferenced. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose proto-stub, no critical analysis, nothing for the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Daytona 500

 * Oppose. Contrary to what the nom says, the Daytona 500 is not listed at WP:ITN/R. It only mentions the NASCAR series itself, which I believe will conclude in around August. Not convinced the Newman injury makes it worth posting either... I gather it's not a life-threatening injury. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've taken off the ITNR per this. Doesn't mean that it can't be posted but we now debate on its merits in addition to quality. --M asem (t) 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's an interesting question... if a particular event could be ITN/R, but isn't, does that mean that by default we should not post it? Obviously this one has the extra circumstances around the serious injury, but ordinarily I'd imagine that would be the case. If something's worth posting one year then it's worth posting every year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen personally that an event like an ITNR one but not listed to be ineligible for ITN posting; it just loses the "free pass" of ITNR's "important already established". It can be more difficult for an event that is similar to multiple events on ITNR but not listed itself (such as yet another association football tourney), but that doesn't immediately disqualify it. --M asem  (t) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * we've had this discussion and fixed it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, since the Daytona 500 is the most prestigious event in the series,it would be the one to post on ITN. But, that was just my understanding. --  Rockstone   talk to me!   19:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on article quality. Absolutely zero prose outside of the lead describes any of the race at all.  This was a multi-hour sporting event about which volumes of text have already been written in major sporting media outlets.  Absolutely none of that has made it into the article.  Would support inclusion if anyone cared to research this and write some prose into the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support we've posted the Daytona 500 in the past, there are good paragraphs about the race in the lead, the tables do an excellent job summarizing the pertinent info: who ran, what was their standing and times. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how we post one race when the season winner is ITN/R.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it's been covered above, but a single race in a single class in a single country is absolutely miles away from ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh? Tell us more about a single race in a single class in a single country being absolutely miles away from ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is Godwin's law, the WP:ITN/C version. "As a discussion about a news item grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving The Boat Race approaches 1". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually coined Oxford's Law, and would appreciate you attributing it to me. ;-) --WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only miles away from ITN when it isn't America, of course (sarcasm). Nevermind the fact that NASCAR is not just an American thing. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's really any regional bias here. We could post the British Grand Prix, which is quite a big deal in the UK sporting calendar and maybe on a similar level to the Daytona thing. But we don't, for similar reasons to those outlined above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - I'm sympathetic to desires to get this posted. It's hard to think of very many parallels to the Daytona 500, which is a notable sporting event in its own right even if it's not the season-finisher. But the article needs to be of good quality first and foremost. Also, I don't think the injury should be mentioned. It would be more notable if the victim died, as morbid and unfortunate as that sounds.--WaltCip (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 500 miles of left-hand turns? Yeeee-hhhaaaaaawwww, cousin Cletus!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Classy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That has literally no relevance to anything.. "500 kicks of an association football? Woohoo, Oliver!" -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support once article is ready, given that this is arguably the foremost event in auto racing. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Tesler

 * Okay, I've done my job, the article is fully sourced and expanded with a few more of his contributions. --M asem (t) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - his work was certainly influential/notable; article looks decent. - Indefensible (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   05:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonja Ziemann
I added another source and some text. Look, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's sad that so few users seem to be interested in RD nominations nowadays, but this clearly meets the relevant criteria. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   20:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ror Wolf

 * , which University of Frankfurt? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support upon resolution of the dn above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done, but really, I'd say that 90% of people mentioning University of Frankfurt mean the one at the Main, not Oder. The article title reflects the latest taste in short names, so is useless for when he studied, sadly. The historic name would be awfully long, with the full name of the poet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The source at the end of the sentence also confirms that it's the one in Frankfurt am Main. Although it's almost common sense, given that it's already stated that he left East Germany to live in the west, and it's unlikely he'd immediately return there to study. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have tagged a few odd words towards the start of "Life": I could guess "shou" is "shoe", but "annected" is beyond me --PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the words based on Google translation of the NZZ source, but it would be good if a German speaker checked it --PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked it, it's fine, - sorry, was getting tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Owen Bieber

 * Oppose for now - all looks good, but as noted in the nom the lede needs some expanding. Then it'll be good to go. CHeers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Thanks for the update, that's great. I've added a little more detail on his early life, and it's good to go now. Marking as ready.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've done my best to write a summary in the lede. Can you please recheck my work, .  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Weatherall

 * Haha, you edit-conflicted with me nominating it. I've added a death section, but I've got to be AFK for a while now. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * he he yes, thanks for that. I was going to nominate Harry Gregg as well, but missed out on that one because I had to go to a meeting... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - fully cited now. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * good effort, thanks for that! Looks good to go now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Gregg

 * Oppose - a few citations needed, and do I see The Daily Mail in there...? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now, some citations needed in the "Television appearances and portrayals" section, and some unreliable sources need replacing with better sources, as noted above. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Mail with cites from the Guardian and FourFourTwo, and added some references for the TV/film depictions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a few claims that need to be cited, but after that should be OK to go. Decent article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - all cites now good, and consensus to post to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Fernández

 * Support Article looks solid with good referencing. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem.
 * Oppose couple of issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed two issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   07:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Shehnaz Ansari

 * Comment – Stub. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Sca. Needs some more meat on the bones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs some more fleshy parts on the fruit. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: A. E. Hotchner

 * Oppose for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caroline Flack

 * Support Confirmation of death and article is citated correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.148.126 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good enough Spiderone  20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article now good enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry to "do a TRM", but Filmography is wholly unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above (and no need to apologise for maintaining standards, particular for a BLP) but also the "Strictly Come Dancing performances" table is completely unreferenced as well. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that table even necessary? Do people really care about each "performance"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It feels like something that should be saved for an article on the show, if at all. A few lines of prose about appearing is really all a biography would merit. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's become standard practice to copy out the results table extract to the contestant's own article, but usually in collapsable form. As a series winner the table deserves to be included for Flack more than for most. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It feels a little undue, especially if there's already cited prose describing the course of the show (and we do have a paragraph-length summary of its run so it's not like it isn't covered); ultimately if it's uncited material in a biography we should be looking for a good reason to include it, and other articles doing it isn't enough. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason, as far as I know, for it to remain uncited. But, as Kingsif says below, WP:PLOT. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeeeeah, I disagree that's standard practice. Summarize how far she got, etc. but you have the link to the series article right there. Unless there is some specific facet of her appearance on one of those shows that had more impact on her life/career, the summary is just fine. --M asem (t) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support barring filmography refs, most if not all should be easily available on the BBC and ITV websites. Strictly Come Dancing might not warrant refs because of WP:PLOT Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ography section has to be sourced, and I don't understand why guest appearances are broken out separate, they're all still television appearances. --M asem (t) 00:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, there is zero reason to have the dancing show table there. Linking to the season article where those results are present already are fine. Her article should summary her appearance on the show, but not the details. --M asem (t) 00:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Axe the dancing show table,it's undue in this article and per WP:NOTSTATS, doesn't add to understanding the BLP when the biog already covers the important detail in prose. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Filmography table is now 95% referenced, "guest appearances" section is halfway there. PotentPotables (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added references to the remaining parts of the Filmography table. I have also added a reference to the Radio table and some to the Guest Appearances list. I could not find sources for the three that are left uncited for now. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support referencing seems to have been greatly improved. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could someone give the "credits"?--SirEdimon (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by others. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Dennis

 * Oppose Ongoing because OG items need to be "continuously updated". I'd consider a blurb pending update, the article has no impact section as yet to justify one. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article now has an impact section. I added a second alt blurb as the storm is possibly the strongest north Atlantic winter storm ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's windy and wet, and inconvenient. And it'll be all over in a matter of hours, so ongoing seems overkill.  At most, if dozens are killed, we could look at a blurb.  Otherwise, it's modern weather business as usual.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (Question) How is a storm setting records in the North Atlantic "weather business as usual"? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I noted, I'll await its impact, if any, before suggesting it should be posted. Much like Ciara, it'll most likely be a storm in a large teacup.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's kind of windy outside at the moment, but doesn't feel as bad as last week yet. If my wheelie bin has blown over by tomorrow morning then I might consider supporting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that a blurb on Ciara was rejected and the article's lead forecasts: "Despite its intensity, the effects from the Storm are not expected to be as notable as Storm Ciara," I would only support this if the article itself was well developed, which at the moment, that seems half-way. Sleath56 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – powerful storm, yes, but not especially impactful which is the most important element for ITN. If it were a world-record intensity I believe that would warrant mention solely on meteorological merits but that is not the case here. National militaries routinely respond to disasters to assist affected persons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Amakuru – and of course we must accede to the expert advice of the preceding user's post. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the article could be expanded, three deaths is not significant for a weather disaster post. --M asem (t) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bonnie MacLean

 * Comment She appears to have died on February 4, but it has only been reported on the 12th.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)}}
 * Weak oppose Article is currently extremely light on what she actually did and could use a small expansion before posting.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment P-K3 Added content. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ex-Tropical Cyclone Usei

 * Comment Not out of season at all. It's peak cyclone season in those waters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uesi has very little impact at all, plus no article of the cyclone exist.  I Need Support  ❄️ 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi does not have its own article, and I don't think the season article should be approved in its place. Also, despite making landfall on Lord Howe Island, no significant damage was reported. If there had been significant damage on New Caledonia or Lord Howe Island, then I would probably support the nomination. As a point of technicality which was also mentioned by HiLo48, Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi was not an out-of-season event. February–March is peak tropical cyclone season in the Southern Hemisphere. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as Uesi is no shere near the level required for in the news with barely any impact reported.Jason Rees (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing any real newsworthiness to level of encyclopedic main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the first I'm hearing about any cyclones, considering I live in New Zealand, so this could hardly be news anywhere else if it's not here. There has also been hardly any damage, so the notability is not there. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  22:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose Not a notable TC by any means. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 23:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests

 * technical note: I use a shifting IP with Rogers telecom. If I make a future comment as original nom and my IP has changed, I will use the tag (~AH1) in my comments prior to my IP signature, to indicate my former editor's account. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:7504:B465:858D:639A (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Lengthy and high-quality article, major news event and first entire rail stoppage in the country in decades. Obvious yes from me. 122.60.66.191 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose only related to a single country, namely Canada. This event needs to involve other countries, like US or UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.191.96 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon? WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the same IP block that nominated the Trump impeachment for removal hours after the CAA protests were removed. I think it can be safely ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose unlike past protests we have posted, this is more a sit in, nonviolent protest of interminable size. Not in the same class as others, --M asem (t) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm changing to a Support on improvements based on the explanations better in BBC than our article of the extent of the impact. Both freight and passenger trains schedules are disrupted so to me, this is like the Yellow vests movement from France that we did support. But the article needs improvement to address that scale of impact. --M asem (t) 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unsee coverage on major RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is good enough. Front page at cbc.ca. Via shut down all passenger rail nation wide due to protests in the BC interior this is actually a pretty big deal. Why the hell are anti-pipeline protesters interrupting rail service? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on quality, article appears to be fine. On significance, while these protests may be behaving differently from how protests would occur in other parts of the world, there's a long tradition in Canada that this is how First Nations protest.  While it's been done before, I don't believe they've ever shut down our national rail service before, however, and that is where this rises to the level of significance required for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember them closing the 401 out near cornwall years ago --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Alt blurb 1's a good try, but it's not quite long enough. Just another 21 words and it'll match the length of all the current blurbs combined. —Cryptic 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good quality, updated, and the story is a major news story on several outlets. Added another Alt2 -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it's a good article, it lacks sufficient notability to be shown as ITN, but yes in Current Events. Important for Canada, but little else. I think that the way to protest of "First Nations", as someone says above, has no relevance to consider whether it is important or not. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsee even on main CBC page today. Getting a bit stale, eh? – Sca (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, it is on the front page of CBC, and is likely to remain so until resolution. There is also a pretty good CNN article which explains the situation reasonably well. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On my (PC) screen, the CBC site displays 30 articles, including one with the hammer-head "Trains vs. pipelines," but nothing on protests. – Sca (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Something you already knew, but which I should post publicly in case others didn't realize the irrelevance of your comment: News websites generally post a personalized view of their main page based on a number of factors, and whether or not a particular story appears prominently for you has little bearing on whether or not the story is being covered by in-depth articles. If one wants to know what sort of prominence a story is getting, one needs to look at the number, length, and depth of stories covering a topic from a wide variety of sources, not just what one's personal view of the world is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point-out, Jayron. Dodging those algorithms (Google too!) is one of the major reasons I clear cookies and caches multiple times a session and never use a news feed. Otherwise I find that I am just getting "echo-chamber" articles. (Disclaimer - I actually learned about this in the first place because I coincidentally happened to be in Toronto, in Union Station, waiting for a train, on the day when it started. I asked various staff what was going on, and they told me. I managed to get home on what turned out to be one of the last trains before the system-wide shutdown. Job-related travel has been ... interesting ... ever since. (Plus, February is always particularly busy for VIA Rail because the corridor includes more than a million university and college students, all of whom have a Reading Week equivalent during February (or early March on the Québec side of the provincial border), and at times it seems like most of them hold student rail passes.) In passing, Toronto Union Station is proximate to one of Toronto's Chinatowns, and Toronto has reason to remember SARS vividly. Here and now, the combination made for large crowds, with lots of masks.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on all my experience in ITN, my dropping in here will be the kiss of death. Nonetheless, for context, I will mention that CNR is the third largest railway in North America (not just Canada) by operating revenue and the fourth largest by mileage. During the past week, approximately half of its rail was blocked, and a third of its rail remains shut down. Additionally, during the past week, half of all the container ports in Canada were blockaded (two still are on an on-again off-again basis), and the CPR rail line was also briefly blocked. CNR has stated that it expects to lay off 6,000 people as a direct result. Those layoffs have already started. For reference, the total employment of CNR is 24,000.


 * (As an amusing note, US domestic policy considers Canadian oil "domestic". Twenty percent of that oil is carried at least partly on CNR rails -- so yes, much of that is at a standstill as well. Not quite so amusing is that much of Canada depends on heating supplies delivered by rail. There have been extreme cold warnings in Canada this week and last.)


 * As noted in one of the blurbs, VIA Rail is the only cross-Canada intercity passenger service: the VIA Rail domestic services which remain running serve fewer than 5% of all Canadians. Several of the commuter train lines for all three of Canada's largest cities have been intermittently shut down as well. (At one point last week, Amtrak had to cancel its Cascade service to Vancouver because of this.) There is no Canadian Greyhound (intercity bus) service in most of Canada by geography (shut down by Greyhound last October, including the cross-country routes). Contrasting with the 401 shutdown, where alternate roads were not blocked, there simply are no alternate rail lines for most of this region.


 * As to violence -- well, the last major Canadian protest which had (2) deaths was the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, more than a century ago. It involved 30,000 people (roughly 0.5% of the total population of Canada at the time) and had about 80 or so arrests. The current protests have already exceeded that number of arrests, with roughly 0.5% of the population of Canada protesting. The numbers involved are not really obvious because Canada is so large geographically compared to its population, because the protests are scattered throughout Canada (some of the larger protests were in Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, and London), and because the rail blockades and many of the arrests are happening in remote areas. Quite simply, Canada has 1/30 the population of India, but 3x the geographic size. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing keeping this off the main page is the one sentence update. Expand it, we can rightly ignore the "it's only Canada" opposes per Please do not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country". You have the power to do it, just add some details and up it goes. Easy! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? I looked at it, and all the information was already there. I did clean up the structure of the article -- lede, sections, removed duplication of information, and so forth. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Update - article should be ready for posting. I also added an alternate blurb (3) to include the impact on freight rail traffic. For other impacts, readers can access the article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for Alt1 blurb which provides the best context for the incident. The Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation page could use a bit more article expansion, but it's satisfactory that I'd support linking it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick summary of arguments.
 * Pro - extremely large-scale transportation/economic disruption in Canada, major First Nations protest, uniqueness within Canada.
 * Con - Non-violent, only affects Canada, does not appear in (my) newsfeed/news webview, and "stale".
 * Article is completely up to date. Event still continues in full this week, with no end in sight. Some administrator really should make an objective assessment of the validity of each of these claims sometime before the shutdown completes its third week. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Better article than many other candidates. While the logistic disruptions mainly affect Canada, the underlying conflict plays out the world over. Also, I consider "non-violent" a pro rather than a con.--89.206.117.140 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Rajendra K. Pachauri

 * Oppose no improvement since nominated. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom  Kees08  (Talk)   16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Antarctica temperature record

 * Strong support - Any major climate news like this needs to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very strong support - This is MAJOR. This needs to be in ITN IMMEDIATELY! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (several tags, and no mention of this new record). Neutral on significance - isn't it just going to keep getting incrementally warmer? Prior record was set...ONE WEEK AGO?!  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Misread that. Prior record for Seymour Island was 1982. A new record was set on the mainland a week ago.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * support - newsworthy. BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when problems are addressed climate change is an existential threat to us all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Multiple tags and unsourced claims. Weak Support on merits once the various quality issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless we're going to make this ITN each time it happens, then it may as well be in ITNR... -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arbitrary record? Obviously its getting warmer, global warming and all that, but just reading the Guardian, there's about four or five asterisks to add to this (its not mainland Antarctica, for example). I'm all for major irreversible events like if/when a major ice shelf breaks off, but this is just a trend here. --M asem (t) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose missing refs, weak update. Then ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing? Antarctica is probably going to get steadily warmer for the next several decades at least... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely per Masem's arbitrary record about a trend argument. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not significant news. Only related to single area, namely Antartica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - this is horribly misleading (the latitude of the site is such that it's meaningless in terms of "climate change") and should not be given the benefit of being on the main page. While "climate change" is a verifiable phenomenon, this sort of irresponsibly sensationalized junk should not be given any sort of visibility on Wikipedia. What other news organizations choose to do or ignore to further their own POV doesn't matter here. 66.76.14.38 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How the heck do you sensationalize a temperature reading? What sort of news are you looking for, water coming up to the doorstep of houses in Miami? WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article not ready, significance doubtful. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was leaning support, given that it's a record and the quality of the article, until the I read the comments here. 64S is not even in the Antarctic Circle! I guess WGR goes right out the window for certain subjects.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. Just DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At most a statistical footnote in the history of global warming/climate change. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Windfohr Marion

 * Support Looks good to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've done some edits for tense & tone, but still seems to need some sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like EA added one cn tag; would either of you be able to take care of it?   Kees08  (Talk)   16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I spent some time searching online and was unable to find citations for either cn tag.  Spencer T• C 03:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I could not verify them either. In the interest of timing for posting, I have removed the uncited information. Removing them doesn't detract from the article much. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, is the article sufficient now? Jip Orlando (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose two citation needed tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * just before it became stale &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Trial of Maesiah Thabane

 * Oppose. By long-standing convention, ITN doesn't post criminal investigations unless/until they result in a conviction. Nominate again if she's convicted (which may be years away). Also the article is barely a stub. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not only because that we need a more longer article to start, but also this type of story we'd post at the point of either acquittal or conviction. --M asem (t) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. I disagree with the notion that we must wait for a conviction. Expand it and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Modest & Masem. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Vilsmaier

 * Support Short but everything appears sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any citation for the birth date or the one sentence in prose missing a citation?  Kees08  (Talk)   17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Citetion added. More could be added from that bio if someone had the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Believe it meets the bare minimum to post, perhaps someone will expand once it is on the MP.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katsuya Nomura

 * Comment - I see just few sentences needing references which can be easily fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I expanded some and added references. Hopefully it's better now. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems fine to me now. I can't see and unreferenced statement. I think it's ready to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Delhi Assembly Elections

 * Oppose with a few exceptions because of the level of press coverage, we don't normally post local elections, only usually national ones. Unless you can explain why this local election should be an exception to that, I see no reason to post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but no sources are offered to indicate that this local election is in the news, let alone in the news sufficiently to merit posting. Merely having the national capital is not sufficient; we don't post elections for the Washington, D.C. city council or mayor. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose – Parochial. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Irish General Election

 * Two notes 1) According to the article, the blurb is incorrect as both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won 37 seats. That would not mean that Fianna Fail won the most, but that both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won the most, with a tie of 37.  2) There is no significant prose update of the results, just tables and charts and numbers in the infobox and stuff like that.  I would expect a several-paragraph summary of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis in the lead, and neither of those things has been done yet.  Until that is done, I oppose posting this.  Fix that, and get the blurb right, and I would support this.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want something done right, I guess you have to do it yourself. Article has been updated with sufficient prose now.  Changing to support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fianna Fail have an extra seat as one sitting member is "automatically" re-elected by virtue of their post; they have 38 sitting TDs as of this election but only 37 were returned by popular vote. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then the article is wrong because it doesn't say ANY of that, and is reporting, both in the two numbers in the infobox AND in the graph in the summary section (Which, as I note, is insufficient, and there should be an extensive prose summary of the results), that the two parties have the same number of seats. So, there's a new reason to oppose the article as completely factually wrong.  You should probably fix that if you want it posted.  If you're OK with it not being posted, then don't worry about it and leave it wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a note in the article explaining it, note [a]. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things 1) The note entirely insufficient for posting this article to the main page, as it is not a multi-paragraph explanation of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis of that section in the lead. Unless and until you fix that problem, the existence or not of a footnote is still insufficient to post on the main page.  2) The note is ambiguous as it only says that the one seat was returned automatically and not contested.  It does NOT say whether the seat was counted among the 37 or not.  It could be read as 36 contested seats won, and 1 uncontested seat which adds up to 37.  That's how I read it.  Now, as I said, you have the ability to fix any of these problems if you want to see this article posted to the main page.  That is a conditional statement, you don't have to fix the article, but if you don't, it will not be posted.  Trying to argue with me is not fixing the article.  Get on that.  We're all waiting to see what wonderful prose you are prepared to write.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how you read this as an argument, I just pointed out something that it appeared that you overlooked. I'm not the nominator nor a contributor to the article, nor have I even supported its posting. The fact that the Ceann Comhairle's seat is not contested is in prose in the article's lead but I'll reduplicate it elsewhere if it'll calm you down. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where in the prose does it explain how many seats each party won? It says that his seat is not counted among the 160 contested, and that there were only 159 contested.  I knew ALL of that ALREADY, but you did not address the main concern: 1) Where, in the multi-paragraph section of prose in the results section, does it explain how many seats each part won?  Where does it explain, in unambiguous detail in an obvious way, how that extra seat works in to the total number of seats won by Fianna Fail?  None of that is yet there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. Generally would prefer to post a blurb on the formation of a government rather than just the election results. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But the election result is what is ITN/R, not the negotiations to form a government which may take some time.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: the wait might be weeks or months. The election result on its own represents a huge shift for Irish domestic politics. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're posting it due to that shift then the Sinn Fein result should be mentioned in the blurb; Fianna Fail winning a plurality is not a shift from the norm on its own. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Jayron32 that this not ready to post yet, there needs to be more prose in the results section. I don't see how Sinn Fein can fail to be mentioned in the blurb as they made the breakthrough and seem to be the focus of the news coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC).
 * Comment. As I understand it we try to avoid the term "plurality" in blurbs. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're used it in the past, but only when linked, because most readers are not familiar with it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: the three biggest parties won 37, 37, and 35 seats (22-23% of the total), so it seems unreasonable to pick out any of them specifically. The blurb should simply say 'a hung parliament' or 'no party gaining a majority of seats' (altblurb added). I agree the article is not ready yet - needs a referenced paragraph of prose on the results. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's huge increase in vote share for Sinn Fein. Even they underestimated and did not field enough candidates. That's why the seat gain is more modest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess one seat was not up for election, though I'm not entirely clear on that point. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, the speaker (from FF) automatically retained their seat. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. Since any one of three parties could at least theoretically be the lead party, it seems reasonable to not pick out one in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not supportive of including Sinn Fein into the blurb, but am open to allowing a blurb that says "a hung parliament". I don't have any objections to saying that Finna Fael (?) is the leading party by virtue of being the incumbent. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at present: I think the lead para should at least mention something about the outcome in seats: 3 approx equal parties is noteworthy. And I think both currently proposed blurbs are poor: do many (any?) Irish general elections end with a simple majority for one party; and Fianna Fáil hardly seem to have won. My impression is that Sinn Fein are the big story: doing so well that they surprised themselves (didn't put enough candidates.) It's not all about them, but they seem to be the story at the moment. PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sinn Fein doing well does not mean they will lead or even be in the government, if the other two parties decide to form a coalition. Calling them out right now would be a very pro-Sinn Fein position to take. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2: 3 party result is what needs saying (wish article lead said it too); worth saying now, rather than waiting. No wish to take or push a pro-Sinn Fein position; but I don't think talking, in the blurb, about another party, or mentioning no party at all is the right thing; blurb 2 balances things well, for me PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead now says what it needs to - no quality concerns remain for me --PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I concur with 331dot. Mentioning Sinn Fein in the blurb would be UNDUE. No position otherwise for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until government is formed, even if that takes weeks to months. I don't recall whether we've posted "hung parliament" blurbs in themselves (though absolute majority-less parliaments appear to be the norm in Ireland), but even if Sinn Fein did have quite a night, its performance is secondary and not blurb-worthy unless it's part of government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose When votes result in the absence of clear majorities (of parties or declared coalitions), then I think it best to post when the government is formed. Especially when there are "special" seats which are not determined by plebiscite (as in this case). Moreso when those same special seats are the crux of majority-or-not numbers. I've read multiple, totally contradictory articles about this election, and if we can't do better in a single-line blurb, then it's best to put it off.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The place to make that case is at WP:ITN/R, not here.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A substantial number of comments here are out of order. The only matter up for discussion is the quality of the article. The result of the election is known; the absence of a clear winner does not change that this is an ITNR event.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 Now that the article has a section covering the aftermath of the election I don't see any reason to hold up posting this.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to support this, but there are only two sentences (in the 'government formation' section) concerned with the results, the rest is all stuff that people said during the election campaigns about who they might work with. Two sentences are not a sufficient update in my view. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the outcome and future government isn't known yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't a valid oppose, the election is ITN/R, not the formation of the government.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb II - I think that blurb accurately summarizes what happened. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: A prose summary of the election results has been added to both the lead and the body. That should ameliorate some of the quality concerns noted above.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've supported above.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced, but as it's literally picking out the important numbers from the (referenced) tables and describing them in prose, I suppose that's OK. Weak support either alt1 or alt2 blurbs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * altblurb1 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Shouldn't it be "in the Dáil Éireann" – ?? – Sca (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A little surprisingly, no: see Dáil Éireann para 3 - PaulBetteridge (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good spot, whoever caught that. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Ciara

 * Article seems to be of reasonable quality. It probably lacks the significance we are looking for &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It is rare for EU to get storms like this, and for people to die, but I feel this is rather minor in the scale of thing. I am not outright opposed to this being posted, I just this its not as major an event as typhoons and hurricanes. (also updated death toll to 7 per BBC). --M asem (t) 15:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It's certainly been windy here, and there has been plenty of travel disruption, but the destruction has been fairly minor in world terms albeit tragic for those directly affected. I don't think we would post a tropical cyclone or hurricane that had this level of impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was blustery and trains were cancelled and a handful sadly died. Not significant in the big weather scheme of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) CIA code-breaking revelations

 * Clearly of encyclopedic interest in my opinion, although while writing the blurb I came to think it could just as well appear as a WP:DYK. --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is kind of the CIA's job. It would be more newsworthy if they failed to do things like this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but this feels like the type of thing that could be DYK if more expansion on the current article could be made. --M asem (t) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: according to Crypto_AG, it's been definitely known since 2015 that these machines were compromised by Western intelligence agencies, and strongly suspected since the 1990s. The actual news here is the revelation that the company was secretly owned by the intelligence agencies as well. That's much less interesting than the blurb suggests. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support C-52 (cipher machine) is a no-go for me but Crypto AG is decent and the news that western intelligence agencies intentionally operated a public company for the sole purpose of distributing compromised cryptographic services is very interesting and would seem to be way outside their actual job. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. Rather too arcane for ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) International football / soccer all-time record
At the CONCACAF tournament, Christine Sinclair shattered the all-time goalscoring record for any soccer/international football player, male or female, of any country. While the record was broken earlier in the tournament, she scored an additional goal before the tournament ended yesterday. (She did not score in the final game.) In the blurb I linked directly to her page, a second optional link in the template is to the list of her goals. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we've posted a few soccer records in the past including world cup goal record and I think Messi's most goals in a season. This would be a great chance to combat systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose incremental change to record, not encyclopedic, just tabloid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this were a Soccer encycopedia, this should absolutely make ITN; since it isn't, I'm against it. If we post this then a lot of similar records would be postable, e.g. "most goals scored in friendlies", "most international goals by defenders", "most own goals scored in international competition", etc. Banedon (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from being incremental, records like this can be a function of how long a player has been playing. Sinclair has been playing international matches for 20 years, which is 9 goals a year. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I must say, I am bemused by the "definition" of systemic bias used here, as well as by the types of comparisons being made ... especially given that WP has a wonderful series of articles on cognitive bias. That being said, your reactions thus far are in no way surprising. I have no doubt someone is already itching to tell me that if I already knew this, why did I bother posting? Truth be known, I keep hoping for a shred of genuine objective analysis to show up, if only to demonstrate that it is not utterly extinct. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the blurbs, and four of the RDs currently in the box feature men. ITN overwhelmingly features male subjects. Featuring a woman who broke a record in the worlds most popular sport -- especially since we feature Sachin Somethingahar batting whatever 100 centuries are in cricket -- would be a way to counter that. Thanks for flaming me, the only one who wasn't outright opposed (I'd not had time to actually read the article). I hope you feel better. I guess we can snow close this now. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That would have meant more with a vote, LaserLegs ... especially since your phrasing actually parsed as the opposite of what you are saying here. "Systemic bias", as you said it previously, comes across as WP is biased toward posting soccer records -- which, you will notice, the subsequent comments followed up. You said nothing whatsoever about gender until now, and neither has anyone else. Sorry, but I can only judge based on what you actually write. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I just wander into an episode of Dynasty? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? I ask because I am not that familiar with television shows generally (cut the cord without substituting subscriptions), and I am curious as to the application of the reference. Tell me on my talk page if it is off-topic here. I am curious, and I do want to understand. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite's observation that this record is a function of longevity more than anything else. Lepricavark (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather trivial. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be DYK eligible, otherwise I would have suggested it for there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably moot at this point but it's worth noting we've posted association football records before—and for domestic football which plays more games and therefore could theoretically break records more easily, too. I don't see that this is less noteworthy for ITN than Messi's season record, or any of the cricket records already mentioned. And yes, I'm aware consensus can change, as it seems to be doing, but that's my reasoning. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is really good (GA quality) and story is being covered by major news outlets. Can't think of any criteria that this doesn't meet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, Banedon. Not widely significant. Sca (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not a big fan of "career"/"lifetime" records as an ITN, since as long as you stay in the sport and do well, you can potentially surpass it; it is the per game or per season where you have a fixed time to break records that make more sense to consider significant. Or if there's a clear indication that the sport considers a specific record metric to be important (eg the 4 minute mile). --M asem (t) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not actually that remarkable considering she has nearly 300 caps.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Waqas Hasan

 * Weak support proto-stub. But ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, but could use a line about his death. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  06:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've added a line about it and a quote from the PCB of his death.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article updated, everything else seems to be sourced.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 92nd Academy Awards

 * Support alternative blurb. MSN12102001 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the 2nd blurb because I thought the other one was a bit awkward to read. Anyway, Support due it being done every year and for the milestone. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The film's article looks very good so I'm including it as a target. --M asem (t) 04:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Wow (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd alt blurb The historic nature of the win should be noted & that blurb is less awkwardly worded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The winning film's title isn't usually bolded. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually because the film's article is not in good shape for posting. I stated above I think Parasite is in above-average state for front page, so that's included in the nomination. --M asem (t) 04:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bolding the film article isn't part of ITN/R, though, and recent winners (the last few years across most major awards at least) have been in good shape. Kingsif (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 A standard blurb was used for the BAFTA 1917 win (record wins, also won Best Director), so a standard one should be used here. Added alt3 in standard format. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Record wins is one thing, but we're talking a major first here, the first non-English film to win Best Picture, which wasn't the case for the BAFTA nom. --M asem (t) 04:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's my opinion that the standard format should be used, I guess it's not yours. While first non-English Best Picture Academy Award win is a big step for the US, I don't feel like it should be considered with the ITN/R nom. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. Not just a "big step for the US" but historic. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 blurb. Historic. The first Foreign Lang Best Picture is more notable for ITN as a highlight than the Oscars themselves. Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Either alt2/3. It should be noted why this is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The grammar in the first two alt blurbs is sloppy. The phrase "the first foreign-language film to do so" is being used as an appositive of "Best Picture"; the phrase is really meant to describe Parasite. The sentences need to be restructured. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While discussing how to word the fact that it was the first international film, I will post, and add that it is a South Korean movie. Feel free to change later. --Tone 07:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppoze for now. No real commentary on the event. Once it's up to scratch k. That regard, I would support Alt2 including bolding of Parasite. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 or alt 2; it is important to mention that Parasite is the first ever foreign-language film to win best picture. NorthernFalcon (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support any blurb that mentions that Parasite is the first ever foreign-language film to wen Oscar for Best Picture and this is exactly the main focus of all news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. There's still very little prose on the actual ceremony itself - just a few sentences and a pile of tables, at least one of which is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the previous years' (we have not missed posting these over the last 5 years from what I can see), there's not much more than can be expected to be added. The most lacking information is the "Ceremony Information" and comparing that to 91st Academy Awards: yes, the "box office performance" table is missing but that doesn't seem to be essential to the actual ceremony, and because the Academy early on made the decision to go with no host, there's no need for a "Host selection" section, leaving only ratings/viewership which might come today or tomorrow, the way those work. And having watched the ceremony myself, w/ no host, the Presenters section is basically a simplified recap of the event - there was little else to say outside of things like Enimem's surprise performance (which I know I added already to the article). Sourcing can be fixed, but the only table outside counting nom/wins that isn't sourced is the Performers which I think already is the same as the Presenters source, I'd have to check, but there's plenty of "live-blog" RS coverage of the show too to pull from if needed. --M asem (t) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking it again, it turns out that many of the ceremonies, such as 89th Academy Awards are actually classified as featured lists. So are these articles actually lists rather than articles? And if so, are they actually eligible for ITN? (That's not a rhetorical question - I don't recall seeing lists at bolded targets before, but it might be fine). If it's classified as a list, then a full write-up isn't necessary I suppose. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the awards article is very bare bones and mostly table. Whether a list qualifies for an ITN blurb is an interesting conundrum which probably requires a more detailed discussion on WT:ITN. It could be dodged for now by simply de-bolding that link; the article on the film itself is good enough to be bold on its own. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But, the ITNR is the Awards, and again, compared to the past several years, the current article is not missing anything that can be currently added (no host selection process, nothing yet on ratings/viewership). It's not like a sporting event ,where a higher-level summary of the event can be written. In terms of elements like controversies or the like, there's nothing I can immediately recall unique to this specific awards (the long term stigma of #oscarstoowhite still hung over it). The fair question to ask is what else realistically can be added that otherwise is not already covered by both the general facet of the awards and the ceremony itself? --M asem (t) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that more needs to be done for these ceremonies. We should at least start a discussion which establishes whether a series of tables is sufficient enough for ITNR.  And then we need to broaden that discussion out to other tabular ITNRs such as Templeton Prize.  If it's good enough for the Oscars to just be a load of tables, albeit in a new article, then it's good enough for an existing featured list to be updated with a tabular update only.  One presumes.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to suggest taking this to ITN talk because that raises some ideas that better aligns academic and entertainment awards, but this specifically means a likely change in ITNR to have the target article(s) be the award winning thing, and not the award/award list/ceremony itself as the target. I can see that as a solution in the future. --M asem (t) 17:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment It's a little late now, but as this is still a ITN blurb, is there any reason why the point about this being the first foreign-language Best Picture hasn't been added yet? It's the most predominant point of the story in all RS. Sleath56 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

 * Support scanning headlines, its clear the worst is over; dealing with remnants, floods, and cleanup will take a while but that is not appropriate for ongoing at this point. --M asem (t) 01:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The fire season isn't over, but the extreme fires that brought this to ITN are. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal per nom.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked this ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb? - how about posting the end of the bushfires as a blurb? Banedon (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to get the wording right. The worst of the fires that led to this being part of ITN have been extinguished by heavy rain, but the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is far from over. The second deadliest day of fires in Australia's history in fact happened on 16 February, later than today's date, back in 1983. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support good to know that this is finally almost over. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. If someone wants to suggest a blurb, I suggest a separate nomination. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal I was looking at this this weekend, the updates to the target article had really petered off. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mirella Freni

 * Support no problems Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  05:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Yi Hae-won

 * Weak support bare bones, nearly a stub but what's there appears (AGF on sources) to be okay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - a couple of uncited claims in the coronation section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * can you help with this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to apologise, I'm having a very busy week. I try to complete his article in the little moment I have but I certainly don't know if I will arrive on time for it to be published. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margareta Hallin

 * Support but I know of two below that I think are also ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks Okay. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Volker Spengler

 * Support Well referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Robert Conrad

 * Comment still waiting for references for the filmography &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom, prose looks alright, huge unreferenced table is not. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Pole Vault World Record

 * Oppose Not a majorly important event. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  00:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I think broken records in the major track and field events are notable enough for posting. And we did post it the last time it was broken. The only thing is, there seems to be some confusion about the categories of records. We have articles describing an overall record as well as a separate indoor record. But the official World Athletics website lists indoor and outdoor as the categories. Our "overall" list seems to WP:SYNTH the two lists together, creating something that may not be the official record. Someone who knows more about this may be able to clarify though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nom for the posting in 2014 at the time the record had stood for 21 years. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pole vault says: 'In 2000, IAAF rule 260.18a (formerly 260.6a) was amended, so that "world records" (as opposed to "indoor world records") can be set in a facility "with or without roof".' This means the overall record was also broken. Men's pole vault world record progression follows the official https://www.worldathletics.org/records/by-progression/15143?type=2 by marking records set indoors with 'i'. The new rule was not applied to older jumps. Both records since then were set indoors. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose sports trivia in general and the target article isn't detailed enough to compensate. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think that there may be some track and field records that merit posting(the 100m, for example) but I don't think this is one of them- at least where it was broken relatively soon after the last time(2014).  In 2014 it had stood for decades. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A niche sport. Trivia record. I am afraid, this clearly does not meet the level of significance needed for ITN material. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Considering that only 3 vaulters in history have come within a decimeter of this height, any incremental advance is remarkable. Also, this is the exact opposite of niche - the all-time top 10 includes vaulters from six continents.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Micro-news. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination is definitely appreciated, but this isn't what ITN is usually for. Spengouli (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This has made headlines around the world. I don't pay attention to sports and even I have heard of this record achievement. † dismas †|(talk) 03:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very old record. 2601:602:9200:1310:747F:9C93:85D7:9FEC (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One assumes you are therefore supporting. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The arguments in favor of this are strong: the record is world-wide; it is irrespective of condition (indoor/outdoor/gender/etc.); the new record replaces records set in 2014, 2009 and 1993, so it is likely to stand some time (9+/-5 yr); there have been (apparently) only 2 other people throughout the whole, long history of the sport to come within 10 cm of the record; the sport is widely appreciated (it is an Olympic component).130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per IP:130 above. An Olympic sport is not really "niche". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, not ready yet. Unlike some sports, this is only the second time the pole vault record has been broken in 25 years. It's not a hugely popular sport, but it is one that most people are familiar with, if only from the Olympics. However, the nominated article has just one line of update and the rest of it is essentially WP:PROSELINE. That needs substantial improvement before it could appear in ITN. Adding altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support Article could use some expansion (more prose on the vault itself) but news sources are covering the story, and the article is well referenced. If more was added to the article on the record breaking itself, I would change this to full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor incremental change. Just like the spacewalk, not encyclopedically valuable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Orson Bean

 * Oppose on quality - a few isolated prose statements need sources and the ology is unsourced. Also, as I'm sure this is going to come up, while an "unusual death", Bean was neither in his prime nor was near the top of his field, so an RD mention is fine here, not a blurb. --M asem  (t) 14:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the statements are sourced. If you have specifics, please elucidate. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First para of Early Life, first three para of Acting career... It's not too hard to see missing refs at the end of paragraphs. --M asem (t) 14:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You and I are working from different versions.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Television appearances still need to be sourced. I don't know how much TV Guide covers of what's there. --M asem (t) 15:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Seriously, you want every one of his credits referenced? WTH? Anything else? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the expectation for actors, particularly for any show where they were not a main actor (particularly for cameo/one-shot appearances) as otherwise that failed WP:V. The bulk of RDs on actors aren't posted because the -ology sections are unsourced. I just tried to spot check the TV guide list all the appearances on the WP article aren't in there, so we technically need those others documented. Also as a point, that list is mixing TV and Film appearances: They should be separated. --M asem (t) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD IMO article is in sufficiently good shape. Despite the very unusual nature of an old celebrity dying after being hit by a car, Bean wasn't really a transformative figure on the level of meriting a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, Bean's notability and accomplishments merit a blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as not a household name nor a major news story. Oppose RD for now as the quality is sketchy. I'm not convinced Justrichest.com, which is cited over 20 times in the article, is a reliable source. And surely we can do better than IMDB or YouTube. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "selected" (by whom?) filmography needs references as a minimum, nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Nohomersryan, "JustRichest.com" doesn't look like a reliable source. No other sources seem to talk about it. I also think the "Selected Filmography" is not particularly useful... who did the selecting, and given that many important films are already mentioned in the prose, this seems a bit superfluous if it doesn't list all his films. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for blurb, for Support it for include in RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since no one has yet proposed a "blurb", what exactly are you opposing?
 * Or what blurb do you suggest?
 * If you have better and comprehensive sources, by all means, put them in. this article should be able to be better developed, when the Sunday obituaries surface.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD I've lost my dwarves, my wizard and my way. RIP. CoatCheck (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To you opposers, looks like a reliable source to me.  If that is not good enough, then close up your shop. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Without any of the required referencing on the -ology sections? --M asem (t) 14:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Pull. justrichest.com isn't a reliable source and the entire filmography section is unreferenced. Not good enough. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I cleaned up some of the language or wording in the Death section. Bean's notability and accomplishments should merit a mention. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull now. what are you doing? The issues raised haven't been addressed. Too many facts cited to unreliable source, and the ology has no sourcing at all.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull per above. The article has slightly changed since the above comments, but it's still not ready for the main page. Tagging with attention needed. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull – Large number of references to a likely circular source. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced with cn. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull unimpressive circumvention of consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull Quality is unacceptable for Main Page. P-K3 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled with a courtesy ping to Fuzheado. Stephen 23:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You folks cut out sources and marked it all up. You ignored the other sources.  I will not call out what you did by name.  Edit warring here is nonsense.  Live with it.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cutting out unreliable sources and adding tags for needed updates is positive work that should be commended, not criticized. Our intent here is to improve the project; posting to the front page is secondary.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strikes me that the unreliable sources were correctly removed and that we were left with a dog of an article. It shouldn't have been posted under such conditions.  The pull was 100% spot on.  I'm surprised to see such an experienced user arguing against that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep pulled - Good sourcing is good policy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Nakhon Ratchasima shooting

 * Comment stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing – suspect at large. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once article is ready. Mass shootings on this scale, especially outside of the US, are sufficiently noteworthy for ITN, especially given the additional element of a soldier going rogue. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support rare as rocking horse shit, this is certainly noteworthy and article scrapes minimum requirements. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Rambles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, this is certainly newsworthy. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Ythlev (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb This is clearly noteworthy & the article’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt1 – but suggest we wait a bit to see if shooter apprehended or killed, as AFP says police have stormed his location with gunfire. – Sca (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * General Support on posting and quality, but I'd recommend waiting until we have more how the situation has resolved. --M asem (t) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Well, according to AP he's hiding in the mall and police haven't found him yet, so it could be a while, so ... post? (Haven't seen anything new on Malawi story at bottom since it was posted four days ago.) - Sca (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted The article is adequate and both the page and the blurb can be updated as required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Reuters quotes provincial governor saying 29 killed, 57 wounded. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Death toll updated in blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucille Eichengreen

 * Support - Made a review a few hours ago. Found no issues to stop RD. Post.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nello Santi

 * Oppose infobox says he died in 2016. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, ashamed, fixed, thou shalt not copy and then not change --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that the date issue is resolved, a couple of things mentioned in the lede that don't seem to be included or cited in the body, but after that good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Toscanini is cited in the body, NYT, but I repeated it now in the lead to be safe. Until today, I never even heard of one of the operas, and the Verdi mentioned is early, and not played as often as Traviata and Aida, but I simply dropped "rarities", - after midnight here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I made a review. Found no issues. Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Qasim al-Raymi

 * Support Has coverage across major news networks (CNN Politico) and is relevant to foreign policy. Doesn't appear to be any citation issues in the article either. Realtable (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is mostly sourced except for the "Family" section. Consider this a Support once that is resolved. -Zanhe (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged with [cn] and at least one disambiguation needed in there. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I did work a bit at improving the cites today, but I feel like the prose isn't quite there to make this a quality enough article at the moment. For example, it contains numerous assertions that something was "reported to" or "reportedly", without saying who was doing the reporting, or really assessing whether the things being reported are accurate or not, making these essentially WP:WEASEL statements. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject's death has been erroneously reported at least 3 times in the past. Current reports cannot agree on a date (27, 29 or 30 Jan. are possible), and only one party is claiming that he is dead (US & allies). I'd say we should pass on this, instead of possible running afoul of BLP.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Claudio Bonadio

 * Oppose for now; obviously an important figure but not updated to include death, and a number of sections need to be checked for BLP issues as to whether the sources back up the claims made. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li Wenliang

 * Oppose because he may not be dead.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have more information. Of the links above, CNN is now stating Li is in critical condition, while The Guardian states he "was declared dead at 2.58am local time".–FlyingAce✈hello 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I posted my oppose the claim of his death had been retracted - now it seems he has subsequently died, confirmed by the hospital.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nitpick The news warned the public, this guy tried to warn some doctors. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support since his death is confirmed by all parties now. This news is all over Chinese social media, front page of BBC and CNN, &c. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support given recent CCP newspaper announcements and frontpage coverage across mainstream media Guardian Associated Press Realtable (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are a few citations needed on parts of the article. Need those fixed before posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just added citations to the article. Realtable (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - significant death that's now reported worldwide. Article is fully sourced. (I've boldly moved the article to Li Wenliang as he's far more significant than the chess player.) -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - thanks to for fixing up the cites.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jhon Jairo Velásquez

 * Comment - quite a few citations needed, and Education section has no cites at all. Need those fixing up before posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - oppose until citated correctly &mdash; Sushi.Bhai (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a number of citations (and issues of tone and writing) needed here. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, & . I fixed all reference issues. I also removed some parts that couldn't verify or confirm in any source.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - thanks to for fixing the refs. It's undoubtedly a short and incomplete article, but I think it has enough bones to qualify for ITN. Would be interested to hear what issues of tone and writing that  found, I may qualify this support if it is shown that a serious improvement is needed, but good to go for now.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cannot speak for others, but those passages of narrative where he is called "Popeye" might be better as "Velásquez"? -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Reviewed the article. Improvements made since nom. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ospedaletto Lodigiano derailment

 * Oppose – Comparatively minor. – Sca (talk)
 * Weak support article is disaster-stubby but the train left the track (it didn't hit something that wasn't supposed to be there) at high speed which isn't routine --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree that this doesn't seem to be significant enough to make it to the top of the news. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost just a one-line entry in List of rail accidents (2020–present) would suffice. I note a Mexican crash from earlier in the year with more than three times the fatalities doesn't even have an article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criteria. The cause of this one is likely to be something highly unusual and a "never event". Obviously I'm not putting forum gossip into the article, but am waiting for official statements to be reported by RSs. BTW, the seven dead in Mexico were not on the train. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Christina Koch

 * Support - Considering how dangerous space travel can be, I'd agree that this should qualify for a blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as incremental. The old record was only two years old, and four men have had longer flights.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Just 12 days short of the all-time US record set by Scott Kelly. This should be in the blurb. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment in the past, ITN has carried women who broke records, it's very odd now to somehow argue "incremental" is a reason not to run women's records. Especially since the thing itself is of ongoing impact: women staying in space and being able to stay in space, is an actively ongoing area of scientific research and human endeavor-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Incremental" is a valid default argument against running any new record, because a record of some sort is set every single day. This would need to be overcome by things like a large increase from the prior (a la Neymar's contract) or the breaking of an old record (Hugh Duffy's single season batting average).  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A space walk is considerably more dangerous than playing baseball by several orders of magnitude. That in particular should serve as a mitigating factor in terms of notability.--WaltCip (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Default? Seems you are merely enshrining a personal definition for large and old.  In human history, a day in space is large and a month is forever-long-ago.  Drawing on sports for grasping what's going seems hardly sensible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The default for all stories is don't post, because we only post a small portion of events. There are some guidelines for what sort of story overcomes this default (e.g. ITN/R) but mostly it is personal definitions. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I am "grasping" or my arguments are "odd."  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I think you misunderstood in part, and a "personal definition" is basically the exemplar of idiosyncratic (odd).  But more than that, multiple RS say this is significant, so there is no reason to use what's claimed to be personal definition. (On the misunderstood part, "grasping" was used in my comment just as a synonym for "understanding.") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Greatcaesarsghost. This isn't really an "amazing feat" sort of a record, it's just that they set the duration of the spaceflight and that's how long she was up for. Not really a groundbreaking or momentous achievement in its own right. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe if she had been up 12 days longer to take the "all-time US record" from Scott Kelly, but probably not, because space doesn't care about nationality (or gender). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Space is inanaimate so presumably does not care about anything, nor is it interested in news. Humans, on the other hand, have an active scientific interest in the biology and and psychometics concerning stays by women in space. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there any reason to think men and women would handle space travel differently? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the BBC article for one talks about the study of women stays in space, indeed IIRC, basically every in-depth article since the mission was announced a year ago has been about the effects on and of woman in space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I feel more ambivalent on this today so will simply scratch my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fantastic, reliable news sources are covering the story. I can find nothing wrong with posting this by the criteria.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article is fine, but I just don't find this a particularly interesting record. The longest time in space overall would be notable, but breaking that down by gender or nationality seems pointless. We didn't post the first all-female spacewalk, which was part of the same mission . <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Doesn't seem particularly significant in the history of space exploration. – Sca (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose there have been at least 50 longer spaceflights. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been 4. You're looking at the cumulative time in space.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So I am! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gamaliel, et al. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. More important than the Boat Race.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * !!!!!ROWING KLAXXON!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, some would say this is somewhat vexatious and pointy, but certainly not me. An incremental record change for spaceflight is hardly up there with anything of real significance.  Certainly none of it is as important as college football, let's be clear about that.... !! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's not rocket science.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike weightlifting, being in space doesn't need a women's division. Either float big or go home. Polyakov's still the queen, by well over a week. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Either float big or go home". I like it. Good advice. I'll pass that on to the astronauts up on the ISS smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant achievement even if it is not a new record. It's also arguably a milestone in women's spaceflight. Realtable (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius, on its own it's not a particularly interesting record. Unless someone can point to some objective reason for it being interesting, I'm against it. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this have to be the longest spaceflight in order to be remarkable? Disregarding whether women's achievements in space deserve special consideration for now, surely not all acheivements have to be records to be notable. Realtable (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I wouldn't find the longest spacefight very notable either, unless it's a proof of concept of the "now we know humans can survive a flight to Mars" kind. I don't see gender as much of a factor. Perhaps if there's something like "it had been thought possible that prolonged spaceflight renders humans infertile. We know from male spaceflight that this is not true for men, and Christina Koch's experience indicates this is not true for women either". Without this kind of discovery, I just don't find it very interesting. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a convincing argument about notability. I concede the point :P. (I also looked back at the ITN archives for the debate about Scott Kelly's flight, and it wasn't notable enough either) Realtable (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, "achieving the longest continuous spaceflight by a woman" is not remarkable; "achieving the longest continuous spaceflight" is. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. From the PC point of view, "by a woman" would seem rather sexist. – Sca (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is remarked upon, (see eg., "single longest stay in space by a woman"; "breaking an iconic space record for womankind"; and multiple news sources). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm more a fan of humankind, though I do like women (if they can stand me). – Sca (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the fact that the person in question is female has, as far as I'm aware, nothing to do with performance as an astronaut. (Both sexes are weightless in space, and physical strength doesn't seem to be a factor.) – Sca (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support this is a notable achievement that is getting significant news coverage (cf Realtable's comment), and per Gamaliel. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the article is pretty decent, the actual press has taken note of the story, and it's a good opportunity to counter systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius and InedibleHulk. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per The ed17. Jusdafax (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InedibleHulk. Lepricavark (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Van avalanches

 * Oppose for now - article is only a stub, and needs a lot of expansion. Probably support once that's done, sounds like a major enough incident. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just joining in to say that I've added a bit more information to the article and will try to expand it further in the coming days, though I'm not sure if it's too late to include in ITN by now :) Skycycle (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support these probably rank among the deadliest avalanches in history. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is ranked number 29. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is still quite short at ~400 words, but passable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support checks all the boxes.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though it is a tragedy, the avalanche does not rank in the top 25 in terms of fatalities. Even within Turkey, there were far worse avalanches in 1992 and 1993 and the article and Turkish media don't frame this as front-page news. TRT World, for example, doesn't put it on their main page for international news. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fuzheado. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support large loss of life, far important than some arbitrary spaceflight. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * !!!! SPACE STATION KLAXON !!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's at least some actual meaning and logic in my opposition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – This has been in the news for several days, and fatalities (which may increase) make it fairly significant. But article is quite thin, bordering on a stub. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I concur, but then I'm not sure what is missing. Brevity is typically an indicator of incompleteness, but not as a rule.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support significant loss of life, somewhat unusual event, doubt we post many stories from Turkey. Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Kirk Douglas

 * Given his age (103), I wonder if we could consider a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I am adding a proposed blurb. Though long retired, Douglas was a giant in Hollywood's golden age and is a film legend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The article is almost ready. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb unless it becomes clear that the outpouring of grief, tributes, etc is the equivalent of what we saw for Mandela, Bowie, Prince, Carrie Fisher, etc. So far, it just looks like the death of a notable person, which is what RD is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the customary standard for a blurb at ITN. What we generally judge is their place in history and their rank or importance within their field. If public mourning were the standard we might as well eliminate almost everybody outside of current celebrities and heads of state. In this case; Douglas was by any reasonable measure in the absolute top rank of film legends. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's not how I judge death blurbs. I judge it based on whether the death is an obituary or the death is a news story. Kobe Bryant is another good example of that. Kirk Douglas is of course a legend of Hollywood. But, I doubt we're going to see the same level of coverage for him as we saw for Kobe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're just choosing to pretend the "major transformative leader" qualifier doesn't exist?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used. What is your evidence that this is an exception to that?  Is there something in sources I can read about the manner of his death attracting a lot of attention?  What about real-world events memorializing him that we'd need to mention in the blurb?  Have there been significant numbers of those?  The "major transformative leader" qualification is not a synonym for "I really like him and personally think he's important to me".  To demonstrate that, you'd need evidence in the form of source text that shows that either the manner of his death, or the reactions to it, were above-and-beyond the normal "So-and-so died at age of such and such".  What is your evidence for that?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb needs improving, but besides of that I think its good to go. Jtnav04 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is tough, but we need a better line in the sand on RD blurbs on celebs, and I don't think Douglas makes that. Legendary actor, no question, but was he one of the greats? Ehhhhhhhhh... its debatable enough that I'd advise againsta blurb. Oppose RD on article quality, at least one tagged section. --M asem  (t) 00:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bah! to Blurb "Health complications" at 103, what a scoop! Huge star, though, of course. Deserves credit, just not in a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - They don't come any bigger or more legendary. Jusdafax (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb One of the greats of the Golden Years of Hollywood, and one of the last of them.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment old man dies of old age is exactly what RD is for. Sourcing is better but not there yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Loved him as an actor (perhaps not so much as a person), but I can't really work up the enthusiasm for a blurb here. He wasn't just old, he was extremely old, and his career was long behind him by every conceivable metric. I understand the arguments based on his significance, but there's more to being blurbworthy than that, imo, like extended tributes or some surprise factor. Granted, I'll give you that I was surprised by his death because I'd figured he'd found the secret to immortality by this point. :p Nohomersryan (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - absolute legend, 'nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Legend, what's more unique is that he's one of the last surviving stars of the Hollywood's Golden Age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - One of the last surviving people of the Golden Age of Hollywood. --Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, but not the one proposed, since it implies his age was a factor. Better to focus on his having been "a legendary actor and one of the last from the Golden Age of cinema," as Olivia de Havilland is now. She's also 103, and was in 49 films, to Douglas's 90. --Light show (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot go in anywhere close to that much praise in a blurb. Blurbs need to be neutral if we're going to do one. --M asem (t) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "legendary" was used in a number of quotes in the article and as cited headlines from CBS and the LA Times. Without the word, it focuses more on his longevity. --Light show (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * to RD while blurb discussion continues. El_C 06:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb didn't we post the dude turning 100 in OTD? I'd suppose his death is at least as notable as that. -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose any posting until those awards are fully referenced. Once that's done, a blurb is fine, other than the tedious and predictable Trump nonsense and more coronavirus cases tickers going on, Douglas' death is top news.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I didn't add most of those, I can cite probably all of them in about 15 minutes if there's a way to. --Light show (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb some very famous people, regardless of how old they were when they died, are worthy of blurbs based on their notability alone. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PULL – What the fuck? This is a shamble of an article. So much unsourced crap. No mention of Natalie Wood. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really expect it to mention Natalie Wood, per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The source of that story is apparently an anonymous blogger, and the major reliable sources don't mention it. You're right that it shouldn't have been posted until the citations were fixed though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. The rules say: "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries ... the "recent deaths" section is usually used". He was a relatively major figure in his field, but per the comments on Daniel arap Moi below, not transformative in the Thatcher, Mandela mould. If that's the standard, then let's apply it across the board, not give Hollywood actors a free pass because more people have heard of them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's felt that ending the Hollywood Black List is transformative, as implied in today's LA Times headline, which focused on that fact, .."Spartacus’ star helped end Hollywood blacklist." --Light show (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Old actor dies.  Not that important.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - from his own article, he was ranked 17th in the list of greatest male American film actors of the classical film era. That's a very specific field that he failed to top or come close to topping; one wonders how far down he would end up if the field was opened up to all actors, of all nationalities, and of all genders.  He also failed to win an acting Oscar.  That's not significant enough to merit a blurb.  However, I will grant that he merited a blurb discussion.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at AFI's ranking, the first 25 were all major stars. --Light show (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb helping end the Hollywood blacklist is a major transformative event of the American film industry, enough that it pushes him over imo. GuzzyG (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A major transformative event "of the American film industry" indeed. But not of a major transformative leader in the world as a whole, as required by the guideline. There are only a handful of people eligible for such blurbs, and they are mainly the Thatcher, Mandela types, not every major Hollywood star of yesteryear. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're really testing the limits of good faith. The guideline clearly states leaders "in their field," not "the world as a whole."  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've struck that part. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of bad faith, but it was a bad idea for me to cite that page anyway, as it was written two months ago by one editor and may not necessarily represent what actually happens on the ground. I think setting the bar high for deaths through old-age is a good idea, either way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral on blurb - I'm really not sure where to fall on this. He definitely was an accomplished Hollywood actor, but does that alone qualify him for blurb status? If we use Kobe Bryant and Carrie Fisher as a benchmark, the answer is yes. But we also did not post a blurb for Terry Jones, who was also retired and aging when he passed away. I know one thing for sure though; I completely oppose alt-blurb 1. That blurb sounds as though it's pleading to the reader for understanding as to why a blurb was posted, to the point of puffery, and many readers outside the United States won't have any clue what the Hollywood Blacklist or Hollywood's Golden Age is, or how relevant it is to contemporary society outside the U.S..--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was indeed at the top of his field and that field is acting, which is not an insignificant one and involves millions of people worldwide. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment - By the way, I realize that this is something where TRM and I are going to be at odds, but we really need some clarification on death blurbs in terms of what constitutes being "transformative". Amakuru above uses the oft-repeated Thatcher-Mandela status, one that Kobe Bryant himself would fail if his death were not so sudden and unusual, as he never aspired to high office outside of his professional basketball career. But many people in that discussion argued that he was indeed transformative in his own sport. So there desperately needs to be some clarity on how "transformative" someone needs to be, either in the scale of their profession or in global society as a whole, rather than having it be up to the interpretation of whomever shows up to participate in a discussion that day.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would hold that no such clarity could ever be found. Given the insane fervor, erratic history, and constant whataboutism they cause, it would seem prudent to abandon RD blurbs all together (bearing in mind that IAR could be invoked when needed). We didn't NEED to blurb Kobe, Prince, Fisher, Thatcher, or Mandela. Trying to parse the borderline cases will always reflect the biases of the relatively small group that posts here. Seriously, we almost blurbed a Python a few weeks ago.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification is easy. Just provide sources that show that 1) the manner of his death was significant enough that it received significant coverage and thus bears special note or 2) The events after his death such as significant memorial commemorations and the like, also need note.  We don't need to decide for ourselves who is "transformative".  The reliable sources will do that for us by reporting those things.  We don't even need to personally have ever heard of the person who died.  Just be able to read the reliable sources people provide, and judge by the evidence ourselves.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable argument, but obit writers tend to be most hagiographic when covering subjects that are the least known, as the audience needs convincing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, obits, no matter how much purple prose they use, are not memorial commemorations. I mean, are there events where thousands of people showed up?  Did someone create a makeshift statue where thousands of people have been laying wreathes?  Did the funeral cause a riot that had to be broken up by police?  That sort of thing would need explaining in a blurb.  The existence of an obit means nothing for blurb-worthiness.  Everyone gets an obit.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, there are two allowances for RD blurbs, transformative is one, the other is "unusual death", and that is why Kobe was covered (as was the case with Prince, David Bowie, and Robin Williams), though obviously the unusual death needs to be of a significantly recognizable figure, not some random B-list actor. Douglas' death here is clearly only to be considered if he was a "transformative" one. --M asem (t) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, quite a few major news media have considered his helping end, or ending the Hollywood blacklist, a major contribution of his career, considering he acted in and produced the films involved, ie. headlines in NBC, LA Times. Although some, such as Variety, raised his influence above transformative: "Kirk Douglas: A Golden-God Movie Star Who Was Mythic Enough to Symbolize America." IOW, over here, being raised in poverty as an immigrant ragman's son, supporting his mother and six sisters, is even more than Leonard Cohen claimed, and he was given a blurb and image. Morphing from a frog to a prince is fairly transformative, IMO.--Light show (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Transformative or not, his life is the story, not his death, and therefore RD is more appropriate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Per Masem, Muboshgu, P-K3. A widely known (but arguably not "transformative") actor dying of extreme old age may be be a cinema milestone (gravestone?), but is not blurb-level news. R.I.P. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I find your gallows humor to be quite grave.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Must you be so funereal about it? – Sca (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb None of the circumstances surrounding the death need additional explanation that a blurb would be necessary for. RD is fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several free images of Douglas if it's determined that a blurb is appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Successful but not revolutionary actor dies in old age, long after he stopped working. He didn't even win the field's top award (Oscar for Best Actor). This is exactly what RD was supposed to be for. Falls well short of the influence of Thatcher/Mandela, which is where our bar should be. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who invented the Mandela Thatcher standard, but it is nowhere in our guidelines and has never been an accepted standard. Nor should it be as it would effectively block out almost everyone from getting a death blurb. Douglas is being widely described as a Hollywood legend and the greatest male actor of the post World War II era. He was instrumental in breaking the Hollywood blacklist. If that's not enough then we need to seriously consider doing away with death blurbs with the possible exception of heads of state/government who die in office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody "invented" it, it's just a rule of thumb that's been built up by precedent over the years. And ITN doesn't have very many fixed rules, which is both a bane and a good thing, depending how you look at it. But it's always been the accepted standard that only very major figures get a blurb when they die of old age. Thatcher and Mandela are examples of the calibre of figure that qualifies, and there are very few examples outside of that level. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't like and soon defied the studio system. Using his own money, he became a solo producer, actor, writer. "I make my own way. Nobody's my boss. Nobody's ever been my boss." The Academy wasn't pleased, which is a reason he didn't win. That same defiant attitude affected Orson Welles's career after Citizen Kane, yet it's now considered the #1 "greatest American film" by the AFI. Awards often have a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb – I have no opinion on article quality, as I've repeatedly demonstrated that the regulars push a purely superficial view of such (and exactly what percentage of the community was even aware of the RFC they constantly refer to, anyway?). I did, however, recently read WP:6MILLION, where once again we throw around that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" as if it actually means something.  How can any of us claim to be achieving "the sum of all human knowledge" when so much weight is given to spamming whatever the news media is pushing today and not reflecting an appropriate historical perspective, once again shown in numerous rationales in this discussion?  Not buying it.  Look at all the deceased people we portray as still living because local and regional news outlets have largely ceased covering deaths of notable people pertinent to their audiences.  They must be drinking the same Kool-Aid as some of the editors in this discussion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support picture We have a good PD picture of the subject which would improve the quality of the ITN section.  The current picture displayed by ITN is of a smirking Donald Trump.  That picture has been used before and, this time, it illustrates the failure of the impeachment – a non-event which the public tired of long ago.  Note also that Kirk Douglas is rated as a vital topic and that it was the top read article on the English, French and German Wikipedias yesterday and probably many of the others that I haven't checked too.  Michael Douglas and Eric Douglas are big too – all having many times more readers than the impeachment. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also File:Kirk Douglas 1969.jpg, which could brighten up the page, in contrast to the mood nowadays. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion – I have updated the nomination accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I too like this suggestion, though I can't claim neutrality. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Photo swapped. We have to wait for the other KD photo to get cascading protection. I too am tired of seeing Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. The last time this was tried (sticking in a photo in from an RD - Chris Cornell), I got called "crazy" and it was reverted. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea why. Maybe because the photo it was replacing wasn't that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly the previous image had been there for ages. Needless to say, I still think it was a good idea (Cornell had been discussed for a blurb but it was very no-consensus) and I think it's a good idea here as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent compromise where (1) there isn't an obviously more current image illustrating the main news; and (2) the deceased falls into the grey area where a substantial group of editors are arguing for a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call swapping the photo, it may be worth revisiting the "Photos for RD" discussion. If a good free image exists, put it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Masem. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, his death isn't really all too important, nor does it have significant consequences.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it's decided that it's OK for an RD to have a picture as long as it's replacing Trump. Wild.--WaltCip (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The photo of Trump had been up for ~48 hours, and did not illustrate the news item specifically. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Next time Wikimedia is seeking donations, you should withhold your contribution until Jimbo Wales announces an investigation into this matter. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. The entire world knows what Trump looks like, the image wasn't exactly providing the reader with useful information. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And to think we passed up the opportunity to run a good one. – Sca (talk)


 * Comment I supported the blurb, but I appreciate that we've set the precedent that RDs can have pictures. Seeing as we're split nearly 50/50 on the blurb, an intermediate option is desirable. There is no reason for a rule saying that an RD cannot have a picture. Davey2116 (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI this was the discussion last time it was tried, and here is the discussion afterwards. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support picture the other ITN items don't really have fully relevant pictures anyway - a generic Donald Trump picture just doesn't cut it. Juxlos (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb transformative individual in his field. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Acquittal of Donald Trump

 * Support. Obviously. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important event. When this is added it should be removed from Ongoing. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 21:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Tallies: 52-48 abuse of power, 53-47 obstruction of Congress. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pro forma Support Obviously. Also Support concurrent removal from ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, blurb is good. Remove from ongoing.  Jip Orlando (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important event. Tagged article looks ready; remove from ongoing.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. readyBabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest we update the blurb, to explain what the articles of impeachment was about. See AltBlurb2. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 or at least replace the "both" with "two". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Use WP:ERRORS for requesting changes to the blurb. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no, this is the venue for such discussions. ERRORS is just for errors, which are clear and obvious and any admin can action. Style and wording changes are a matter for this project and belong here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses

 * Oppose – We cannot feasibly post every primary. We should post the results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a purdy article though. Please add the release of results to Portal:Current events/2020 February 4. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per C&C. We are not a news tracker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose Good faith nom, but it is well established precedent at ITN that we don't do domestic politics below the level of national elections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's certainly in the news, and the article is decent. Maybe put 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries into ongoing? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support putting 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries in ongoing; easily passes all the criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait / weak support The article is quite good; we wouldn't post the Iowa caucus results in normal circumstances, but the state party's incompetence here is noteworthy. In any case we should wait until the winner is determined for sure. As of this writing it's unclear when that will be. Davey2116 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The winner was clearly Donald Trump. The loosers... pretty much everybody else. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose While what ends up happening in Iowa will have lingering effects on the rest of this election season, let's not pretend this has immediate, direct international impact to the world. In the US here, the situation is laughably ironic, with the promise of simplified voting having failed drastically on such a key race, but there's the immediacy of the situation compared to what the net result will be after the other 49 states have their primaries and we figure out who's running for the Democrats, which is the first potentially postable point for this election cycle. (and even then, we have to be well aware of the US Centricness of the world press particularly this cycle, everyone wants Trump out, but we're ITN and have to stay neutral and impartial here. --M asem (t) 01:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the botched choosing of people from one state who will choose the nominee of a single political party be their candidate for POTUS. This is not USApedia. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A small part of an ITN/R story – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Volker David Kirchner

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while this article is technically up to snuff, this death is not being reported in English language sources and the subject is very niche and only marginally notable enough for an article. 1779Days (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We look for sources here, not notability. An opera commisioned for the EXPO, literally "exposed" to an international public, seems notable enough. The death of Márta Kurtág wasn't reported in international papers until much later, - we can't wait for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks adequate. (FWIW – and I know some will say 'nothing' – he's in German and French Wikis' RD sections.) – Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good quality. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: José Luis Cuerda

 * Oppose stub. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub consisting of only three sentences. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose – not ready,BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, far too stubby.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  06:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed, stale, Stephen 23:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Re-added) Ongoing: 2019 nCoV Outbreak

 * Comment there was strong support to return to ongoing in the blurb discussion, I don't think we need this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose because it will automatically added in ongoing section if that blurb on 30 January fell down to archive. There are strong support to include in ongoing unless blurb is fallen to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is still getting updates, good candidate to slide it into an Ongoing slot once it rolls off. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that both Support and Opposition are in favor of the same thing. I don't think we need any other debate - this is as stone-cold obvious as they come.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right but since the rules were changed, taking away admin discretion in adding items to Ongoing we are obliged to go through this, are we not?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but we don't need "admin discretion" because there was very clear support in the blurb nomination to return to OG once it rolled off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-posted to Ongoing - you can call it consensus from before, consensus here, or admin discretion, whichever you prefer. But clearly a consensus to have this back at ongoing, now that it's rolled off the bottom of the blurbs again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd call it WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'd changed the rules because some contentious blurb stories had "automatically" rolled into OG and it's next to impossible to crowbar a story out of there. I see no reason why we can't build consensus to roll into OG when the blurb expires as part of the blurb nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of the ones that had were particularly contentious. Some people just feel like they need to be involved with every decision, and automatically object when they feel like they weren't asked, regardless of whether or not the decision was a good one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it's quite easy to remove a story from the ongoing section. You just need to 1) stop news organizations from reporting it and 2) stop Wikipedia editors from improving the article in the ongoing link.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-Posting Comment – With the China death toll ( 908 →  1,016 ) rising daily, and the number of cases outside China ( 350 → 460) growing – and with prime RS sites continuing to feature the story prominently     – it seems time to repost as a blurb. Understand the 'rolling off' issue, but updated versions could be re-posted as available. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be, but if it's a substantial difference in the story it should be re-nominated here on ITN/C.  Spencer T• C 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
Speedy oppose Trial isn't over, and it's been updated since the oldest blurb, which is Jan 30 coronavirus blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This trial arguments have concluded and the whole process has now become an uneventful drama. Even Cnn.com has now taken it off from their homepage. Talking about the updates, The CAA protests saw 30 Kbs of update in the same period and yet it was taken down. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Updated yesterday regarding closing arguments. This item is about a process, with a defined end, and that end is coming soon -- it won't be a zombie item in the box forever. Article is in great shape and is a WP:SUMMARY of the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please enlighten us, what eventful and earth shattering updates did the article got recently ?  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wait to remove until the trial itself has ended. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that the only thing left is the acquittal, which will almost certainly be blurbed. If the vote is delayed for whatever reason, the case for ongoing becomes thinner.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal until it ends(likely tomorrow) with the acquittal(which will likely be posted). 331dot (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until tomorrow's acquittal. This can be removed once the acquittal is (presumably) posted as a blurb. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For supporters and opposed of ongoing removal, This article likely be remove from ongoing at least tomorrow because one thing left is acquittal, which likely be posted on blurb. So even someone support it to removed, let's wait until tommorow at least of February 5th vote in Senate. If majority support for ongoing removal, this article will likely remove from ongoing after Senate acquittal vote.110.137.171.220 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. Banedon (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. The aquittal is imminent; we can wait another day (or two) for that. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that that will merit a blurb, but either way the trial will no longer be ongoing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Senate is in the final stages to bring the matter to a close with the vote likely to acquit to come this week, next week at the worst. Regardless of the vote result, the result will be a very likely ITN, which should remove this from ongoing and should not go back in, unless by some remote chance that the Senate actually votes to convict. --M asem (t) 15:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until result while acquittal appears to be a foregone conclusion and would likely not merit a blurb, there's no reason not to wait until the process formally closes. On the off chance that the Senate convicts him, that would merit a blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until tomorrow, when he's acquitted. Then, we can nominate it for the In The News box. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until tomorrow, when he will be acquitted (in all likelihood) -- Rockstone  talk to me!   16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: George Steiner

 * Support - article in good shape and relatively well sourced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose plenty of references missing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I agree the article could be more happily structured, but the referencing seems fairly good to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a sprinkling of [citation needed] tags and the maintenance tag there for the mainly unreferenced "Awards and honors" section. This is a BLP so it simply can't be posted in its current state. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it really covered by WP:BLP? Nothing in the article is "particularly [...] contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". I agree that the article is not perfect, but there seems no particular logic behind many of the tags. As for awards, I would personally consider the section worth culling entirely. Do you agree? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it's better to reference the claims rather than simply cull them for the purposes of getting it onto the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Closed, stale, Stephen 23:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daniel arap Moi

 * Support and support Blurb, once the quality issues are sorted. A major transformative leader who dominated Kenyan life during his tenure. And I think it was 24 years, not 14. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: the quality issues (which are fairly minor) should be balanced against his importance in Kenyan history and the overall standard of African articles on Wikipedia. However, I do have reservations about the lead which steps around the repressive nature of his regime which is apparent elsewhere in the article —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working through the referencing issues in the article, hope to get that finished this afternoon, after which the article should pass for ITN on the citation front. Most of what's there now appears verifiable and basically accurate. Re the balance of the lead, do you have any particular suggestions, or aspects of the controversial regime which appear in the body and should be summarised in the lead? I can attempt to summarise those in the lead too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still needs references and most of the eponyms don't even have articles, how do we even know they're real? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've split the others into a sub-list List of things named after Daniel arap Moi. That needs some referencing etc. but I don't suspect them of being fake. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support relatively little issues and some have been fixed, Weak Support for blurb. Juxlos (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've fixed up the citations needed, so I think this is good to go now. I still think this is worth a blurb - definitely a very major figure in African politics for more than two decades, and nobody has objected to that yet - but will leave it up to the promoter to decide. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is ready now, and Moi was clearly a dominant figure in Kenya. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Agree with (and thanks for greatly improving the quality of the article). Highly influential figure in African politics -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to blurb. Disclaimer: I'm WP:INVOLVED here, because I !voted to support the blurb above, but with the current tally at 3.5 supports, and nobody having said they oppose the idea of a blurb, I'm making an WP:IAR WP:BOLD determination that there's a consensus for it. As usual, if anyone disagrees with this action then please holler in my general direction or revert and discuss, as you see fit. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb - this is getting weird by the day. I haven't seen more than a ticker about his death on TV & he gets a blurb. 39.50.212.206 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit too BOLD, given a) how long (and when) the nom was active, b) it was already "decisioned" by an editor, c) 3.5 supports does not demand quick action, and d) you are involved. I'm neutral on the case itself - he doesn't strike me as a transformative world leader, but maybe that's because "we" don't "let" Africans have that kind of influence.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. This isn't worth pulling, but there should have been more input before turning the RD into a blurb. More generally, perhaps the 'recent deaths = yes' entry in the template should be switched to 'no' if there's the possibility of a blurb. I suspect a lot of ITN/C commenters gloss over the yellow RD nominations (I know I do, only reading the discussion in detail if it's someone I've heard of). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking first point as I misread the timestamp - nom was active > 24 hours.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb, and let's stop posting extremely old people dying as blurbs. Say no to Jimmy Carter now. The readers can click on the name on the ticker. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb Amakuru you should have posted as RD and let the blurb discussion continue until there was consensus for it. I support RD only, per Abductive.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, overlooked that it had already been posted as RD, but still, discussion should have continued.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled back to RD. I won't pretend I'm not disappointed, and I made the above posting in good faith, as the listing had been up for 30 hours already with unanimous support from four different users at the time. But hey ho, that's the way it goes I suppose. We probably need to nail down who exactly gets blurbs on their deaths, because there doesn't seem consensus on what the criteria should be. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indifferent to weak support for blurb I could go either way on a blurb for this one, leaning ever-so slightly toward a blurb. While DaM was an important leader on a regional scale, Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, I would strongly support a blurb when he dies, as a major, transformative world leader. 1779Days (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Moi wasn't just a former president, he ruled Kenya for decades and was a notable African politician. (Though this doesn't mean anything here at ITN) the article has been listed as Vital. Bush Sr. got a blurb and so did former Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both died in their 90s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb following my earlier comment above. Kenya is the sixth biggest country in Africa by population, and a regional power. I do not like blurbs for RD, but this is as good a candidate as any. Plus the article is now much improved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Since all we can say is "he died", there's not reason to take up blurb space. The reason the RD section was created was to report deaths where nothing extra needs to be said other than "So and so died at the age of such and such".  That's all we have here.  Per the guidelines, For deaths where the person's life is the main story...the "recent deaths" section is usually used.  I see no reason to deviate from that in this case.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Blurbs for deaths should only be for people whose death becomes the news story, a la Mandela, Bowie, Thatcher, Carrie Fisher, Prince, etc. The death isn't a big news story. This is an old person dying, and just because he was a head of state does not mean he should get a blurb. Kenya's population isn't relevant to the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Ninety-five-year-old political figure, out of office nearly two decades, dies from medical/health causes. Normally I wouldn't support pulling a blurb once it's been posted, but this was highly borderline and there's a lot of real news out there. – Sca (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Wood

 * Support - well sourced, looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too soon for a non-free image to be used under fair use. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the non-free image rationale is credible (File talk:Willie Wood Packers.jpg). Killiondude (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Image is replaceable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the link to the file talk page provided by Killiondude above, in theory yes, but in practice it's exceedingly unlikely to happen. In any case, why not simply remove the image if that's the only barrier to posting?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ITN is an area of Wikipedia that I have never frequented, so I won't comment on the nom itself. However, I will address the image (as I uploaded it). "Wood had been confined to assisted living facilities for about 13 years before his death and had suffered from advanced stage dementia for nearly a decade". He just hasn't been out and about to photographed during the digital image age. It's not like similar players from his era (like Paul Hornung) who have returned to Lambeau Field in heir old age. The likelihood of reasonably tracking down someone with a free photo of Willie Wood it highly unlikely. There also doesn't appear to be any timeframe in WP:NFCCP that would preclude use of a non-free image immediately after a death if there is clearly "no free equivalent" that will likely become available. « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking with an NFC hat on, this is exactly an appropriate situation where the NFC can be used because we can document the person was not readily out in public (in this case, long term assisted living), and thus can safely assume there is likely no free image that could have been created over the last decade. NFC is fine here. --M asem (t) 22:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * and, does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 22:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or remove the image, as I have done, and wait 6 months to see if a family member or friend comes forward with a more modern photo to celebrate his life. There's no rush to upload an image. Stephen 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I reverted. Please provide a policy that backs up what you are saying. Timing isn't discussed anywhere. The burden isn't on us to search the ends of the earth for a free photo. If a free one isn't available, or likely to be ever made available, fair use can be claimed. A family member coming forward to Wikipedia with a photo?? Really? Does that routinely happen? « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 04:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, removing the photo from the article isn't the proper way to challenge the image . If you believe the fair use claim isn't valid, then propose deletion at WP:FFD. Removing the image from the article won't lead to any consensus discussion. « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . NFC concerns seem to be resolved &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Far from it,, the image is still in place on the article, despite Stephen removing it yesterday. This should not appear on our main page while it still has a copyrighted image on it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , : There seems to be two issues here. (1) Having the article link on the main page because there are concerns about the image. (2) The image's non-free use rationale. Regarding (1), I have no prejudice to the article's removal from the main page. That's for you all to decide. Regarding (2), removing the image from the article doesn't do anything, nor is it rooted in policy. If there is a disputed non-free use rationale, then nominate the image at WP:FFD and make your case. « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Reynolds

 * Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I added the death to that yesterday but felt the article was too far from quality for ITN and did not nominate. It is clearly in shape now (including a bulk source to cover the ology part) so seems ready. --M asem (t) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zhang Changshou

 * Support: Article is well-sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protests

 * Support removal c'mon folks, the "ongoing" is becoming a bit of a coathanger. Resist that shoddy temptation.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apparently only topics like Brexit and Trump's impeachment (US-UK) are allowed to linger on for months as a coat hanger. This is a clear bias. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support removal per nom. This article has also suffered under the pressure of increased exposure on the Main Page. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 00:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Haven't heard about this one in weeks Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Removal While there are still protests going on, they are a dull roar relative to the rest of the world news and far from how violent they were when we first posted. No prejudice of reposting if a major shift happens since there's still controversy over it. --M asem (t) 02:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 02:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am quite surprised by how quickly this has been pulled off. In another Ongoing removal discussion Bagumba pointed that "Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump isn't over, and it's been updated since the oldest blurb, which is Jan 30 coronavirus blurb." Similarly approx 30 Kbs of update were added to this article since Jan 30 and yet this has been voted out. The issue of grammar, is quite shallow and easily fixed. Removal here is an example of an obvious bias against topics that are not US-UK related. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-post per DBigXray. Clearly still ongoing, and the whole point of this Ongoing section is that there is no time limit, and we therefore keep the item as a one-phrase link at the bottom of the ITN template, until it's no longer in the news. Not just when Wikpedians think it's done it's time. And frankly, like DBigXray I am disappointed in my fellow editors in rushing to remove this clearly ongoing major item in a non-Western country, while at the same time retaining the moribund final rites and foregone-conclusion that is the Trump impeachment trial. Not saying Trump shouldn't be kept - it should (for now) - but so should this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal per the coathanger principal. Things have unquestionably petered out, and yes - Trump and Brexit did linger for far too long. I voted to remove them both.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal Per above and nom.  Spencer T• C 03:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-Removal Oppose per DBigXray and based on media coverage. The protests and related politics haven’t died down. You can check on Google if you want. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=caa&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=nbiv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA-afW3rrnAhWAzTgGHZVcBy8Q_AUIFCgB&biw=1024&bih=665 RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Malawian general election

 * Can I suggest reference to the Court ordering fresh elections is added, with a link to 2020 Malawian general election? Number   5  7  21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - you are always at liberty to add an altblurb to any nom. At the time I nominated, the 2020 article did not exist, so an altblurb including it is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is fairly minimal but maybe just enough. Looks like the court has thrown out the whole govt. (Sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on both quality and notability. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt - not terribly long but article is well-sourced, alt blurb sounds better to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but why not consider "The Malawian Constitutional Court annuls the results of the 2019 general election in which Peter Mutharika (pictured) was re-elected and orders fresh elections." —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt looks good. I have c/e'd the alt to say "fresh election" instead of " a new election". Brigade Piron IMHO alt blurb is good enough.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Alt1 looks okay. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose original blurb because there is grammar errors what is meaning of "null and void". But I Support for Alt1 because it is well reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - ALT1, per consensus above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bernard Ebbers

 * Weak oppose poor article but mostly within policy. Several sentences which need refs per BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LIV

 * Support - well sourced, lots of prose, looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until a prose summary has been added to the article.  Sounder Bruce  03:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's been added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are still many paragraphs without citations and the prose itself is very dull. The team preview sections include far too many statistics and not enough of the narrative. Other sections, like Advertising and Entertainment, are short despite being important parts of the event.  Sounder Bruce  08:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as as ITNR -- Rockstone   talk to me!   03:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits/"support as ITNR"; this discussion is for evaluating the quality of the article. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most of the details in "Game summary" is unsourced. The details seem quite low level, so either source the current prose or reword based on high-level action described in published recaps.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is well-referenced and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many claims completely unreferenced, not just in the game summary section either. A lot of work to do. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support as a global event and a half-decent article. Good work to those of you who made it decent enough post, respect.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although we should never let perfect be the enemy of good, since this event is ITN/R it is important that something so large have the proper sourcing - GA-level sourcing, even - before we post it on the main page for the world to see. Significance is not in dispute as this is ITN/R. Support arguments to this effect are therefore redundant. WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you must oppose it to include in ITN/R because this nomination only happens in single country, not multiple countries, like Wuhan coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)
 * Please do not carry disagreements from one discussion to another. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not why I am opposing. Please read my rationale again, closely.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All posts must have proper sourcing. The sourcing requirements are not impacted (either way) by ITN/R status or the size of the article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when something has received as much publicity and analysis as the Super Bowl has, it really should not be that hard to find solid, reliable sources for every significant statement in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Trans: ... has received as much sportified hype. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not ready. Unfortunately I have to agree with the opposes - there is a lot of unreferenced material there. I've added a bunch of cns; the game summary could also do with at least minimal sourcing. The statistics should be easy to source for those in the know (I'm not one). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The reference improvements are good enough for me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the many citation issues have been fixed; I'm sure this won't take long for someone who knows the subject (i.e. not me). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could understand the urge to post this if we were just waiting on recap and proper sourcing for that, but many of the sections on the lead-up to the game are lacking sources. That's a no-go. --M asem (t) 14:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I seem to remember seeing a much worse Brexit article being posted in worse condition. The Brexit article only recently added a section in the body for the 31 January event and the section only has a single sentence about the actual major ITN-worthy event. This is what happens when we set our standards depending on our personal perception of importance. We look like hypocrites. Let's see what happens when North America wakes up. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An blurb-worthy update could easily just be a sentence or two. The recent bump-back-to-blurb of the coronavirus due to the UN's declaration only needed one sentence and the sourcing to reflect that, because the rest of the article already existed and was in good shape. Same with Brexit. For sports events - not singling out the Super Bowl here - describing the event after it happens needs more than one sentence. The sporting event is the meat of the story, whereas in the other cases, it is just additional events atop the main existing one. And we know completing a recap is not impossible to do within 24hr or less when dedicated editors are on it (tip of hat to TRM and Boat Race here). No one is being a hypocrite here. --M asem (t) 15:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But there was not even a single sentence when it was posted. Some of the very same people that opposed this item, supported posting Brexit without a single mention of the exit in the body of the article. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no unreferenced blocks of text anymore -- needs a re-check. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's fully ready, but I've improved the sourcing of the game summary section. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --M asem (t) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging opposers, . All cn tags have been addressed. Marking ready, unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now improvements have been made.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ivan Král

 * Comment Article is orange-tagged, and missing some refs. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many claims in the article unreferenced, and the filmography needs serious work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not sure how I feel about putting an orange-tagged article on the main page. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 73rd BAFTA Film Awards

 * Support I've added a short section of text about the ceremony, similar to the previous awards, to make it more than just a table. PotentPotables (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's still barely stub in terms of prose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support great work from, good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose for original blurb because it will include problems in grammar (who, when, why), but I recommend to Support Altblurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is just a big results table; there's a grand total of 170 words of prose. Needs substantial expansion. Also, 'Baftas' is surely better known than 'British Academy Film Awards'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "BAFTA" is the initialism for the organization, and while it is common to call these awards BAFTAs in casual speak, it is not precise. "BAFTA Film Awards" would be the only other acceptable alternative (as there are also other BAFTA awards out there now). --M asem (t) 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As Masem said, BAFTA is the common name of the Academy (British Academy of Film and Television Arts). Imagine calling the Academy Awards 'the Academys' in formal writing. Note that in other years, it's passed with a short prose update, like PotentPotables said, because it's not a prose-y kind of article. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * However, there was a presentation - it may not be the media blast that we get from Oscars or other film awards - but there was an audience and it was broadcast, and there a few articles out there talking about some events from it (for example Phoenix' acceptance speech). And now that I was double checking to look, I do see a few lines about it near the bottom. Would like more but that's at addressing there was an actual "show" part of this. --M asem (t) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now expanded the Ceremony section - this section was previously about as long as it is in previous years, now it might be a bit heavy. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I now support. I suggest moving that text above the table, otherwise readers could miss it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sourcing is unclear and prose is inadequate. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the sourcing unclear? Refs can't be added in that table so they're above (though it could theoretically come under PLOT as it was broadcast, anyway) Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The sourcing is actually fine: in the current version sources 1 and 6 cover the whole of the awards and nomination table, which is fine. And while there probably could be more on the ceremony, what's there is at least addressing it. The only thing I see that could be added immediately are award presenters as from previous years. --M asem (t) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's barely a stub worth of prose. It's not suitable at all.  A quick comparison to last year's article demonstrates what is possible.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Last year's article also has little prose, just a list of presenters. However, the point is moot - I've now massively expanded the prose section. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's brilliant, well done and thank you for such an effort! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Thanks to Kingsif, sufficient prose now.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt1, on film's notability. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Salahuddin Wahid

 * Comment Can you add references to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is well-referenced, including the updates about his death. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Well-referenced throughout. PotentPotables (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Moore

 * Oppose needs refs, and the self-published website appears to no longer exist in any case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Moore was also director of the World Trade Organization an internationally prominent role. Kiwichris (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article now much tidier and better referenced. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some sections seem to need more sourcing. In particular, unless I'm misunderstanding, the entire World Trade section was supported by something that did not seem to me to be cogent. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed, the link was to the wrong version of the archived page. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this be moved back down to Feb 1 on this page? He died on Feb 1 UTC. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mad Mike Hoare

 * Comment. Whole sections unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many more references added since your post, how does it look to you now? Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support was just about to nominate this myself. Well referenced.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still a few unreferenced claims in there, tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose much seems to be referenced to reviews of, or lectures based on, a book published by his son; some of this is also attributed to organisations who cannot have reviewed the content; the book may or may not be a reliable source (I imagine not), but indirect reports on the book don't seem reliable to me. PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Serkin

 * Oppose Half unreferenced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 04:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I mentioned that some marginal work on refs is needed? Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  13:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes? I said that because that's my reasoning for opposing? Would you prefer "per nom"? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 18:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you looked again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Thank you for nominating, - wanted to that now. More refs were added, please check again. - Yes, Bach Mozart Beethoven and other bits are not specifically referenced, but as far as I can see no unusual claim is left without a source. More detail would be possible from the obits. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Much improved since I last looked at it. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 05:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)