Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Joseph Duffey

 * Comment I have taken the liberality of moving this nomination to 28 February. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is tagged. Support looks better now. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * everything is sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Golden Globes

 * I've added an altblurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we generally have not posted the GG in favor of the Oscars as the principal award for US film industry. We did post the GG once before in 2017, but that was on La-La Land's record breaking results  which made it stand out, but that's the only time I can immediately find, and I don't think this case rises up to that. --M asem  (t) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality. The article does not have enough prose describing the ceremony itself.  It's a giant table farm with little prose; as with other awards ceremonies/sporting events, the minimum quality requirement for posting is a prose synopsis of the actual event.  I don't see that here.   -- Jayron 32 17:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor man's Oscars. P-K3 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality, lacks of deeper coverage and prose, lots of tables. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality, very little text and many of the tables appear unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glenn Roeder

 * Oppose for now As the nominator said, some refs are needed before I can support this. Article is also tagged for lead expansion. Support looks good now. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support added some citations. RIP. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks well sourced now, and lead has been expanded to an appropriate length. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Managerial stats table needs a cite, but is otherwise generally sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Briggs (actor)

 * Support Looks good for RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory for RD and nice to see a filmography with every entry sourced JW 1961   Talk  18:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Milan Bandić

 * Oppose Tagged for neutrality. Definitely not fitting for a blurb; if the present issues are fixed, it would be fine for RD. Support with cleanup. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose NPOV Tagging. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely not a politician at a level of importance for a blurb. RD is sufficient once the article is fixed up. --M asem (t) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose the blurb, as the death of any city mayor is not important enough for a blurb. Oppose RD on current quality, until the neutrality issue is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb -- not notable enough for a blurb. Support RD once article is cleaned up. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD conditional on the neutrality issue being resolved, as everything in the article is properly sourced. Mlb96 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV has been fixed in the article and the article is now well-cited. Vacant0 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD on quality improvements. --M asem (t) 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Considering that improvements have been made, I shall vote in favour.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Louis Nix

 * Oppose Still needs a few more citations. Also, why is the December incident mentioned in the "Death" section if he survived it? Mlb96 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose references needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more references. Also surely there's more than a few lines that can be said about an NFL player's career? Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ng Man-tat

 * Oppose tagged and needs plenty of refs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * have updated the articles with references. let me know what else may be required. – robertsky (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support a well remembered actor, well remembered for his work with Stephen Chow. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Odd that a IP would randomly find this... either way, please read WP:ITNRD. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs grammar cleanup, see things like Chow revealed that he didn't want to lend money to Ng as it would become a downward spiral for Ng and Ng wouldn't have broken free from his gambling habit. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs a copyedit, as there is some confusing grammar, such as On 2 January 1952, Ng Man Tat was born in Xiamen, Fujian to a family of 3 other siblings, him being the second child- I assume this means he had one older, and 2 younger siblings, but the sentence currently he was the 2nd and 4th child. And the example above. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have broken up these lines. I should stop the habit of editing in the middle of night. Do help to fix the article where possible, thanks! – robertsky (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have done some necessary cleanup. I'm still bothered by some things; for example, do we really need a paragraph about Ng's grudge against another actor? Lettlerhello • contribs 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing and copyediting issues seemed to have been addressed. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 16:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Mallard

 * Oppose It's a stub; it needs to be expanded before it can be eligible. P-K3 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article. It is no longer a stub. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Now much improved and suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Gotti

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose can't believe a free image is being used within three days of this person's death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the image on the page is there under fair use, not free. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant "non-free" image. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Referenced, fulfils WP:ITNCRIT CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok. P-K3 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't believe we only waited three days before using a "fair use" image on an article that's now a target on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't believe anyone would hold up a nomination on those grounds. It's no longer reasonable for someone to go get a picture of him, which fits the spirit of WP:NFCC. Not sure why 3 days or 3 years or 3 decades makes a difference. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TRM I hear what you're saying, but for me that issue isn't a red light for posting like lack of referencing, copyvios, or poor article quality. Other ITN admins may feel differently. That said, I feel this is something worth discussing on the article talk page.  Spencer T• C 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irving Grundman

 * Support refs + depth of coverage fine.  Spencer T• C 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: D. Pandian

 * Support Good for RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hannu Mikkola

 * Oppose Needs many more citations. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged, and rightly so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly, with only 2 edits in the last 2 days this under-referenced article doesn't look like it will make the grade JW 1961   Talk  23:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manfred Gerstenfeld

 * Support Seems to be good for RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ISBNs would be ideal (I'll have a look later) now added otherwise looks ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wow! That was brilliantly done JW! I was struggling quite a bit with this one last night! Looks great! Ktin (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah they are a pain alright, I wish people would add them as they are adding books to articles! JW 1961   Talk  20:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Shamima Begum loses in Supreme Court

 * Support - Notable case and we don't usually post these on ITN. --WaltCip- (talk)  19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is thin but good enough, and it's interesting that the UK will just straight up revoke citizenship from someone born in the country for supposed crimes committed abroad. Even the country about which we dare not speak isn't so cruel. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, she lost her plea to return to the UK while arguing her case to have her citizenship restored, not the actual case to restore her citizenship. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * True,, but that may never come to trial. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that in the article. What if she wins? Then this posting will look pointless. Conversely, if she loses, then that can be posted to ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * see the section “Reactions”. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I and many other editors despise Reactions sections. And this one does not change my arguments above. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose some countries ban the re-entry of purported terrorists, some just deport them to another country altogether without charge indefinitely. Comme si, comme ca.  This was never going to happen.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually,, it was ordered by three Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And...? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose from the news reports on this, the decision is not creating a landmark case law in the UK, which usually is what we want to see in such cases for ITN. --M asem (t) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is saying “landmark case”, . The BBC says “potentially major implications for Ms Begum's case and others like it” here. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which may be important for those people, but not for national or international law. That's the issue; when a case only has a narrow application, it doesn't make for good ITN story. A landmark ruling, which would set case law for a large portion of a country's population (eg like last year's Bostock ruling on work discrimination against LGBTQ from SCOTUS) is the type of stuff we are looking for. --M asem (t) 21:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose however one looks at it, it's just a court case involving one country with no international impact. Banedon (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ^^^ "this is bait"! Anyway, I'm not sure how someone with Bangladeshi parents who comes from the UK, went to Syria and "married" someone from the Netherlands involves "one country" but yeah, YMMV and you know this is a bogus oppose, I'm not going to point you at the boilerplate, but you knows it!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably because this doesn't actually affect any of those countries. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this affects Bangladesh just because she is Bangladeshi. The only country that this affects is the UK. Mlb96 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Seems somewhat less than widely impactful. – Sca (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good and I'm seeing coverage outside the UK, eg NPR and Washington Post. P-K3 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nice to see a nation not kneeling to a terrorist, wish news like this could go in the "well duh" bin of judicial outcomes. Might support if she gets ₤10 million for all her hardship, but otherwise I fail to see the significance of this outside of the United Kingdom. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 07:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem to be a very notable event. ITN should just post landmark court cases which this doesn't seem to be afaict. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  08:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just a local immigration case. STSC (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The coverage is pretty unknown outside the United Kingdom. I rather support it if the ruling happened in the United States as the country had more international influence than the UK. 36.76.234.82 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even the most important case heard by the Supreme Court since January. I don't remember any excitement on ITN about Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others whose implications are much wider... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the important event for this happened last year (when she was stripped of citizenship), this isn't even on the front page of UK news websites anymore. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Zamfara kidnapping

 * Support 317 is a large enough number. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is no longer a stub. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Background and reactions are filler. Take them out and it's pretty stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to expand it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to expand it nor am I the one championing it for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't much to write about a kidnapping when no one claims responsibility. What do you want us to write in? Do your research before commenting 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did my research, I read the target article and found it lacking details. If there aren't any to be had, perhaps it doesn't belong on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think should be included in the article which currently isn't? Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A police officer was killed? When? Why? How? "Some" children were taken into the woods? How many? When? Why? Attacked a military camp? The same group of attackers or a separate group? How big was the camp? Was it overrun and destroyed or just delayed? Where was the military and police during all of this? And on and on and on and I know those details aren't available but that doesn't mean this mediocre article, which will never ever be expanded after it expires off the main page, should go up with so little information. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A hijacked aircraft crashes; it takes weeks for details about the perpetrators or the victims to come out. Are you suggesting that it should not make it to ITN? Simply the lack of available information or the fate of the article post-ITN doesn't make the news less credible. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject ― which it does. 2405:201:4013:80D0:4908:75E8:B326:830D (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm suggesting most of the air crashes we post should not make it to ITN. To be minimally comprehensive the question should answer the Five Ws. That's my view, I'm obviously in the minority. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has never fulfilled those criteria, because we don't know why it crashed or who caused it to. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article isn't 70% "background" and "reactions" either now is it? Seriously man find someone else to bother with your false equivalences. The disaster stub is on the main page, you got your way, move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't come close to fulfilling the 5Ws, which you say should be met before an article is minimally comprehensive & posted to ITN. The kidnapping article isn't a stub & kidnappings are rarely described as disasters. You oppose many articles for being 'disaster stubs', when it'd be more productive to improve them instead of opposing them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to do so, and frankly I do not give a damn about the subject. The target isn't a WP:STUB because of the filler. Strip that away and nothing is there. I read the articles, and try to keep the dross off the main page, and I do not seek nor require your validation. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've just had a go at expanding the article, and this seems like all that's possible for now (though it could probably do with a ce). Will have another look tomorrow to see if anything comes up to add. Pahunkat (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because kidnappings on this scale are very notable & rare, even in Nigeria. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd be one of the biggest news stories in the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – These Nigerian mass schoolgirl kidnappings are becoming frightfully frequent. Why hype such shameful extortionism? Perhaps we should consider Ongoing instead. – Sca (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major incident and article is of decent length now - certainly not a stub. P-K3 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, has Reactions section. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that means nothing. We posted the Storming of the US Capitol and that has an extremely large reaction section.  Reactions mean nothing for ITN nominations. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are no doubt aware, Reactions sections are widely despised by editors. This particularly sickening one is a quotefarm of useless politicians stroking their own career disgracing the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean, but I just wanted to point out that you can't have a viable "oppose" !vote based on having a reaction section. Maybe reword your !vote to get your point across. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it gets to the alleged expansion of the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of reaction sections either, which is why I renamed it Aftermath and trimmed the excessive quotes. The section should focus on the ongoing search and rescue operations. If people wish to read the quotes they can click the articles cited. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares that there's a reaction section?? Certainly not me. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- notable -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -big event in Nigeria, and we should include major events in Africa more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A perfect example of what ITN is about – showcasing our editors' quick-turn articles on events around the world. This article is just as long and certainly just as important as most of what gets posted here, and while it's in its early form, I have no doubt it will expand as the situation progresses. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the article has been expanded and improved from a stub since the first oppose to a point where I feel this meets the required length for ITN - it's likely to be further expanded as more information comes to light. The concerns for the 'reactions' section seems to have been addressed, with the section culled down to summarise key points. 317 students is a large number, even in Nigeria - for comparison, 42 people were abducted in a similar raid less than two weeks before, which makes the event notable in my opinion. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 42 have been released; the 317 still missing. . – Sca (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready the article meets our usual disaster article standards, there is strong consensus that it's notable. I don't like it, but it seems ready to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Article meets standards and support is clear. --M asem (t) 16:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is on Main Page, could you look into the revdel the article needs? There's a ugly red box on the article, that doesn't make it look any good. 2405:201:4013:80D0:5875:6973:2F:27B1 (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that - I wasn't sure if adding a RD1 tag to an ITN article was the best way to go about things, or whether it would have been better to have emailed an admin. Pahunkat (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The release of all the victims should be added to the blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * &, the victims have been released & the number was confirmed at 279 not 317. Not sure how we should go about updating the blurb with that, but the number should at least be changed. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I second this – "about 300" seems unnecessarily vague. ritenerek <sup style="color:#c66815;">talk :)  01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: GameStop short squeeze

 * Oppose The event is over. Clearly there's still ongoing investigations into the cause and ramifications but we usually don't keep things in ongoing on that slow process of what happens after the event, though are open to a blurb if there's something like a major conviction or the like at the end. --M asem (t) 14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the article is wrong about the squeeze having already happened. The german wikipedia for example only calls the article "incline in gamestop stock price". The shorts haven't covered yet and even more have been bought in the recent days. You can take a look at the NYSE chart. This means the event hasn't finished yet (with millions of people and billions of dollars involved).Tresznjewski (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is currently some increase in Gamestop's price and its tied to the reddit forums, no question, but its not with the same furor as the first spike in prices, and instead far more tempered. Analysts are watching but its not being equated to the original event from early Feb. that we actually posted. --M asem (t) 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please give me your sources? Tresznjewski (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just doing a google news search of Gamestop, and while there is coverage of the current increase today, its not like with the attention and concern that the first wave got, and analysts don't expect a similar spike. --M asem (t) 17:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait before the thought police come an "snow close" this, I'm running a content history on the article. Will share, so interested parties can more easily review how continually it's being updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I find your "thought police" comment offensive. No one is policing anyone's thoughts. Certainly not me. If you wish to work to limit snow closings, please do so instead of disrupting this page with this sort of comment. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment still running. Up to Jan 29. There are easily content edits in the last few days so it's probably updated, nolo on "significance" --LaserLegs (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment as I also do not want to oppose this right out of the gate, because I think there might be something to this, but if the second squeeze is not included in the article, then it's of no use to editors on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was pretty lukewarm on initially including this article on ITN, but it became a fairly big story, so I can concede it wasn't a bad call. I don't really see much justifying further inclusion on the ticker, though. While there was a brief smattering of coverage on GameStop stock a few days ago, it didn't really rise above the ranks of trivia, and, judging from the article's current fairly tranquil edit history, this does not appear to be a consistently fluctuating event. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's not a large amount of ongoing coverage that would allow for this article to be updated constantly. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just not true Tresznjewski (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on ongoing, Neutral on blurb. The article has only a single significant update after February 2, which is a paragraph about February 24-25.  Given that we have only one significant update in over 3 weeks, that in no way is sufficient for an ongoing link.  If and when the article has significant, regular updates we can re-discuss ongoing.  If a case can be made for a new blurb, please do so.  I remain open to be convinced on that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It wasn't that newsworthy to begin with, and it certainly isn't big enough for an ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not suitable for ongoing, barely scratching news now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-opened several of the opposes focused on staleness. A sudden surge on 2/24, white house reaction on the 2/21, hearings on 2/18, protests between 1/29 and 2/8, SEC response on 2/8. content diffs are here. Article is probably about as stale as the Myanmar protests with one-line updates about things tangentially related to the actual event. Nolo on significance, but with a more detailed cataloging of the content edits, it seems reasonable to re-open a hasty closure and give some opposes a chance to re-consider. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely making it into most US newspapers. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article currently has 231 independent citations, the vast majority of which are US newspapers. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are looking at the ongoing, we're talking what is being reported on it currently, and that's what is not making it into the news. The current increase is of some discussion but nowhere near the volume that it was at as at the start of February. --M asem (t) 19:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really in headlines anymore. Banedon (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Banedon. A fading phenomenon and story. Suggest Reclose (by someone else). – Sca (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this trivial story that never should have been posted. It's a minor story about a minor company - it's not Shell. The vast majority of people have no idea what a short squeeze is & have no inclination to find out. Many much bigger business stories weren't posted. The excessive media coverage is due to the claim that 'ordinary people beat big businesses'. Try mentioning the GameStop short squeeze to people unconnected to the company & who aren't finance traders in a year's time. The vast majority won't know or care what you're talking about. Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting impact.  Spencer T• C 02:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a second spike in the price but no idea what the impact of this means. There is no second short squeeze so far and it is nowhere near as big or impactful as the first time around. The original Gamestop short squeeze was featured in the news on Wikipedia because it was a much bigger story. It doesn't deserve a second time. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Pickup

 * Weak oppose Outside of 2 clauses about his salary for his first acting role and one role which was "considered by some to be one of his best performances", the acting section is essentially a CV in prose format of his various acting roles, without depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 02:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support.  Spencer T• C 03:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced, looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets Requirements, looks fine. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Michael Somare

 * Comment Needs some work - orange tag from 2019 needs attention especially the layout of the article. Quite a few bare urls in there also.  JW 1961   Talk  23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just the citation style; each url is part of a footnote. I agree about the section layout though. Joofjoof (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article needs a lot of work. I'm starting the cleanup but doubt I will finish it tonight. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This old revision is much better style-wise; if it weren't for the reference improvements I'd have already reverted back to it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ' Oppose' Needs a lot of work, for now does not meet WP:ITRND. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment After some improvements the last days it should be good enough., thanks for noticing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Yes, the article needs work, but Somare was the Papua New Guinea's founding and longest-serving prime minister. He's been involved in just about every major policy decision in PNG for decades, even before independence. He's essentially synonymous with the country. Unrelated, but positing his bio on the front page may encourage other Wikipedians to improve his article. Scanlan (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the disclaimer under the nomination: all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post. If the article quality is not yet high enough for RD, you should not vote to support. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, nothing in my above comments contradicts that disclaimer or makes a claim that "all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post". Simply noted that Somare's role in PNG's history, for better or worse, is immense and perhaps worth including on the front page. Nothing more than that, other than agreeing with the original nominator's suggestion and rationale. There might be cases like this where the importance of an individual's contributions to the history of a country (or other fields) potentially outweighs the existing quality of their Wikipedia articles, but that's up to the ITN norms and the discussions on this page. I appreciate your point, but I still stand by my vote. Scanlan (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles that do not meet minimum quality requirements are not posted at ITN, thus "there might be cases like this where the importance of an individual's contributions to the history of a country (or other fields) potentially outweighs the existing quality of their Wikipedia articles" is inaccurate. This is outlined in the third criterion listed at WP:ITNRD. WP:ITN further notes "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link." as is the case with this article.  Spencer T• C 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misinterpreted me. The ITN consensus is indeed that "all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post". There is no "rationale" for putting a person on RD other than "they died, and the article is in good shape". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not good enough. We don't post BLPs with unreferenced claims, end of discussion.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is why systemic bias continues to plague this encyclopedia. Articles on third-world topics continue to be pushed to the background for not meeting arbitrary standards for acceptability set mainly by first-world, largely English-speaking editors. This is not meant as a personal criticism, just a reflection of the system we as editors have established. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Have tagged the article for neutrality and citations. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2021 Armenian coup d'état attempt
We are a small country, off the radar, will never garner attention for good or bad. He's not going to last. It won't be a traditional "coup" with tanks on the street, strict martial law and curfews, but he's done. 2A02:2A57:79D3:0:31B0:764C:9A3E:C190 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Seems like a controversial statement more than an attempted coup and unless significant new developments occur, the article will probably be merged into a small section in 2020−2021 Armenian protests. The BBC article states he's survived multiple attempts to be dismissed, and small statements from the military don't seem to signify anything practical. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Seems more squabbling than couping; not much in the news. – Sca (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Seems too soon to say whether or not this should be posted. The article is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - more like a dispute right now following the Guardian. Too soon I would say. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know more information, likely in a few hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how rapidly we got the "insurrection" attempt for the U.S. up onto the main page, I am a little surprised at the resistance to this one, "statement" or not.--WaltCip- (talk)  00:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is a high quality article about armed rebels attacking the National Assembly Building of Armenia in an attempt to prevent the certification of an election? There isn't? Oh, so it's not the same thing at all then. Understood. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you are speaking to, but it isn't to me, so you might want to fix your indentation.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not understanding why a lot of items are nominated to Ongoing directly. I think that there could be a good number of items that don't meet the threshold to stay in the ongoing section (which has a habit of keeping them too long until they are stale), and posting them as a blurb (and re-assessing when it ages off if it should be maintained as an ongoing item). This seems like a possible candidate for a blurb to start as events unfold.  Spencer T• C 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - this should be a blurb. Also the article isn't good enough yet.  Once we have the events of the daytime of the 26th in Armenia, there should be an acceptable blurb proposal. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing and possible blurb It's an attempt, but we don't know if it is successful.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 03:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talk • contribs)
 * When "he's done", and an "interim" leader is installed in his place, that'll be WP:ITNR and get posted --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not about being big/small or good/bad. Understandably ITN suffers from systematic bias, but a successful "coup" or a change in leadership will make it here. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I think things are too uncertain right now for us to even have a properly worded article title; never mind a blurb, and as such I think that if we post this, it will be when we have a more firm understanding of what is actually going on.  As it stands now, there are a lot of conflicting claims and stories coming out and I'd rather wait and get it correct than rush something to the main page that turns out to be wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Thursday heard a talking head say "coup" was inaccurate, and that further political machinations were likely. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Geddert

 * Support per nominator, short article in decent shape and pretty well referenced. JW 1961   Talk  23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment in some countries a death is only a suicide after a coroner's inquest and you have to use words like "apparent" or "appears to" until it's proven. I guess that in the US this isn't the case and the article satisfies WP:BLP for the recently deceased, but I'm just bringing it up for someone who knows the US law better. Otherwise Support. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that reliable sources have widely reported this as a suicide, I think it's reasonable for the article to present it as such. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SecretName101 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, article in decent shape. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Article seems adequate and is still reasonably timely. Agree with Elliot321 re suicide. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Vishnunarayanan Namboothiri

 * Oppose Bibliography section lacks references/ISBN numbers. Per the article, he wrote poetry and other works, but it's not clear exactly what he wrote about.  Spencer T• C 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose mostly referenced now but I still see items in the biblio with no kind of verifiable sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal

 * Oppose Even ignoring the entirely local scope of the scandal, this is two-week-old news. If this had been nominated when it was still fresh then maybe I could consider it, but it's old news by now. Mlb96 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – no repercussions arising from this scandal. If this ultimately results in Cuomo's resignation, I'll change to support (but I doubt it will). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem significant. Certainly not "Front-page news on many newspapers around the world." (and I've checked). If a development or resignations happen I'll reconsider. Uses x (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose fake scandal, and COVID-19 is in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fake scandal"? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose again since someone deleted my oppose !vote. Agreed this scandal is overblown and now passe.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that, I wasn't warned about any edit conflict but it still seems to have deleted your comment when I posted my oppose. Uses x (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in addition to all the above, do we actually post "implications" to the main page? And cooking the books for false numbers?  Everyone has done that... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The U.S. loves its scandals. I wonder what name they'll attribute for this one. "Assisted Living-Gate"?--WaltCip- (talk)  17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would oppose posting Cuomo's resignation or impeachment. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply being implicated (ignoring this being a state level and not national) is not sufficient for ITN posting. If there was convictions or resignations we may have a starting point but then we'd start questioning if it has sufficient worldwide importance. --M asem (t) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Cauchetier

 * Support satisfactory for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Boettcher

 * Support Well referenced, looks good. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Peter Ostroushko

 * Weak oppose Article is mostly a resume in prose format without much depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is adequately sourced and I don't see any gaps in coverage. P-K3 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bulantrisna Djelantik

 * Support short but fairly well referenced and sufficent for RD JW 1961   Talk  23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would like to see a little more information about Djelantik, as what's there right now leans a little too brief IMO. There's other info available from the id.wikipedia article as well as this fascinating Jakarta post article. Performing for President Bill Clinton and President Sukarno is definitely worth a mention in her article and it's incomplete without it.  Spencer T• C 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enda McDonagh

 * Support decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  23:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Appropriate depth of coverage and referencing.  Spencer T• C 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fanne Foxe

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait more information about her scandals. 180.243.208.77 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support everything looks sourced and the article is at least C-class. TJMSmith (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Halpin

 * Support. Good enough.CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose what's there is okay but too brief for someone who played international rugby union and for teams like Quins and London Irish. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more info from newly-released obits. Hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with TRM that further expanding the career section would be beneficial. I think this just meets RD requirements after Bloom's additions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Intro states that he "played as a prop for Wanderers F.C., Leinster, London Irish, Harlequins", and outside the infobox, there is no prose about this in his playing career. Doesn't look like there are references to source this part of his playing career, as the infobox doesn't have citations. Insufficient depth of coverage of playing career; rm ready.  Spencer T• C 02:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * added an entire paragraph on his club career. It's ready now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jack Whyte

 * Oppose Infobox says he worked as an actor, but the article has no additional information about this. Additionally, there are some dubious statements that need referencing and a re-write (e.g. "The tacit implication is that Whyte's version of history is the true story that has become distorted over time to become the legend and stories of magic that we know today"). Would like to see a little more about his writing, especially about his non-Camulod Chronicles works, but could be convinced to weak support if everything else is cleaned up. Article could use some restructuring as well; the short fiction and later life should go before the bibliography IMO.  Spencer T• C 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tormod Knutsen

 * Oppose the article is too short. There must be more that can be found about a double Olympic medalist. At the moment it is a stub. I'll have a look through obits later to try and get more content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment slightly disappointed that this has been 33 hours with only one voter. Whereas many people have voted on much newer RD candidates. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support What's there is suitable, although brief. Wished there was more about his life after 1964, but what Knutsen is known for is there in the article.  Spencer T• C 01:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD  Spencer T• C 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sergiu Natra

 * Oppose we shouldn't be posting to Recent Deaths if someone has not been reported dead in reliable sources. If their death hasn't been announced yet, we should wait until if it is announced, and nominate it then. And oppose on current article quality too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 1. There's no confirmation of his death from reliable sources. As you've mentioned: 2. the article is very short, 3. many claims in the article are unreferenced, 4. his list of works should either give a citation for all of them in one go, or every work should have an exact citation, not a pile of 33 citations beside each other. Uses x (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heinz Hermann Thiele

 * Support. I gave it some copy-editing (He married his wife ...), with edit summaries. Some refs should be transformed from cite web to cite news, and the papers linked, which I did for SZ and Die Welt. I came to nominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Zaki Yamani

 * Support, one of the most significant figures in the 1960s and 1970s not only in his native country but also in the world. The article has been updated and improved.Egeymi (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the disclaimer below the nomination. All recent deaths of people with Wikipedia articles are presumed important enough to post. Instead, comments should be regarding the article quality. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your warning, I revise my statement per your remarks. --Egeymi (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, first half poorly cited. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Updated. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Updated with a marked improvement in sourcing from Ktin. gobonobo  + c 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Bishop (artist)

 * Support. Updated and well-referenced. Uses x (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lawrence Ferlinghetti

 * Support - article well referenced and updated, meets WP:ITNRD CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Work needed on referencing, particularly the "In popular culture" section. P-K3 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs references. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Breakup of Daft Punk

 * Oppose I can't think of any band in the world where a break-up announcement would be significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were 50 years ago, maybe/probably the Beatles. Other than that, no way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We did post R.E.M., but that was a long time ago. Teemu08 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is not ITN worthy. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We might just post at ITN if this band reformed? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The second Coming Together? – Sca (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, the Second Coming. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be comingling unlike aspects of this situation. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I doubt that we would ever consider a blurb for the potential future break-up of bands like The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Iron Maiden or U2. As for Daft Punk, not in the slightest.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment we posted REM, but that was 10 years ago --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, folks thought it was the end of the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't they know we're already on the second ending ? – Sca (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's news, but as per Pawkingthree, there's almost no band that we'd cover like this (unless of course it was Wyld Styllions :) --M asem (t) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only band's reunion we'd cover on ITN would be Lemon Jelly. But this can run and run: who would  like to re-form?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN new level worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parochial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a consensus of oppose. Can an admin close this nomination? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

C'mon folks, let's "Make ITN Great Again"! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where can I get a MIGA hat? – Sca (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't believe this has been closed to the detriment of our readers. It's (a) in the  news and (b) there's a good quality article and that is all that matters (TM). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it suits the WP:ITN admirably. Thanks for pointing that out TRM and I totally agree! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah but you didn't support and didn't complain when this was so obviously prematurely and damagingly closed... And where's the support from those who continually say "it's in the news, it's a good quality article and those are the only criteria worth considering"?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the article before it was closed, and I don't !vote without reading the target. As for "support from those who continually say" -- who can say? Maybe if it'd not been closed in just 5 hours, they'd have had a chance to comment. The good thing is that the integrity of Wikipedia is preserved by not featuring on the main page a quality article about arts and entertainment that's also in the news. It would be a real shame if we bumped the Serbian shaman off in under 10 days right? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * C'mon dude. He's got a great beard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One imagines he also has legs and no doubt he knows how to use them. I'm shocked and distressed that the "in the news/good enough article" only now applies sometimes,  I thought those were the only two criteria around these parts.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong agree with . My jaw dropped reading this, and it felt like a confirmation of the things I hear about ITN from the outside looking in. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What if they reunite one more time? --Tone 09:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, that means they are now Daft and Punk.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-closure support per The Rambling Man. Well-written article that's reported everywhere. So what if they once day reunite? We don't know that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(RD posted) Assassination of Luca Attanasio

 * Oppose Doesn't look like a particularly high-profile individual. The article on him didn't exist before right now, and it's largely dominated by info about how he died. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, as I oppose putting Assassination of Luca Attanasio on the front page. It does not comply with Copying within Wikipedia, as it does give attribution. The article is also way too short for the front page, is just a copy of the death section of Luca Attanasio, and uses the term "assassination" which is still under discussion at Talk: Assassination of Luca Attanasio. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the attribution problem. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with a separate article for his death (and disagree with assassination being used when there's an ongoing discussion about it). So I oppose any blurb that links to Assassination of Luca Attanasio. I have added an ALT3 blurb that only links to the main article, but neutral on whether ALT3 should run. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD, neutral on blurb Article quality of Luca Attanasio is sufficient for RD, no comment on blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Luca Attanasio is a good enough article for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Agree that the quality of Luca Attanasio is high enough to support. I'm not going to formally oppose the blurb yet because the article is so new, but do know that would be my vote at this time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added two more blurbs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD – A very unusual event to say the least, but Signor Attanasio was not a highly enough ranking official for an ITN blurb. – Sca (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD not notable enough for ITN but notable enough for RD. Vacant0 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Luca Attanasio article is in good enough shape. Also weak support blurb for Assassination of Luca Attanasio on notability, assuming the article is sufficiently improved and expanded. Luca Attanasio is not sufficiently notable for an ITN blurb, but Assassination of Luca Attanasio is a different matter. The circumstances of the death are highly unusual as is the fact than an ambassador has been specifically targeted and killed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support altblurb 2: not sure that RD would highlight or do justice to the significance of this situation. Wait until the article quality is improved. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is somewhat similar to the assassination of Andrei Karlov, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, in 2016. We posted that one to ITN. In that case, the article Andrei Karlov did not exist until the assassination, either. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Bio appears to referenced well. Oppose blurb on notabiiity, as Democratic Republic of the Congo–Italy relations is not of much importance and incidents of this kind aren't unheard of in the area. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, term "assassination" is under discussion, also article somewhat too short. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, leaving discussion for blurb open.  Spencer T• C 03:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb 2 - Nominator I wanted to specify my support for Blurb 2 as the nominator. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment just to note that there is not one single source that calls the killing an assassination. --T*U (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 Anyone concerned about the assassination phrasing is encouraged to participate in the ongoing discussion on those pages. These articles, however, are in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Wilkerson

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Israel oil spill

 * Oppose It does not sound like a significantly large oil spill in terms of volumes of oil loss, only that via flow the small amount that was spilt/leaked was distributed along a long stretch of beach. And it is comparatively small relative to oil spills on the international scale (eg Exxon Valdez). --M asem (t) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage kinda sketchy. – Sca (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand it's getting to be night in Israel about now, but I added a translate Hebrew tag to the top of this article about five hours ago, and as of right now that's still the last update this page has gotten. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way to attribute it to a cause. If it's from an old spill, the info belongs there. There isn't enough info the the article to feature it on the main page anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martha Stewart (actress)

 * Support - article well referenced and updated. Note to self: Read the disambiguator before jumping to conclusions about the subject. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, and should see a spike in clicks after going on the Main Page from "OMG! Martha Stewart died?" AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Career section is essentially a list of film roles in prose format. Limited depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I might suggest this be posted either with her full name or the disambiguation, to avoid confusion with the "other" Stewart. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we do that? I didn't even know that was an option (well, I suppose everything's an option, but I digress). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on using Martha Stewart (actress) on front page, as it takes up more space. So might cause us to kick more people off the RDs, just because we don't want to "mislead". We've never done this before so far as I am aware, for people with the same name. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we post "Martha Stewart" without any sort of qualifier/differentiation on RD people will think that Martha Stewart died. I feel like we have done this before but I cannot recall exactly when. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Including her middle name would be enough to remove the ambiguity, and is slightly "cheaper" at 5 characters. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. I didn't know what Martha Stewart's middle name was until I just looked and saw what it was. The confusion will be inevitable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You see "Martha Ruth Stewart" and you aren't likely to jump to the conclusion that the recently deceased is the television personality. In any case, WP:SURPRISE should really be considered here. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, good enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (please) CHANGE display to say "Martha Ruth Stewart" (or "Martha Stewart (actress)"). WP:SURPRISE is a huge problem here. Per the discussion above, it seems like adding her middle name "Ruth" might be the wisest move. Otherwise, it seems misleading on Wikipedia's part. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that page is about writing better articles, not about main page postings. Honest question: does anybody know Martha Stewart's middle name? Either the one who died or the one who hangs with Snoop Dogg? Would adding a middle name really reduce possible confusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to "Martha Shelley" both to avoid confusion and as that was the name she was living under as of 2012. I don't know to what extent there's precedent for this, and maybe in prior cases we have left the name as is, but I feel that is quite suboptimal given the stature of the "other" Martha Stewart and this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've never heard of the "other" Martha Stewart and I'm guessing 95% of people outside the US haven't either. I would change it back to the WP:COMMONNAME, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have and maybe they haven't, but Martha Stewart averages thousands more daily pageviews than all of the current RDs combined. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might have a fair point and I am not qualified to note UK name recognition, but as Bongwarrior states she is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and indeed such a household name in the US that substantial confusion/misunderstanding is likely. On further thought, "Martha Stewart (actress)" seems ideal, but I don't know whether we've historically included disambiguators to RD. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK and have heard of the other Martha Stewart. That said, I think this sets a bad precedent as everytime we have someone die whose article isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, people might now try and change the name displayed, using this RD as justification for it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Martha Shelly" is a good compromise, else it needs to be "Martha Stewart (actress)" to avoid obvious WP:SURPRISE --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment For the future, we might want to lay down some rules for what to do when a person dies but another person is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under the same name. It could happen more than you think it may. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I think including the disambiguation is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Use COMMONNAME (or parenthetical, if we must). The actress averaged 100 views/day, a good amount for someone who was no longer active in their career. It's a disservice to most who likely don't know her legal name and otherwise don't already know that she died (and now, probably still wouldn't now).  There is merit to a parenthetical, but it's also a slippery slope of which non-primary topics warrant this treatment.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , why not go ahead and use Martha Stewart Shelley if the other name can create some confusion? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dicey if the decision for the page title was to use a parenthetical over WP:NATURALDIS, which says Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. (obscure in this case).—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. This one is clearly outside of my knowhow. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to Martha Stewart (actress) for the time being per above, although personally I would favour the original form with just Martha Stewart. It doesn't seem right to use a name that isn't the one she's known by, just because there's someone more famous with the same name. I also don't think she should appear with a disambiguator on the main page, because that's not how we do things and again, it's not very polite to her to treat her differently because of her namesake; but we can continue arguing the toss on that point... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now a discussion about this topic on the ITN talkpage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Burke (accordionist)

 * Support Depth is good enough, although would prefer to see a tad more (but either way suitable for RD as-is).  Spencer T• C 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Douglas Turner Ward

 * Support No issues that I can see.  Spencer T• C 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Williams (baseball)

 *  Conditional support Paragraph on World Series appearances needs a reference or two but otherwise this looks good to go.  Spencer T• C 15:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Ping me if any issues (as I'm the sole supporter, but otherwise has been ready for >24 hours).  Spencer T• C 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gerald Cardinale

 * Oppose Limited depth of coverage of what was accomplished in his political career. Although I see a lot of similar NJ politician articles have committee assignments listed in bullet points, IMO it would be more helpful to have them in prose integrated with a larger section about his political career.  Spencer T• C 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little amount of information about his political career. Vacant0 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) United Airlines Flight 328

 * Support on notability catastrophic mid-flight engine failures are exceedingly rare and fortunately a skilled flight crew was able to land the aircraft safely. The article is still too stubby for main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems more suitable to DYK. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- it is a rare occurrence, but in the absence of death or serious injury, I do not think it is appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article is currently five sentences long. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to poor article quality. Even if the article is improved, the lack of casualties means the breakup is not that notable for ITN.  I Need Support  😷 06:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whilst it's a bit unusual, not seeing it as important enough for DYK. And article is way too short. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is poor and no real significance. Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. No injuries. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't even post every plane crash, nor have articles for every engine failure that requires emergency landing. Zero significance. It's a slow news period and it doesn't happen as much in the US as the rest of the world, but not a snowball's chance in hell. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Question If an article is proposed for deletion, doesn't that change it's status here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's ineligible if it's at AfD. Sometimes a speedy keep can save it (seems rather pointless in this case). --LaserLegs (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking like a snow keep though. Don't see much point in keeping the AfD open now. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, a somewhat similar incident, involving a 747, occurred Saturday in the Netherlands. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2021 Texas power crisis

 * Oppose this is literally a blurb right now, and we already voted not to put this ongoing yesterday. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yesterday's vote was before Joe Biden declared a disaster emergency. Please keep that in mind. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the person who nominated this originally. The broad consensus during the original nomination was to wait until after the storm shuffled off ITN before nominating again. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Recant nomination as the person who nominated this time, I recant it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Australian Open

 * Oppose target article appears to have no prose about the final, just a scoreline The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the men's singles final is decided and post a combined blurb. The article can be expanded with prose in the meantime.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There would be no need to wait if there was any prose to speak of in the women's articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your patience. I'll be updating with prose today and it should be ready in that regard by the time the men's final is held. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait the ITNR for this says that men's and women's results are posted together. So wait until men's tournament is over, tomorrow. Also currently opposing on article quality, as I agree with points made by TRM. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that means they have to be posted together simultaneously. The note is to ensure that both men's and women's champions are posted (if quality is sufficient).  If the women's article was sufficient, there'd be literally no benefit in not posting it already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment When i support it to be posted because it is ITNR, I agrees with another user to wait for men's final. A nominator or other users can amend the original blurb once final men's results released. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - Wait until the men's result is posted. But for now we need to expand the prose for the other finals. HawkAussie (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose reiterated, now both results are in, neither are given any kind of prose summary in any linked article I can see. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What 'bout the third paragraph in the lead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there are just two problems with that: 1) there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the main part of the article and 2) if that's the extent of the summary of what happened in the final, like one sentence per each of men's and women's, it's far from adequate. Hard fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , TRM -- quick check. The bolded article has a section for all events e.g. men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles etc. I can give the men's singles and women's singles a pass. Do we need to fill all the other events? Let me know. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't really give a pass for just a heading and a single-sentence update. We're looking for prose summaries of the finals here, not just a load of stats.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , have given the men's singles event a prose update here 2021_Australian_Open. Definitely more than a heading and single sentence update :) Ktin (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ktin - I am currently doing the same for the Women's singles. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , nice! Did some minor adds -- Women's singles looks good to go as well. Ktin (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Concerns listed above seem to have been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment prose now added in all events. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * -- please can I bother you again to work your magic when convenient, for a composite picture of both winners. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Composite image is ready here: File:NaomiOsaka-NovakDjokovic-2021AusOpenComposite.jpg --M asem (t) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , could we replace the image of Djokovic on the main page with this composite? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Masem. Ktin (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull Articles have prose problem still.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what parts of the article still need work, in your opinion? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the article again, it looks better now. Support.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 02:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good job with the finals write-ups. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) First human H5N8 cases

 * Oppose Aside from any notability concerns (which I certainly have), the target article isn't in the best condition, with 2 cn tags and a clarification needed tag. Gex4pls (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the article must be supplemented or rewritten. The event itself does not become less important from the quality of the article. Or we can link to an article about the virus itself. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's not just that. Unless something else becomes of this, this would just become another short story similar to the Eluru Outbreak from a few months back. I realize that this is a first for H5N8, but unless this becomes another pandemic I don't see any importance to this. (not to mention that, according to the moscow times, the virus can't even transmit between humans yet. 1)Gex4pls (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is probably a premature nomination - right now I can't find any news that this has resulted in any fatalities and the Russian cases have been described as "mild" according to the article. I don't believe that a bird-borne disease that has still not caused any human fatalities is notable enough. Besides, ITN on Wikipedia is meant to report on what has happened, and not what may happen, so alerting the global community about a potential pandemic is not what ITN is meant for, though the nomination is obviously done in WP:GOOD FAITH. It's WHO's job to warn people. Not our job. 45.251.33.97 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. There are many different influenza subtypes, and frequently these infect humans. Let's wait and see if this becomes a bigger story.  Spencer T• C 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on importance Russia has said it's the case but this doesn't looked to have been picked up by news agencies in many other countries. And it's currently 2 sentences of that article. Also there are multiple citation needed and clarification tags that would need to be fixed, so opposing on quality too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dianna Ortiz

 * Posted to RD. There was an unreferenced section so I added 2 refs. Normally I let noms sit a little longer, but because this is about to age off, I went ahead and posted. Ping me if issues.  Spencer T• C 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Ann Rowan

 * Support Referenced, meets minimum depth of coverage standards.  Spencer T• C 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted by as their first post after making Admin. Congrats on your Adminship TJMSmith. Looking forward to your work here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arturo Di Modica

 * Support Referenced, quite good depth of coverage for an artist article.  Spencer T• C 05:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Has everything I would expect for a biography of his life. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m concerned many if not most of the images included are copyvio. I’d like to check in at the Commons on that before this is posted. I’ll inquire at their copyright help desk now. Ping who I think may have useful knowledge here. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. They were all uploaded by the same user on Commons with no evidence of licensing. I've removed them all from the page; they should be taken down on Commons as well and this user should be blocked (or provide a very good explanation). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for checking it over; that resolves my concern here and I initiated the Commons conversation. Inexperience may be the explanation but I do hope they will take some time to learn the copyright policies before making any more uploads. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clotilde Niragira

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage with descriptions of what she did in her political roles. Probably a model article for what I would consider appropriate depth of coverage for a RD nom for a politician.  Spencer T• C 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Everything seems fine, just a bit of a red link overload on this one. There are 7 in total, maybe that's fine but it just really doesn't look right, especially for an article of that size (which is adequate, btw). Gex4pls (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Interested editors really need to step up and create missing articles on Burundian politics. Not this article's fault, however, and in fact it's good to have something rising above the mold. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Always good to have some coverage of Burundian politics. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerold Ottley

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A bit short but fully sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2021 Texas power crisis

 * Support I most definitely see a significance in millions of people without power, millions of people without reliable access to clean water, and extreme food shortages, and the event is, indeed, ongoing. There is also the matter of the allegations of wind turbines and such by some pretty prominent officials. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice. This was nominated at 22:51 (UTC), nighttime in Europe. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this matter? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an American. I'm not trying to push an agenda; I'm just unlikely to be nominating this at 3 in the morning local time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Putting aside the regional opposition stuff, since I realize that is going to drive some editors up the wall: A lot of the article uses the past tense, namely in describing the power outage at its peak. I don't know if we can call this ongoing, since it seems to be getting resolved pretty rapidly.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "generator-loss crisis" portion of the power outage is over. There are many without power, but it's due to things like trees knocking out power lines, not due to the problems with generation.  Most of those are expected to be fixed within a couple of days.  There are other ongoing issues that are side-effects of the sustained loss of power, such as with boil-water orders due to power loss at water-treatment plants, truck-delivery issues due to gas/fuel stations losing power, etc. Some of these are expected to last into next week. Not to mention the many who had pipes burst due to loss of heating in their homes.  Some of these will take weeks to repair due to demand on plumbers. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual kind of fallout from an environmental disaster. We generally have not posted that sort of thing on ongoing. Ongoing is more for actively evolving conflicts where notable events are likely to happen over an extended period of time.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose We didn't post the European snow system late last year that caused similar outages, it would be systematic bias to post this. Further, the blurb for the storm is still sitting in the box, there's zero need for an ongoing at this point. --M asem (t) 23:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Was it nominated? If not, you've really nothing to complain about. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, I nominated it. --M asem (t) 00:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So because the European snow system wasn't posted, neither should this one? Or maybe last years thing was a mistake? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose add this to the current blurb if you want but no OG till the blurb rolls off. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Ongoing" is silly. No need for that at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? It's A storm. It's A power crisis. It's already diminishing, and will be fixed soon. Not ongoing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nominator comment I've seen a couple replies touching on this point, so I'll ask you: if it's seriously an issue enough to change someone's mind over, I have no issue specifying in the nomination that this should not enter ongoing until the other article on the storm rolls off ITN. I thought about saying it in the initial post, so if there's support for that I'll add it in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can self-close for now and re-nominate once the blurb rolls off. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as other disasters aren't given this treatment. We don't put hurricanes onto ongoing when they have a serious impact over large areas so this shouldn't be either. One blurb for the storm is enough to tell people it was really bad. <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 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * except for the time we did? Seriously I wish people would do their research before making such bold statements. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose frankly I'm astounded we have an article on the storm and the power cuts. ITN isn't "In the American News" much as some people want it to be. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Philippe Chatel

 * Oppose very short and largely unsourced. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose refs required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cn's still in article a day later, discography and bibliography unsourced JW 1961   Talk  15:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2021 Myanmar protests

 * Comment forgot to add this: content changes to the target article to date --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Similar situation to the indian farmers protest nom a couple weeks ago, lots of updates but nothing substantial, new, and important. I do see the protests escalating in the future, but if that is not reflected in the article then there is no point in it even being in ongoing to begin with. Gex4pls (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal by the looks of it, nothing substantial has happened for almost a week, so not needed on ongoing ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still going on.  – Sca (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment article not updated --LaserLegs (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There have been updates to the article regarding recent police and military response to the protests (obviously indicating that these protests are still ongoing). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that they're still going on, the question is if that's being reflected in the article. I think that the most recent update about 2 civilian casualties today does reflect this, but I will wait for more similar updates to change my !vote. Gex4pls (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The police disrupted a group who were interfering with government business. Not a protest. Update the article about protests not police activity or mean tweets. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Riot police in Myanmar shot dead two anti-coup protesters and injured several others on Saturday". Associated Press. Yes, this is still a protest. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. If the content isn't in the target article, the target article is stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia article, citing that very source: "On 20 February, two protesters were killed and at least two dozen more were injured in Mandalay by the police and military in a violent crackdown." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Two demonstrators killed by govt. forces.    – Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SOFIXIT applies, this is still front-page news in most sources, ex. Guardian BBC CNN so instead of proclaiming "opposes which do not address the article content are therefore invalid"; nominator would do better to take a few minutes to fix it since by all measures this is still ongoing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yellow check.svg Y Partly done I've added a few sentences in the "International reactions" section, suggest others do the same elsewhere and then this can be speedily closed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Invalid oppose, does not address article staleness issues and I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix it, I did my part cataloging the content edits and demonstrating the staleness. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally added information about something that happened today. You are however correct, it's easier simply pointing out a problem than fixing it (observation which is true even outside of Wikipedia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually cataloging the content changes and prying poor quality articles out of the ITN box takes considerable effort thank you for sarcastically denigrating my contributions. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might also want to reconsider your links. NOTREQUIRED literally states: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." i.e. exactly what I said... As for "prying poor quality articles out of ITN" I don't think this is anywhere near poor quality; compare with some of the more egregious POV-pushing attempts on COVID-related articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you demanded that someone else "fix it", I made no such demand of you. I'm simply highlighting the staleness of the article. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally did fix (part of it). But let's not wikilawyer about who is asking whom to fix what. I'm just saying it is a more productive spending of time to argue about whether this should be removed from ITN than it is attempting to fix it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removal In the news is clear: "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." So I agree with, unless the information actually gets added to the article (rather than just linked here), then this article doesn't meet the criteria for staying on the ongoing section. The onus is on the people who want it to stay on the Ongoing to maintain it, so that it complies with the Ongoing criteria, not the other way round. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is literally information in the article right now about protests that happened yesterday. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A one line update about the authorities shooting two people with zero details about the crowd size. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...yes? Do all updates need to include the crowd size? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, more than two were shot. Two were killed, 40 were injured. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an article about protests, so yes, details about crowd size, location, escalation, etc are pertinent information and a one line update provides little value. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How's that crowd size? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN ongoing doesn't require the article to be FA-level. If there are minor issues it's probably easier to fix them as per WP:BOLD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Removal - Just not significantly updated. STSC (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Content has been added since this nomination about events that happened since the 17th, and even as far as what happened today. !votes saying "just not significantly updated" are therefore non-representative of the current article. The most recent update to the article is about an event which happened today (and before that there are plenty about things that happened yesterday or the day before), so clearly "Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status" is well out the window... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Condemnations aren't protests. Kindly review the content changes to the article and point out the ones where "new pertinent information" about protests was added, as per the guidelines WP:ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right here. Or you want specific examples? This for one? This for another? I fail to see how the condemnations which are directly linked to the protest are not "new pertinent information". Even if we're going for a wikilawyering letter of the law reading and completely ignoring the spirit, ITN ongoing requires that the article, not some arbitrary sub-part of it, be updated ("maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news"). The protests (and international reactions) are "a story which is itself also frequently in the news", and the article has been updated with such information very recently. I rest my case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Huge crowds gathered"? How huge? Gathered where? This is an article about protests, a one line addition that doesn't communicate any real information isn't helpful. If you could just point me to the "spirit" section at WP:ITN it'd be a tremendous help, I'm just trying to apply the guidelines as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal As of now, there is new information dated from 20 February, 21 February, and 22 February. This is being sufficiently updated.  Perhaps it wasn't when it was nominated, but the situation has since changed, the article is being actively updated, and as such I see no reason to remove it at this time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per Jayron32.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment fair enough (to both) I'll keep monitoring it. One of the problems with OG items (like the Venezuelan story) is that as it gets stale, someone will pop in a few edits when it gets nominated for removal but over a long timeline there is a pattern of staleness which can't be ignored. That's not happened here yet, but it's something to keep an eye on. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose; Substantial additions in the last 48 hours, still very much in the news. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Đorđe Balašević
Oppose Several claims missing citations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added more refs and text and the uncited text was mostly removed. Vacant0 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still seeing what looks to be an average of about one citation per paragraph. Let me be clearer: There should be almost no sentences without citations, as every sentence should be adding new information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, got it, I will add more citations to the paragraphs that I can find. Thanks Vacant0 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources, article is completed now. Vacant0 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is better now. Good work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. :) Vacant0 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Many of the body paragraphs are almost entirely unsourced, will certainly require a lot more work. Gex4pls (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article properly sourced and it's a notable person. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now great quality, and it's certainly a notable person. <b style="font-family:courier;box-shadow:2px 1px 4px #888;border:1px solid #999;padding:0 6px;background:linear-gradient(#fff,#ddd);color:#276;border-radius:6px">byteflush</b> <sub style="margin:0 2px">Talk 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Great work since the last time I checked. --Tone 09:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing

 * Oppose BLP1E with article created after her death (declared brain dead on 12th, article created on 16th). Absolutely no personal details in the article. This information should be folded into 2021 Myanmar protests, this article to AfD, and this event could at best be used to nominate as a blurb for the protest article (it is already in Ongoing).130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Entire article is a violation of WP:BLP1E, we certainly shouldn't have it on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose an RD wikilinked to Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Support a blurb wikilinked to 2021 Myanmar protests. I have tagged Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing with a merger discussion. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The content is actually about the killing of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. STSC (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Porfirije becomes the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church

 * Comment Courtesy link. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well known and influential religious leader. 3/4 of the pope, good enough. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We didn't blurb the last patriarch dying, when we would for the Pope or the Ayatollah of Iran. There's a reason. The Serbian Orthodox Church has 8 to 12 million followers according to our article. I'm quite sure the 3/4 of a Pope comment is referring to the size of global orthodoxy, which with the large Russian numbers is more than this. The Orthodox communion is looser than the Catholic one, with no one global leader, just a Primus inter pares in the spiritual home once called Constantinople. With all due respect, the Serbian Orthodox Church is smaller than the LDS Church, and about 1-2% the size of the global Catholic Church. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * :( Jeromi Mikhael 11:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Semi-good article, important for Eastern Orthodoxy and SPC. Vacant0 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A good and very thoroughly referenced BLP as bold link. I'm unwilling to disregard this on the grounds that it affects merely 10ish million people. That is still many, and the separateness (autocephaly) of Orthodox churches means that this person is the religious leader of a historically and culturally distinct group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding, the link to the Serbian Orthodox Church cannot go up in it's current state. Even if it's not a bold link, it is still far below what should be featured on the Main Page. Suggest remove second link.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with using “historically and culturally distinct group of people” as a qualifier as you open up a very broad qualification. I agree with you that perhaps the second link can be looked at. The 10 million alone is a major reason to include the new Patriarchal leader in the news blurb. Just my take. OyMosby (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Porfirije, Serbian Patriarch article is mediocre and the Serbian Orthodox Church article has swaths of unreferenced prose. Even if you convinced me that the leader of a private club with ~10 million members was notable, the articles aren't up to scratch. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support target article is just fine and this is far more significant and long-lasting than a bit of snow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is notable enough, even more so because he holds somewhat differrent viewpoints compared to other high-ranking member of the SOC and the article is semi-good and there is space to make it better.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article and a relevant event. Elserbio00 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Though someone should verify if the blurb as is passes MOS:JOBTITLES or if List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church should be linked before it goes to the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support FAR less significant figures and topics have articles on Wikipedia News Blurb. Surely we can spare a few megabytes more.... Yes Orthodox Christianity is not one unified organization like Catholicism and the Pope, so 3/4 of the Pope is incorrect. He represents the Serbian Orthodox Church not all Orthodox Christians. However 10 million people is a gigantic number of influenced people. Also wasn’t the previous Patriarch noted in the news box before? Regardless my first argument alone should be enough. I agree with that the blurb should be double checked. OyMosby (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I modified some sentences so that not every sentence begins with "Porfirije is" or "Porfirije did", and there is still plenty of room for prose improvements, but the content is solid. --Tone 16:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We should keep this blurb up, but use an image of the Mars rover instead of this man. We have pictures of people probably 80% of the time on the ITN space, a picture of an interplanetary voyager is more novel and interesting. 1779Days (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also I think they wanted List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church pipe linked as the article with Serbian Orthodox Church being the link name, instead of general Serbian Orthodox Church to specify the subject matter. OyMosby (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll pipe that one as well. I am neutral on the image, I was not the one who changed it. --Tone 17:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By piping I think what was meant was Serbian Orthodox Church links to List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church. You had linked 46th Patriarch. Also could the inage be changed back? Thanks OyMosby (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose use of image - I'm in support of restoring the Mars image due to its far reaching and long-term significance... as much as I can't stop looking at Rasputin here. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cloning of the Black-footed ferret

 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very little would be posted if "general significance" was required. That said, is this a first for an endangered animal? 331dot (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lacks consequentiality. Little or no impact on humankind. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Same difference. I would say very little of what is posted has an impact on humankind as a whole. "Consequentiality" is relative. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of passing interest only to a very narrow, specialized audience. ITN is for the Big Picture. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please point out where that is written down somewhere. Very little would be eligible for posting with that criteria, so I'd be interested to see it. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First cloning for a North American endangered species, per NYTimes. --M asem (t) 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the second (after a Przewalski's horse in 2020) and first North American animal. Seems that the cloning of endangered species has not much significance for the main page in general as not even the Przewalski's horse Kurt has its own article. --Melly42 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the human being Nikolay Przhevalsky does. – Sca (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose A truly significant scientific event would have its own article (i.e. Dolly (sheep)). This event currently has one paragraph in prose in the article and no mention in the lead. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It has an own article: Elizabeth Ann (Ferret) --Melly42 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was that article not included with the original nomination? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2021
 * Because I was not aware that there was already an article on Elizabeth Ann. --Melly42 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Would make an interesting DYK. The Elizabeth Ann article is quite the stub, but the black footed ferret article is ok. However, the simple fact of being the first north american endangered species to be cloned feels very overly specific, and not altogether notable (unless this somehow saves Black footed ferrets from extinction, in which case I'd probably support a blurb for "first endangered species repopulated using cloning" if that were to happen). Gex4pls (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prince Markie Dee

 * Support RIP part of a legendary band of my mis-spent youth. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is all sourced, updated and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: U-Roy

 * Support Adequately sourced.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 02:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) February 13–17 winter storm (Winter Storm Uri)

 * Support as it wasn't the typical Winter Storm. Also I know nominators are auto support since they nominated, but this was a re-nomination, so I feel like my vote isn't a formality, but a real !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The coverage just within the United States seems a bit unbalanced... Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly support clearly a historic winter storm for the US and Mexico, and the worst one since the Blizzard of 2016. The US saw over 5 million blackouts and Mexico saw over 4.7 million. 23 people were killed also. Many all-time records in the US and Canada were broken for record low temperatures and record high snowfall. It produced 5 tornadoes, killing 3 people. Overall, one of the worst winter storms in decades, likely to become the US's first billion-dollar disaster of 2021. Definitely deserves a place in ITN. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 01:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly support This is quickly becoming an unusually large compound disaster - for example: millions under boil-water orders and no power to boil water . Victor Grigas (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This has proved to be a much more significant story than first appeared, with the collapse of the power grid in Texas, and the article quality is much improved. P-K3 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support – This storm broke records all over the place, ranging from the scope of Winter Weather Alerts (170 million Americans affected, which is very unusual) to the blackouts. The storm left close to 10 million people without power, and roughly 4 million people in Texas still remain without power or clean drinking water. A blackout of this magnitude has not happened in the U.S. since the 2011 Southwest blackout, and this is one of the worst blackouts in the modern history of the country. The article is in much better shape now, and the sections pertaining to the hardest-hit areas and the blackouts are much-better developed now. And any arguments that this should be failed on grounds of this storm happening in the U.S. or North America are pure nonsense – a historic event is historic. Pure and simple. And what this storm did in North America is a very far cry from even above-average winter storms. Any event of this magnitude deserves an ITN mention.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Really serious event that has left a large amount of damage in its wake for storms of this type. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support far from a routine weather event, this is unusual weather in a region unaccustomed to it and is having severe consequences. Oppose including the name "Uri" in the blurb for the usual reasons --LaserLegs (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are discussing it right now, but the FCC and Homeland Security Bureau are using Uri as the name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they are using The Weather Channel's name for the storm, it has not been given a name by the US government like hurricanes are. TWC's criteria for naming a winter storm is very different than that of the government's naming of a hurricane. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Left me without power for a day or so.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 02:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talk • contribs)
 * Support however, the blurb figure of 23 deaths is not found in the article, nor was it ever in the article as far as I can see. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, though specific name should be left out per LaserLegs. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The power outages have been sounding apocalyptic. People in Texas are bringing farm animals into living rooms. Also, the biggest cold wave in decades. 142.120.100.241 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The storm may have caused problems but the compounding factors were the state of the electric grid in Texas, which is, sadly, the state's own fault (just as the issues in California's power outages are). This should not be a story we should be posting for that purpose. --M asem (t) 05:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will add that while there are deaths directly attributed to the weather (when this was first posted), most of the additional news and deaths associated with this are all related to human-made decisions - maybe not those made in the last few days but resulting from years ago but still human made decisions that could have been altered to avoid the issus. Further, the issue has been strongly politicized (the "attacks" on renewable energy, the questioning about where Sen. Cruz was going, etc.) making the story more political than a typical weather-related disaster that we would post. And as it is American-related politics, something we have to be acutely aware of of excessive attention in the media, we should avoid posting stories that get that added emphasis. --M asem (t) 05:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , being someone's "own fault" is not a criteria for not posting a blurb. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Human faults are not the issue (eg dam breaks from bad engineering would be posted), it is the politictizing and misinformation that immediately started to try to downplay the issue rather than immediately seek relief and remedy that make this a non-story, atop the fact that its winter in the US, it snows, it gets cold,and people still die from that every year. --M asem (t) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted underneath the Mars news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose it's cold, and people suffer. It happens every winter.  Just because it's Texas, it doesn't make it more important.  Heavy bias here, and good to see discussions being conducted in quicktime while the rest of the world sleeps.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Historic storm, widespread and severe effects, lots of RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting strong oppose this same article was rejected from ITN a few days ago, as not ITN-worthy. A few support votes shouldn't overwrite a much longer discussion. This seems like an admin supervote to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the news/Candidates for the same article had a clear consensus not to post (1 support linked to a non existent policy, compared to 6 opposes based on policy). Ridiculous that we allow someone to create a new nom, and then for an admin, to override the previous consensus, 5 hours after it was posted, at a time when only people in North America would be awake. This should be pulled, and a proper WP:CONSENSUS gained for it. Because this stinks of US-bias to me, as a few North American people were able to override a consensus made by a worldwide group of people a few days ago. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also opposing on quality- the sections on Canada and the Great Lakes are almost non-existent. Considering it's meant to be about a North American storm, it is almost entirely about the US.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It most certainly did not have clear consensus not to post, it was speedy closed in 43 minutes. As for the Canada section being orange tagged for expansion, the storm was largely a non-event around the lakes. We're posting this because of it's impact in a region not usually impacted by storms, as evidenced by their lack of preparedness. Why are the opposes struggling with this? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , as said, the previous nomination was closed so quickly there was no consensus established. Also, more information has come to light and the impacts are more widespread than that first nom. This should not be portrayed as a supervote.-- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I realise consensus can change, I just don't think posting 5 hours after nominated when post of the world is asleep is a fair representation of people's views. I also think that the article has glaring omissions, as it only really covers US. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support widely covered in the news for multiple days. The posted blurb wording looks good. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Post-posting scepticism The Proud Boys find they have no snow shovels. Oh bother. The Texas Interconnection failure would have been a story in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) But just read User:Joseph2302 comments above, so changed !vote.
 * "States have to vote blue for me to think the people in them deserve to live." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Pinging all the users that were involved in the last discussion, as it's likely some of them maybe have opinions. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'll just re-iterate that there was no strong consensus not to post last time because it was speedy closed in 45 minutes, re-opened (by me) and speedy closed an hour later and when that did not happen, a consensus actually developed. Perhaps we should speedy close this one as "strong consensus to post"? Or because you didn't get your way should we discuss it to death and try desperately to pull it back down? Let me know your thoughts. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , One thing I have learned over the last year on Wikipedia is that consensus can change. (if you want some examples, ask me about it on my talk page.  Here isn't the place for that).  I am slightly concerned that you called this "an admin supervote".  That can get you into major trouble.  (In short, I did that back in November/December and had 2 attempts to get me banned from Wikipedia.  Please tread carefully with that accusation. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the admin was unaware of the previous discussion, but speedy posting something seems odd to me. And if this article wasn't about the US, nobody would consider posting an article with 2 almost empty sections in it. But it's the US, so WP:BIAS of ITN allows it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Sometimes what makes weather exceptional is not the actual objective weather in itself but the environment it strikes. To refuse to recognise serious impacts based on political boundaries is itself a form of bias. A disaster -- I think I am safe in calling this a disaster, in that we will be fortunate indeed if the deaths do not reach three figures -- is no less a disaster when the major factors which tip the balance are human caused. In fact, more than half of all disasters posted at ITN have had significant human components which made them exponentially worse, even for something as basic as hurricane flooding. Never mind that the temperatures will ameliorate after Saturday, this one will be unfolding for weeks yet to come. (Water issues on that level are not solved overnight, and for some the health consequences will linger a lifetime.) Ironically, even the shift to smartphones is complicating the issue: landlines with cords used to draw all the electricity they needed from the phone line, making them much more resilient for communications under these conditions. Incidentally, I currently live in a part of the world where this level of winter weather is habitually shrugged off -- people here were laughing until they realised that the Texas power and water infrastructures were collapsing, including hospitals -- but I also recognise that winter weather is not taken carelessly, even here; and consequently houses and infrastructure and heck, habitual winter clothing here are built for it. Then again, I don't know if we would do particularly well if a category 2+ hurricane were to strike us, even without lingering. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the previous discussion, it should have no bearing on this one. It was speedily closed (as I predicted it would be) because it was before the full facts were known, and we got the typical comments along the lines of "yes it's cold outside, put on a jumper." Now that the article has been expanded, and there are millions of people without access to drinking water, it's appropriate to post. P-K3 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't snow made of water? Aren't there millions of people without access to drinking water around the world every day?  Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're being unnecessarily glib towards people with burst water pipes, flooded homes, food shortages and no heat in freezing conditions, but I'm clearly not going to change your mind on this one.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those people have FEMA and the U.S. National Guard to rely upon, they being in a developed country. Others are not as fortunate.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment is incredibly facetious. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Article is high quality and news sources are covering the story. There's no other criteria that are worth considering.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny, I looked at the World news page on BBC and saw Latifa, Mars, Myanmar, Iran, vaccines, fallen Alps hikers, Somalia, Pakistan, and then Ted Cruz. Hardly headlining.  New sources are also covering a dog which won a medal and Harry & Meghan not returning to the Royal Family.  Other criteria certainly need consideration otherwise we'd just be a Trump/Kardashian ticker, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , While your observations are amusing, they're not really adding to the discourse. Instead: on the BBC News front page right next to a Ted Cruz headline is a video story with the caption: "He's 92 so we wrapped him tight like mummy. Like so many desperate Texans, Henry is struggling to stay warm without power." So yes, this issue is serious, globally covered, and not just about melting snow to make drinking water. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You made my point perfectly. It's something like the 12th story and well down on Meghan and Harry. Per Jayron, we should be posting Meghan and Harry, right?  And honestly, if you can't contextualise this bit of snow with Covid still killing, what, 2,500 Americans per day, there's little hope.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support but as before, would prefer a broader article also covering the storms in other countries. Banedon (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. At this point, it's a bygone, but it seems once again that ITN/C can't free itself of the seemingly irresistible impulse of systemic bias. Fact: Winter storms of this magnitude happen with considerable regularity and frequency, and we had similar events which occurred in the U.S. in 2015 and 2016 which we did not post. Fact: As TRM pointed out, this event is getting limited coverage on websites and news sources outside the U.S., which would make sense because a similar event in England also did not get posted. Fact: We have some very enthusiastic editors in the weather space here. That's great. But we need to avail ourselves to avoid hyperbole and viewing events in the political space as more important than they actually are. "Apocalyptic"? Seriously?? And who really gives a shit whether or not Ted Cruz took a vacation? That has no bearing on the newsworthiness of the event as a whole, nor does Greg Abbott's insipid attacks against renewable energy. I'm not one to call for a story to be pulled, but anyone who thinks that ITN is far-removed from the days of U.S. systemic bias is truly, truly mistaken.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As the article itself mentions, this storm isn't just affecting the U.S. but Canada and Mexico as well. Additionally, you must agree as we all do that at some level of severity, an extremely localized event (i.e. a meteor vaporizes Texas) is worthy of posting regardless of the lack of "international impact," even though you may personally disagree over whether this event crosses that threshold of severity. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is ludicrous. A meteor has not vaporized Texas. Of course if an event of that magnitude happened, it would be posted, because that would entail the deaths of over 28 million people.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware it's ludicrous. For argument's sake, I chose the most extreme example I could think of that obviously you would support, just so you would admit that at some level, you would accept a region-centric story making it to ITN. Obviously this story is not tantamount to that, nor did I imply it was, but at least we agree on something: at some scale, "international significance" does not need to exist for a story to still be noteworthy around the world. For me and several others, this story is past that point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to comment on this last night but figured would wait to see if it happened, and it did: From nomination to posting was 4 hours, all within the US nighttime period, about a US-centric story. As soon as Europe woke up, we got the opposes that would have been expected if more time was appropriately given to discussion before posting given the time factors. Admins have to be acutely aware that breaking stories specific to a region (for Europe, early in European time, or for US, late night US time) probably should be given a few more hours of discussion until the other sie of the world has time to consider if the topic is too regionally focus to post. --M asem (t) 13:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, utterly predictable, as is the slew of supports now the US is awake once again. Bias with your soup sir? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose – Old news, being superseded by gradual recovery from storm. Renomination seems to reflect personal situations rather than wider significance. Suggest this rather flabby blurb be pulled. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: This user recommends that all-caps words not be used, as they actually detract from points being asserted by calling attention to typographical gimmickry. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * BUT FIVE MILLION PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT POWER, SCA.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That estimate is outdated. Today's Dallas paper says "substantial amount of power to be restored by Friday evening." – Sca (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - It was a loose-consensus at the time of posting, but now that the day has started in Europe/US, that consensus has held, and then some. Folks need to remember that whether something is "news" is always relative to how it deviates from the norm and whether it's in the public interest. So "people die every winter" is not a useful argument. Also, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments here are largely irrelevant - "how about when it happened in year X to region Y" or "there are millions without water living in Z." That's never been, nor should it be, the criteria here for judging whether it's on the front page. The fact is these types of catastrophic energy and infrastructure failures (power, water, transportation, food) are not common to Texas and contrary to statements above, are not "every winter." And the fact is, the conditions continue to be a threat for several more days ("Nearly half of Texans remain under boil-water advisories as water scarcity and freezing temperatures continue" ) so this will continue to be in the news, perhaps even more so. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Far from "old news" the story is still very much in progress. We regularly post major hurricanes to ITN, and this winter storm is much more unusual, particularly in terms of the area that has suffered major damage, from Oregon to Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and even North Carolina. There's already been international impact too, with Texas cutting off natural gas supplies to Mexico, threatening Mexico's electricity production.. Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and honestly, some of the opposers here need to get some perspective. TRM cracks jokes at the expense of American dead, but he can't stop pumping when those killed are his countryman (11 comments for 11 dead!). Walt reminds us that similar events have not been posted, and provides links to events with a fraction of the causalities. Yes, there are places on Earth with limited access to water, and places where it gets very cold and there is limited or no power to produce heat. But suddenly thrusting these conditions upon a massive population without the experience or preparation to deal with them has proven catastrophic and (JFC, I can't believe I have to say this) newsworthy.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not mocking the dead, simply putting this into a global perspective. Oh and are you attempting to compare some snow with a terror attack, I'm not sure... Give over. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. What's the point of ITN if items like this don't get posted. -- Calidum  14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Automatically blurbing exhilarating kayaking races watch by the world over with no discussions? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ali Sadpara

 * RD only K2's lead says Of the five highest mountains in the world, K2 is the deadliest; approximately one person dies on the mountain for every four who reach the summit, which makes me think it's not so unusual for someone to die trying to climb it. Quality is not so great. It needs some reorganization into more sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure there is a source somewhere for the list of mountains he's climbed, which appears to be the only thing in the article that really still needs a cite. Would support RD once that is cited. Oppose blurb regardless per Muboshgu's rationale. Mlb96 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Messy article full of bare links and weird structuring, many missing citations as well. Gex4pls (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, support RD only He is don't really important. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Quite a hyped event since the start of expedition and after they went missing, it became even more worldwide. USaamo (t@lk) 03:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Improvement, not deletion is needed.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near a blurb, and the article is in terrible condition, tone issues, far too many inline external links, unreferenced claims etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Caused a bit of fuss amongst mountaineers and a trending topic in himalayan countries. But Oppose due to article conditions :( Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - If it were Mandela climbing the mountain, that'd be a different story. In all seriousness, per Muboshgu, it seems that deaths upon K2 are sadly frequent, and this would be an assumed risk for a mountaineer - a bit like cave diving, in that sense.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Sad, but a blurb would be overplaying an event that does not affect a significant number of people. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Not a case of WP:BLP1E, and the article reflects that and is otherwise in OK shape. Would also support RD for John Snorri Sigurjónsson if that article were in better condition. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much recentism in the lead. Details should be moved to the body, leaving a summary in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) NASA Mars 2020 (Perseverance)

 * Support Important event, probably 3/4 of the moon landing. Waiting for the live stream as I type this up. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support by precedent (previous Mars probes were posted about a week earlier), and off intrinsic significance. Comment: image of Perseverance rover in clean room may be replaced by images of Perseverance during Mars descent, or landed on the surface (if they ever get images of those). Osunpokeh (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the image, there's only one NASA craft going, so we're not going to have an external image of it in descent (any such image would be an artist's rendition). Yes, there will likely be a "selfie" once Percy is on the ground and tested operational, but that's not going to be today, probably. --M asem (t) 17:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly the Atlas V rocket have external cameras anywhere? Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, and articles appear to be in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Mars 2020 article is fine, but the Perseverance article has one uncited paragraph and a few uncited sentences, while the Ingenuity article has a tag and probably needs someone to do a quick pass over the article and update it. The last two articles are pretty close, though, so I don't think it should take long to fix these issues. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – after landing — Just one cn tag near the end of the Perseverance article, and the sentence it's attached to doesn't seem particularly necessary. – Sca (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Touchdown is successful. Will get to updating. --M asem (t) 20:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support landed and tweeting!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Touchdown has been confirmed! Strongly support, this needs to be on the front page. (Twistedaxe) 21:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wow, just saw it land. Applause in control room. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Percy already sent back some images (seen in the mission control room live feed) but not yet posted, so we may have those soon. --M asem (t) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First photo is here File:First photo from Perseverance Rover.jpg and will add that to the protection queue. --M asem (t) 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you change the photo from a vague nasa.gov to https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/25596/perseverance-rovers-first-image-from-mars/? The file is protected, so I can't do anything. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have admin rights at Commons but I left that link as a recommendation for the source link on its talk page there. --M asem (t) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought you were a Commons admin... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. The updates are as they are ... well ... landed. The rest of the article is good. --Tone 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * typo posted too....! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? :o --Tone 21:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep trying.... ;) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Seif Sharif Hamad

 * Oppose about half of it is unreferenced at this time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD; Blurb discussion closed) RD: Rush Limbaugh

 * Support: Definitely a major figure in American political discourse and media. It looks like we posted at the same time. For what it's worth, I think my source is a bit more reliable. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Came here to post as well. Article is in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added a blurb to the nom, which I support as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This guy was a pioneer in his field. I could easily get behind a blurb. The Image Editor (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is in sufficient shape, highly detailed, well written, definitely main page ready. There's no story to the death itself, however, that needs elaboration, so a simple RD link is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD - article is ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Discussion open for whether or not should be blurb.  Spencer T• C 17:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm going to be one of those "if Chuck Yeager/Little Richard didn't get a blurb, neither should this guy" guys. A mainstay of American politics, but I don't think blurb-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What, Little Richard did not get a blurb??? --- I'm not sure about a blurb for Rush Limbaugh. I see that he has a massive influence on American politics and knew his name, on the other hand I'm German and the English wikipedia should also take the the worldwide impact into consideration ― he is, somewhat like Hank Aaron, not really a household name in the rest of the world. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He (and Chuck Yeager) did not, kind of our opposite of Carrie Fischer (who did get one). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds somewhat bizarre. Little Richard was transformative and famous around the world. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we've made the wrong decision before doesn't mean we have to here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Even though I've grown to disagree with his Trump support, the fact he was a transformative figure in talk radio is unquestionable. rawmustard (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb close, but not quite at blurb worthy level in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb People are going to oppose this on ideological grounds, but he was absolutely transformative in his field, and it’s hard to argue that he wasn’t one of the most influential voices in American politics over the last three decades or so Spman (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is a really close one, and I'm sure there will be plenty of invalid reasoning brought up since he was so controversial. However I think that, despite a lasting impression in American politics, it's too narrow for a blurb; not to mention his illness was already widely publicized and this was more of an inevitability. Spengouli (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb From reading his article, apparently he only has a domestic influence. Not sufficient enough for an OBLURB (Obituary blurb), I expect OBLURB to have a bit of international influence. Sorry. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Important yes, but not rising to the level of a blurb IMO, although where that level is these days is anyone's guess. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super-weak oppose blurb for Limbaugh. Huge influence in American politics, but I don't think the pull is large enough such that he would be considered sufficiently transformative in that enormous field. Note that we did not, for example, blurb Don Imus. (We didn't post him either, but that was more due to quality issues).--WaltCip- (talk)  17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super-weak oppose = neutral? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. I don't know. I can be convinced either way. --WaltCip- (talk)  18:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb for the field of "political talk radio", clearly a leader in his field. A major player in American politics for 30 years. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb All of these opposes, why? He was absolutely transformative in his field, he was one of the most, if not, THE most influential voice of the 20th-21st century Republican Party, and he had the #1 radio show in America. Everyone who opposed, please keep all of these things in mind before opposing.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with those above regarding his political influence. However, his influence in the field of modern radio broadcasting (or whatever one wants to call it) is second to few if any. We tend to neglect this field: Art Bell did not even muster a blurb. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we call that a field though? If Howard Stern dies, on what basis does he get a blurb? Not disagreeing with you necessarily, just trying to feel out whether or not that's a field of expertise in context to ITN RD blurbs.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Broadcasters are ranked by listeners here and there is an award system. Social influence is also a factor. I would not consider Stern to be at the level of Limbaugh or Bell influence or listener wise; he merely achieved more popular celebrity. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're selling Stern a bit short. At his peak, his show had ~20 million weekly listeners, which is comparable to Limbaugh and exceeds Bell. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * King (as far as I know; my knowledge of radio is better than that of the various endeavors King took part in) or even Sanders (an unusually independent political figure for some time but with only points in the limelight) {mentioned below} were not at the top of their fields by numbers and a sustained notable influence for almost 3 decades. For worse or better, he drove a new path in his field. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Let's be honest and realistic, if Larry King didn't get a blurb less than a month ago, this should be a long shot under any normal circumstances. I don't see how he transformed any relevant field from what's written in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Older man dies after well-publicized terminal cancer diagnosis. He was influential, but was past his "prime" and was mostly domestic. I think we should be careful that blurbs don't become a retread of the old RD criteria. "Top of field? To blurbs with him!" Nohomersryan (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree that he was past his prime. He continued broadcasting right up until the day he died and drew record-breaking audiences. You and I both oppose a blurb, but at least don't use falsehoods to make your point.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was no longer successful; it's just a fact that conservative radio has ceded most of its ground to the Internet, which makes characters like Limbaugh less omnipresent than they used to be. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By that logic, would Jimmy Carter, someone who's done nothing but build houses for charity since the 1970s, not deserve a blurb? No one's at their prime when they die save a tragedy. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * My argument is that someone who might not have the resume for a blurb can be boosted to one if they're at the peak of the career or the death is a shock, neither of which I'd say apply to Limbaugh (while Carter is already blurbworthy because he was a globally known leader of a superpower). Though of course you're welcome to disagree. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not important enough to warrant a blurb, RD is enough. Many people are influential figures in their respective political parties, that doesn't make them transformative figures on a global scale. I would oppose blurbing Bernie Sanders as well, for instance. Mlb96 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with the underlying assumption I'm seeing a lot here that someone has to be internationally notable to warrant a blurb, so long as their influence within a specific nation is well-attested. (My thought on this are similar in principle to WP:BLP1E.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that most of these arguments are explicitly frowned upon at WP:ITNCRIT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. He was not a statesman or a politician but a cultural figure. In such a case for an ITN blurb I think we'd need to see some substantial evidence of international impact. It's unclear if we have that here. Reading the section Rush Limbaugh, it only discusses his domestic influence. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Not a fan at all, but he was probably the most influential figure in modern US politics never to hold an elective office. It is impossible to overstate his role in propelling the GOP from a center right party to the far right party it has become as well as the overall development of the take no prisoners climate in US politics since the 90's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said, and I concur (though I lean more on the mechanism, broadcasting, in my sentiment above than politics). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD, leaning support blurb. Definitely a high-level pioneer and a shaper of his field. BD2412  T 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He was at the top of his talk radio field.  Though he was ill, 70 is not that old and he was still working.331dot (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Flipping to support blurb. Reflecting on it some more, he was a stand-out in his field and at least had some significant pull in American politics in general, certainly in American conservative politics.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, per the obvious reasons given above. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please do not... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb If this was maybe 10 years ago, pre-Trump, then a blurb may have been reasonable (may not have been a key transformative figure but was a key personality and still at height of career), but there's no question that his siding with Trump and right-wing of the last few years tarnished his reputation that it is difficult to say he's considered a leader now and his past reputation has been lost, particularly compared to the recent death of Larry King. RD is sufficient. --M asem (t) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral on blurb No one was more instrumental in shaping modern day American conservatism than Rush Limbaugh. But is it enough to be the most influential political personality within one nation, even if it's the most powerful nation on Earth, or do we insist on international significance for death blurbs, which Limbaugh did not have? NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Very few things would be posted if international significance was required. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the "Please do not..." section near the top of this page. In particular #2 which states "...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Most of the opposes seem to run afoul of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm still neutral on the blurb, however, as we generally don't post as blurbs deaths of political figures who were never held the highest political office in their country.  Limbaugh would be the precedent if we were going to take this step, but I'll wait to see what the consensus says. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Important in American conservatism but that is not enough to warrant a blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not notable enough for one, died from old age related cancer. "He was controversial" and "appeared in Family Guy" are not suitable rationales.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:18AE:DA10:BFF6:644B (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has argued on the basis of either of those arguments. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb influential in a microcosm. RD is perfect for such an individual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for better or worse, he created the genre, or at least showed the profitability of talk radio. Stern may be the King of All Media, but Rush was the King of Talk Radio. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - RD is more than sufficient, not important enough for a blurb. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment post-close By my count, there are 11 blurb support votes and 15 blurb oppose votes. There is not at all a clear consensus to oppose and this discussion should not yet be closed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's 42–58, for those of you who like percentages. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need consensus to oppose, you need consensus to support. As User:Tone says, at this point that is very unlikely, and it's at risk of becoming a time sink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With the amount of replies here, and with how close the vote is, this could absolutely swing in the way of consensus for a blurb over the next few hours. I'm not saying that it will definitively, but I think ending the discussion here is premature. I certainly disagree with Tone's comment that "a consensus for a blurb is unlikely to develop"; I think it's too early to call that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter G. Davis

 * Support Short but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T• C 17:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. No other !votes/comments, but looks ready to me. Ping me if any issues. Best,  Spencer T• C 14:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carman (singer)
Nominator's comments: CCM Artist mostly popular in the 80s/90s. Article could still use some cleanup, but seems mostly good to me. I think this is the first ITN nom I've made. Killiondude (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Decent article and covers his life in full. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There some unsourced statements that will need references, and the discography needs references.  Spencer T• C 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe most of these have been taken care of now. Killiondude (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per NOTRSMUSIC, discogs.com - which is currently used to cite the whole discography - is not considered a reliable source since it has user-generated content. WikiProject Christian music/Sources has some suggested alternatives.  Spencer T• C 14:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the originator of that source, but have replaced it with a site listed in the latter page you referenced. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Looks like everything else checks out.  Spencer T• C 05:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jarnail Singh (doctor)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lew Krausse Jr.

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead verb updated to "was." – Sca (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert R. Glauber

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ángel Mangual

 * Support Article got improved satisly. Not an orphan. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Victor Ambrus

 * Oppose I think there's much more in there that needs citation beyond the three tags initially noted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gustavo Noboa

 * Oppose still tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed and sourced the article.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose He was president for 3 years, and there is just 1 sentence about what he achieve while in office ("Noboa's presidency was marked by attempts to revive the Ecuadorian economy, which was in a recession at the time, including the freeing of US$400 million worth of assets frozen by the previous government"). Insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 17:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. Article is way too light on details regarding his main claim to notability.  I would expect an article about a President of a country to have more than 3-4 sentences summarizing the entire three years of his presidency.  Woefully inadequate for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Joan Margarit

 * Oppose twelve hours after nom still tagged and rightly so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still tagged, missing lots of citations. Gex4pls (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020–21 North American winter

 * Oppose Winter storms in the US in Feb are common. --M asem (t) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Damaging winter storms are not unusual. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose just looking at Template:United States winter storms, there's been 6 notable snow storms in 6 weeks this year, and snow in N America in winter is not ITN worthy. Also, strong oppose on current article quality- three sections listed as needing expansion, 2 of which have zero text content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not man-bites-dog worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, no weak puns about SNOW when this is inevitably closed.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-opened 40 minutes is a bit fast. This storm is sufficiently unusual to merit consideration. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The US is huge, you can't just write off any many of weather as "common". This storm made it's way into Texas which is under it's first winter storm warning ever as well as Northern Mexico. The North East would write this off as "meh" but this is rare for the south. As for the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, the United States is a powerful first world nation it makes sense that even an unusual weather event would have a low death toll when compared to the deaths from routine monsoons in developing countries (which we post with near clock-like precision). Anyway, weak support because the article itself is still "meh" but a paragraph about the impact to Mexico would put it over the top for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop linking to a nonexistent policy? This can confuse people unfamiliar with things here. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose a bit chilly here too. Down to minus 11 (Celsius) a week or so back.  Brrr.  Put a jumper/jersey on. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing particularly significant from a world perspective. --IWI (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-close comment: This might need another look, given that the extreme weather events are also affecting places like Moscow and Greece . It would need a different, broader target article however, and I'm not aware of an appropriate target. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , concur. If a global article is written, it may be newsworthy. Local Texas news are much less so.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yusriansyah Syarkawi

 * Weak oppose As with many politician articles at RD, article is mostly a resume in prose format without much depth of coverage about what the subject accomplished in those roles.  Spencer T• C 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I expanded and nominated three RDs on the same day, so please wait for a moment. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Your suggestion should've been more appropriate in say, a peer review or a GA nomination, but each to their own I guess. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. RDs should provide a good view of what individuals achieved, no-one is expecting a GA here, but more than just a CV. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support My apologies if I came off a bit harsh in my initial assessment, but the nom was marked as "article updated". I was just noting that this tends to be a trend with many articles nominated at ITN/C (not specific to you): Kadir Topbaş nom, Maaher At-Thuwailibi nom, Bukhari Daud nom, Billy Conigliaro nom, Peter T. Fay nom, among many others. I am not requiring GA status, but how I interpret "articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items" (per In_the_news) is that it should have more depth than a CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 17:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've made the ITNC RD as my living quarter in Wikipedia, so I'm open to any criticism. I should've been the one to apologize for my GA nom remarks. I've abandoned a ton of draft articles in my sandbox in favor RDs, so you could see that I spend a considerable time for RDs. And to be honest, non-politician RD noms are halfhearted noms from me, I rarely do any expansions except citing the sentences... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael


 * Oppose once again no source is included in the nomination, and once again the article is effectively an orphan not linked by anything other than the list of deaths article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done – linked to his regency of origin. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arne Sorenson (hotel executive)

 * Comment The bit about Trump seems very WP:UNDUE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but the Trump letter paragraph needs a serious summarising (if not excising completely). Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit about Trump, after taking the above comments into account, removed. Too bad I forgot in the edit summary that this was RD, but any case the point stands that it sounded more like an extended quote "setting out an agenda for a potential political candidate" than encyclopedic content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unrelatedly, the article is still pretty short and does not currently cover any of Sorenson's previous jobs or what happened while he worked at Marriott, so I don't feel this is ready for RD right now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it is alright with folks, I will work on this article later tonight. Needs some work. Edits and expansion done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. I will check in ~3 hours for any additional changes if folks want. But, article is good to go to homepage in the current state. Ktin (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC) RIP. A life gone too soon at 62. Prayers for the family and friends. Ktin (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jan Sokol

 * Weak support a bit "CV in prose" but not terrible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose After reading the article, it's not exactly clear what the subject's contributions to the field of philosophy are.  Spencer T• C 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Lévesque

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the short side, but good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andréa Guiot

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jalaluddin Rakhmat

 * Comment essentially an orphan, just listed under two "deaths" articles. If this person is notable, there should be other Wikipedia articles in the mainspace from which it can be linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done – linked to his alma mater and former organization. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gideon Meir

 *  Weak oppose  aside from the "On 24 November 2019, Meir wrote on Twitter..." para, it's a list of positions he held, nothing much more. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more sentences about what he did. Hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala becomes the Director-General of the World Trade Organization

 * Is she the first female to hold the office? I think that deserves to be mentioned too. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Good article, she is the first woman and African to hold the role, and there is a precedent for posting appointments to this position. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, article looks like it's in good condition and I concur with Joofjoof BlackholeWA on precedent.Osunpokeh (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Vincent Jackson

 * Oppose Several seasons completely unsourced. I understand this was just announced, though, so hopefully this can get cleaned up and I can change to support. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with AllegedlyHuman. There are several unsourced sections that need to be addressed before posting here. TJMSmith (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and, I have added citations to places where they were lacking. If there any other places that need referencing, I'd appreciate if you could tag them for me. Thanks!  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added tags to claims I noticed were unsourced. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Pacheco

 * Comment: Close but needs some referencing. Additionally, Johnny_Pacheco is too closely paraphrased to ref 13 and definitely is bordering on being a copyvio, so that needs a re-write.  Spencer T• C 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on top of possible copyvio, above, there are several citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support citations added. Let me know if you want anything else. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten paraphrased material, so the Earwig report looks better now. Joofjoof (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ready. Jusdafax (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James L. Nagle

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syarifudin Tippe

 * Comment essentially an orphan. And we do need sources in the nominations from reliable sources verifying his death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done – linked to his almamater. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Referenced; adequate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 17:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zachary Wohlman

 * Comment Welterweight boxer. Went by "Kid Yamaka" due to his Jewish faith. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Kind of short but it checks all of the boxes. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Macpherson (judge)

 * Support looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to touch on everything I would expect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Catalan regional election

 * Comment. Catalonia is not a state in dispute (strictly), nor a dependent territory. The elections are very significant due to the institutional crisis with Madrid and with historical results (I am a Catalan socialist, so it has been a good night), but due to their status as regionals I do not know if it have the possibility of being in ITN. the context is not the same as in 2017. It will be an interesting debate. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that the information as written above is all correct? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the info in the blurb? Yes, all is correct. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support An interesting election. I'm not too familiar with Catalan politics, but the sources seem to agree that the nationalist parties (ERC, JxCat, CUP) gained seats and thus it will be very difficult for PSC to form a government. The outcome of the government formation will have important ramifications for the future of the independence movement. Davey2116 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there's about four sentences of unsourced text on Salvador Illa. 2021 Catalan regional election looks fine for sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important election, would decide the fate of Catalonia for the next four years. And with the victory of pro-Catalan independence parties the region's future will sure be interesting again. And they even have Vox's arch nemesis! Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Four years? Very optimistic! Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sub-national election. Catalonia is neither a disputed state nor a dependent territory. We don't post the elections of e.g. Uttar Pradesh, California, Flanders or Scotland, which have similar levels of autonomy. Iff this leads to an independence referendum we can post then; sub-national elections are not suitable for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - why should a regional election be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose regional election and no real surprise that pro-independence parties won a majority of the seats. We'll post the referendum if it happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. CoryGlee (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Local elections are not significant events. STSC (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not clear on if this is good for the pro-independence side or bad; they seem to have won the most seats collectively but the other side seems to have a better shot at forming a government? 331dot (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Regional. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Treat this like an election to the Texas state house. If they secede again, then it's world news (and I mean this in the case of Catalonia and Texas). Additionally, we don't yet know if the new regional government will be made of separatist parties at all, which is all very confusing given that the blurb says a pro-union party "won" and pictures its leader Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. If Catalonia secedes, that's main page worthy. If it isn't, it's no more appropriate than would be blurbing the results of local elections in Scotland, Padania, Quebec, Flanders, or any other region where separatist parties regularly win elections at the regional level. &#8209; Iridescent 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pat Russell

 * Weak support I'm not mad keen on the structuring of the article, with bullet points instead of prose, but what's there appears to be ok and referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New world record in speed skating

 * Comment I have suggested an altblurb. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment stub BLP, would require significant work to get it on the Main Page. Would List of world records in speed skating be better or is this one of those topics that requires the person to be posted as bold?130.233.213.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I wouldn't expect to see this in the top 1000 news stories of the year, I think it's much better suited to DYK, especially if the BLP stub was expanded to the minimum required quality. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting sports records being broken. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There might be a few records being broken that merit posting, such as the 100 meters run, but I don't think the level of interest in this world record merits posting.  331dot (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post most world records, as they're not generally the biggest news. And both articles are tiny stubs, so would be an oppose on quality too. I agree DYK would be good venue, if the articles get over 1,500 characters. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment we post all manner of soccer records, I think we did some for athletics. Let's not rush to close this, and instead see how the article improves. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So this record stood for a year and was broken by less than one second in more than 12 minutes, so an increment of, what, 0.01%? This wouldn't make the top 10,000 news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't recall right now even one soccer record being posted. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. Not cricket. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean "not canoeing", right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've posted records of the greatest sport on Earth. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any time you want to get your squidger nom out, I'll be sure to give it a wink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: W. J. M. Lokubandara

 * Comment: Could use some more depth in the political career section about what he did in those roles.  Spencer T• C 22:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support could use more depth but for me passes the minimum threshold for RD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Covid. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Mountjoy

 * Comment CNs remain, but the tag from 2012 seems resolved. Ref. 6 is not suitable, but is presumably a placeholder for now.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. Too many unreferenced claims here. Perhaps  might be interested to help?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was on my list - not sure I have the time to dedicate to it. I'll give it a go if I find an hour or two to fix it up. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hows that ? If this does make the mainpage, I will claim cup points Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Decent, just needs one last [citation needed] to be fixed I think. No need to make the Wikicup disclaimer, we assume good faith here, it's only FAC that doesn't. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You edit conflicted me adding it! It's in now, I'll potentially fix this up at a later date for GAN. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Only thing: where are all the career finals referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Much like the results table, I suppose to the articles themselves. I didn't quite have chance to cite this, but I'll get on it as soon as I can. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have cited the career's finals . Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems well referenced now. Many fellow snooker players have paid tirbutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Need some umbrella references for the ranking, performance and finals sections. Stephen 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly umbrella references don't exist for this (unless you fancy the blacklisted cuetracker.net!) I've cited the career finals, but generally we cross-cite these sections to the articles themselves. It's an ongoing issue, but not one I have a solution to. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Marking ready unless I've missed some horrible sourcing gap? (great work by the way). Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Enrique Rodríguez Galindo

 * Oppose for now. I have gone through only half the article, and there are a number of sourcing issues. At the very least, the text in the article contains more facts than in the sources, thus requiring more sources. – robertsky (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I deleted the unsourced info. Can't find any reliable sources. Is now ready? Regards. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no. Additional cn and fv tags placed with my reasons. I am not going through further for now, but I am assuming that the rest of the page has similar issues. Additionally, it seems that part of the text seems to be machine translated from the Spanish wiki? I run Google Translate on the Spanish wiki and it shows similarity to some of the text in the English article. – robertsky (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with that lots of this looks like a rough/machine translations. There are many sentences that are confusing, and mixup of tenses between past and present tense, which is the sort of thing you'd expect from a machine translation. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Carlos Menem

 * Support GA – not much discussion needed. Let's get this through ASAP. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a ten-year head of state and member of the Argentine Senate until his death, he might deserve a blurb as well. Would support one, personally. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added a blurb and a photo. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing a prose update covering his death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for the catch. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, in the rush, everybody seemed to forget that, the little known about his fresh recent death has been added. CoryGlee (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the last foreign honour to reference. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hi friend, could you check now please? It's been sourced in Spanish. The article explains why the Order is considered racist after the George Floyd killing and cites (I put in quote) the Latin American leaders awarded the Order, among them Menem. CoryGlee (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, just need to pick which El Comercio it is in that source. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I just added it's El Comercio from Perú. CoryGlee (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb good to go to RD while discussion continues on blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Pretty decent article and the concerns noted above have been addressed JW 1961   Talk  15:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support GA, and death info has now been added. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is clear given his rule as President of Argentina, it should be a sufficient to be posted as blurb. He has credited to the involvement to control inflation. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a clear-cut case. He was the most notable and influentual Argentine president after Juan Perón, remembered for his efforts in conceiving economic policies aimed at tackling the harsh stagflation from the 1980s. His BONEX plan, peso-to-dollar peg and railway privatisation have found place as real-world examples in many recent textbooks on public finance and macroeconomics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Kiril Simeonovski. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD whilst discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi all, I don't know if as add to all the info by it is important, but Menem made Argentina major non-NATO ally in 1998 for Argentina's participation in the Gulf War. Cheers. CoryGlee (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per several above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – no blurb — No longer widely known internationally. (Frail, sick old person dies at 90.) – Sca (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you that you're misapplying that cliché. He held a public office at the time of his death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tenure as president ended more than 20 years ago. – Sca (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Menem was serving his third term as a Senator from La Rioja, winning his latest election in 2017. Joofjoof (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb futile as it is to do so per NOTMANDELA --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy. That's an essay you created. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. And it would be more proper if you use based on my ... criteria rather than per ... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Former longtime G20 president. Conducted various internal reforms and entered textbooks. Plus Menem is a level-5 vital article, so importance checks out. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to blurb as he fell of RD Stephen 00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , is it possible to put an image for the blurb? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb support I'll reiterate my stance that by nature of their importance, the death of a former elected head of state (not gov't) of the G20 countries should be blurbed, all other criteria assumed being met (quality, etc.) --M asem (t) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably we should have an ITN/R for that? G20 deaths? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconding this idea. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd pay to see an ITN/C discussion on Trump's death and will bet on someone screaming "Trump ticker!" Howard the Duck (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would be the last Trump story someone nominated... right? ...right? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And probably someone making a WP:NOTTRUMP essay. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted)RD: Kadir Topbaş

 * Oppose several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * now fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added sources to unreferenced parts of the article., I'd appreciate if you could re-evaluate. I am also adding the article's updaters to the nomination. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As with many politician articles nominated at RD, Kadir_Topbaş is mostly a list of positions without a description of what he accomplished in those positions; a resume in prose format at present.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added 4 sentences about what happened during his mayoral term. Hope it's satisfactory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While his resignation had interesting drama, the article still lacks much information about what he accomplished in his 13-year mayoral career (all that is in there at present is "Topbaş vetoed five proposed municipal zoning plan changes").  Spencer T• C 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Still not a lot there but meets minimum standards. I presume the limitation is availability of English-language information.  Spencer T• C 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Ridgeway

 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Fukushima earthquake

 * Oppose in the absence of any serious damage. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is Japan. The country is literally made against earthquakes. I've seen the footage from the earthquake, and it looks like another Saturday morning with broken glasses. No important effect caused by the earthquake. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose absent large amounts of casualties and damage, which even with a 7.1 earthquake is rare in Japan. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. A seismic event, for once of scant significance to humankind. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no major impact. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuri Vlasov

 * Support. The article seems reasonable and fairly well sourced but could use a copy-edit if possible. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:DENY- the nominating IP has been blocked for WP:BLOCKEVASION. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see why that's worth informing other editors about, but so long as the article legitimately meets WP:ITNCRIT, I don't see the harm in considering the nomination in good faith. Also note that this IP user, nor any of their previous accounts, has made no edits to the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The harm of putting an article updated by a sockpuppet/block evader on the front page is that it encourages block evaders to come back and edit. So we should deny them the recognition. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, this user did not update or even edit the page whatsoever. (Generally, though, I would still disagree with your point per the reasons I articulated above.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake, yes WP:DENY doesn't apply if they haven't edited it (I mistakenly thought they were updater rather than nominator). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality with a few unsourced paragraphs, but WP:DENY doesn't apply here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you tag these unsourced paragraphs please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality too much unsourced content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and comment The article is a well structured topically rounded BLP. I have spot checked several sources and everything is fine. I'm unsure what else could be added, because none of the above oppose !votes have tagged anything. If none can raise a definite issue with the article, I think this should go up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a few paragraphs whose last sentence(s) are unsourced, but the paragraphs themselves seem to have sources earlier. I'll hold off on posting to allow a little more time for further discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Trump acquitted

 * Oppose per issues of neutrality and lack of citations at the end of some paragraphs... support once that is fixed. <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 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on principle but wait until the article is updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I added the altblurb about this so the blurb now refers to Donald Trump as "former President" instead of "President" as the latter now in office is held by Joe Biden., you can feel free to update the blurb. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle if that was the only article of impeachment. I assume the impeachment is now over. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is indeed. The second time around, only one article was adopted by the house, as opposed to the two they adopted the first time. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The acquittal changes nothing and he can run for president in the next election. I'd have supported this had he been convicted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what impact does this have on the world or even on the United States? Let the dead horse lie. I don't feel as if anything but the capital riots themselves will have any sort of long-term impact. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose status quo maintained and we all knew this was the guaranteed outcome. Ding ding, next!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We all know you wrote "publish the outcome" four days ago, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah you again. Yes, that's right, as did many others, but hey, life's full of surprises, not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Others said they'd wait and see, you were the most demanding. Not knocking you. Life's just funny! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "you were the most demanding"!!! Seriously.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sentence was the most straightforwardly imperative, I mean, literally. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not important event yet as the acquittal is expected. 116.206.35.20 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the trial was compelling, some of the 7 R's who voted to convict are interesting, but ultimately this is just a prologue in the sad tragedy that was the Trump administration. I'll support when the DOJ is done with him and he's sentenced to ADX Florence. It's probably time to close this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, we typically only post the election of a new president for other countries (as far as presidential matters are concerned), so it would be inappropriate to post this since we wouldn't do it for any other country. We must constantly be vigilant to avoid US bias. Secondly, the result was expected and has no broader political impact, nationally or internationally. Perhaps a conviction would have merited an item here. --Tataral (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we've posted the impeachments of several other presidents: Dilma Rouseff of Brazil, Park Geun-hye of South Korea, the presidents of Peru who were impeached, and the two Trump impeachments. (Can anybody check if we posted both the impeachment and the sentencing?) All of those, except for Trump's, led to their removal of office. We've also posted impeachments that caused removals of non-presidents: Renato Corona of the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. "American bias" is the flat earth of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have we posted to ITN any acquittals (whether of impeachment or not)? Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support For the unusual nature of a now former President being impeached and tried, makes it news worthy. --AXEdits (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support While I would be the first in line to warn ITN off being the Trump newsticker (or AMPol newsticker) and that while this result itself was mostly expected, we're still talking about a world leader having gone through a trial about crimes done by their person at a national level and had a judgement handed down. Take out "Trump" and "US" and we would be posting this if it was anyone else. --M asem (t) 23:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The completion of a trial of the leader of a country is ITN-worthy. Article has a few empty sections that should be filled out, but quality is fine overall. (But as usual, people always forget to mention "2021" at the start of sections.) Should be the last Trump blurb on ITN at least (unless he's arrested or something). <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, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Status quo maintained plus he is already out office.  So removal was moot. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If he was convicted, he would have lost ex-president priveledges and would have been prevented from running from president again. The case was not without a moot result just because Trump was no longer president. (that was the exercise of the vote on the first day of the trial.) --M asem (t) 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a political event with substantial ramifications for the next election and beyond. BD2412  T 23:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is obviously historic/significant. 98.116.113.193 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. By the logic of some of the above !opposes, any acquittal would not merit posting, which makes no sense. Davey2116 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, considering the wall-to-wall coverage of the case. Top story in many outlets at the moment, including outside the US. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As an updater for the blurb, i believe that any results of the impeachment trial regardless conviction or acquittal is don't necessary, as long as it remains have historic and significant impact for the United States politics and around the world as he is the first former president to be tried in Senate. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Think this is too U.S.-centric, not globally notable enough. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool, could you just show me the part in the WP:ITN criteria that requires a story be "globally notable"? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose No one cares about this except Americans. CompactSpacez (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * International news coverage would seem to suggest otherwise. BD2412  T 02:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Largely per Masem. This clearly has global significance and is being covered all over the globe as such. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support precisely because it is "in the news"—prominently—of countries this purportedly has no impact on e.g. The Independent, which is leading with "Senators clear Trump of inciting insurrection after historic second impeachment trial". But sure, ignore the WP:WEIGHT of sources with the typical wave of systemic not-U.S. bias. We post re-elections of heads of states where the outcome was expected and "nothing changed". Yeah, this is conveniently "different". Except I think there was some fleeting hope that democracy was going to prevail; that task is now left to history, which ITN can help frame.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support C'mon, we've just posted the election of a country less populous than Bethesda, Maryland. The impeachment trial of a US president will be the subject of intense analysis for years to come. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support No one wants ITN to become a Trump-ticker, but this is just the fourth impeachment trial of a US president in American history, none of which resulted in convictions, and we now have a conclusion to post about. This is headline news around the world.  I think it meets the bar of notability.   And a quick skim through the article suggests that it is high enough quality to post on ITN as well. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Foregone conclusion of an exercise in political theatre.  There will be follow-on criminal investigations and civil litigation that will carry on for years.  We should avoid fixating on this until something conclusive happens. Jehochman Talk 03:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There have been only four U.S. presidential impeachments in history (the trial of one of which we posted, and surely had Wikipedia been around during the Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton presidencies we would have posted those as well), and as notes, Wikipedia has posted impeachments of other political figures around the world as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly a more historic moment, with more international impact, than another Super Bowl taking place, which was included ITN by default. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If an event will be mentioned in history textbooks, that's probably a good indicator it deserves a spot on ITN. This will be in every U.S. history textbook. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No effect on a wider scale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump can now run for president in 2024. Lord knows what kind of damage he and his emboldened cult will cause. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, widely covered in international news. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, we had widely discussed that we would blurb his acquittal or conviction early on. Given the historic nature of the event, it should absolutely be blurbed. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Now what? He's just a commoner. It isn't significant enough for ITN. STSC (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Bush Sr. also a commoner when he died and we blurbed his passing? 45.251.33.57 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As was Hank Aaron, who we blurbed not even a month ago. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Since the initial impeachment was posted, this should logically follow. Those opposing should have raised the issue then Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Gotitbro, Tavix, Masem and Bagumba. 45.251.33.57 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, historically significant. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would have supported if he had been convicted, but 'potentially interesting thing doesn't happen' isn't enough for an ITN blurb IMO. Both sides got their opportunity to grandstand in the media, nothing actually happened. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet regardless this, conviction or acquittal doesn't necessary an thing, as long as the historic trial receive significant international coverage. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Posts running 19-11 in favor. I'm undecided: historic to a degree and widely covered, but wholly predictable and expected given the numbers; of mere passing interest outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I honestly don't know. On one hand, it's undoubtedly major national news in the United States. On the other hand, ITN has prided itself on not being the "Trump ticker" and not giving in to U.S. bias. There are valid reasons both for posting and for not posting, as well as downsides to doing either. Definitely a catch-22.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we want to post this we should point out the majority voted to convict, but the vote failed because it did not reach the required two-thirds majority. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They can read that in the article - hopefully high in the article. – Sca (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be considered POV. When the law clearly calls for requiring a 2/3 majority to convict, pointing out the presence of a simple majority would seem to be a distraction from the ultimate outcome. --WaltCip- (talk)  16:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, then let’s just state the vote as in altblurb2. That way the reader can see how close conviction was or wasn’t. A phrase like “votes to acquit” is misleading to a reader who doesn’t understand the mechanics. We could say “is acquired when the Senate fails to reach a 2/3 majority”. I think the supermajority is a critical point to include for our readers. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - A US president that is basically given an OK for starting domestic terrorism is notable and historic.BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been a lively debate, and both supporters and opposers have good points, and while I did previously !vote on this, I still believe that this has consensus to post given that the supporters outnumber the opposers approximately 2:1 excluding my !vote, which is a good ratio to have after quite a while of vigorous discussion. Jehochman has a fair point in the mechanics of the vote; we do not post specific numbers on ITN, and I don't think the majority voting to convict is relevant enough for the blurb given the ultimate outcome, so I simply put "is acquitted" to avoid confusion/POV. Any discussion on the blurb itself goes to WP:ERRORS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting opinion, I think ITN is becoming too, way too US-centric. Just an opinion, don't jump on me please. CoryGlee (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Time flies too fast. Just some weeks ago, people at WT:ITN were complaining there were too many typhoon blurbs. The Philippines was blasted by five in one month, and were pushing for WP:ITNR levels of 100 WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS for typhoons. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the English Wikipedia, and America is by far the largest English-speaking nation by population. The fact that world events are covered as much as they are, in fact, I would say is a testament to our fight against systemic bias. I agree that there's still some way to go, however. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the guidelines says anything about "global importance" or "systemic bias", we have a specific guideline against opposing items because they only relate to one country, and if you want to fight your perceived issue of bias, get articles about other countries up to scratch instead of trying to suppress stories from the one country which you believe is over represented. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don't like that the successful posting of a nom on ITN verges on whether or not there is a majority of supports to opposes. Putting a "!" in front of "vote" doesn't hide that inconvenient truth.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Counting is part of the process, WaltCip, as is weighing the arguments. There were no procedural opposes, nothing really compelling in the supports or opposes so yeah, a count gets to be a factor. I opposed it too, but I don't see posting it as a sign of some underlying defect with ITN (that is exposed by the awful articles which fester in ongoing for months on end) --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment First (to get that out of the way) it is definitely in the worldwide news. Apart from that, assessing newsworthiness here requires thinking about why this event is seen by so many worldwide outlets as front page material: notwithstanding that the verdict was predictable, notwithstanding the amount of press related subjects have already been given. I leave to your discretion just how relevant the U.S. is these days as a leader and symbol of worldwide democracy. Instead, I will simply point out that impeachment is not just another "ticker tape / dead horse" item. After all, it is supposed to be the ultimate sanction at U.S. leadership levels. It has only been used successfully four times in U.S. presidential history: so not exactly everyday stuff here, even if the past three decades seem to suggest otherwise. When it was conceived, there was no such thing as political parties; but partisan politics has been a significant factor each time it has been invoked. This is actually the least partisan impeachment vote in the U.S. ever. Thus, personally, I do support the "fails to meet the 2/3" suggestion as relevant; but I think the acquittal relevant to post with or without it. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Leader of culture, sure, but leader of democracy, absolutely not. Agree with the rest though. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Last chance to sell newspapers with Trump on the front for a few years. Hopefully last time this orange peril makes Wikipedia's main page for a few years.  We fought hard to keep this becoming a Trump ticker, but in the end, even he won.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on what kind of newspapers we're talking about. (And BTW, what's a 'newspaper' anyway?) – Sca (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful who I'd say "he won" around... /s AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this not "extended content"? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh come now, we'll all welcome "Former US president Donald Trump is sentenced to 75 years at USP Marion for crimes committed while in office". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alberto Oliart

 * Weak support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been improving his article this afternoon and evening. Take a look to see if we can get "strong" support ;). Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The article could use a copy-edit, but seems adequate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Attention required The article seems to be ready for hours. Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2021 Myanmar protests

 * Support Very strong article documenting in depth what's happening on the ground with sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait I'm still running the content diff. A one line update on the 12th lacks specifics and has grammar issues. Another thin edit from the 11th claims police were firing "live" bullets which is not supported by the ref. Usual WP:RGW protest article, sadly. Since these protests will never actually end, we should wait for some "blurb worthy" event in the 2021 Myanmar Coup to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * content diff to present. POV comments like "pro-military instigators". Not suitable for main page, IMO. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL "probably live ammunition" this article is rubbish. No "new, pertinent information" added since this nom was opened. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Some current coverage.   – Sca (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good to go. And this is definitely within Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's very unlikely the protests will last very long. STSC (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb only; oppose ongoing at this time. Let's post the item as a blurb, since the protests themselves have not been covered on ITN. At that point when the article is about to age off, we can see whether or not the article is meeting Ongoing criteria. These protests articles frequently appear on Ongoing way too long when perhaps a blurb would be more fitting (and indeed, in a time before ongoing, an item like this would have been easily considered for a blurb).  Spencer T• C 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per BabbQ. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or ongoing, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. This is directly borne out of 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, which had an earlier blurb. I see this as a continuation of that blurb even though it was not stated in that blurb. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you link to the edit in the target article where that new, pertinent information was added? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. it's a trick question. Whether or not the event is ongoing is irrelevant, is the article still receiving high quality updates?  Is it?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support when the blurb rolls off the list. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 00:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sinyo Harry Sarundajang

 * Comment: A lot of unsourced positions in the infobox. Limited information about what he accomplished in his political roles.  Spencer T• C 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is not ready yet, just contains personal life and career section which are not complete. Hanamanteo (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, two North Sulawesi article authors, to see if they could improve the Governor section. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi and, I think you might check it again. For those who wanted to see an English source, see . As for , quoting from the aforementioned source: However, there is no further explanation regarding the cause of the death of the man who is often called Sinyo. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks ok to me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Nice improvement and expansion. Article tripled in size since my original comment.  Spencer T• C 17:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Italian government

 * Weak oppose If possible, I'd like to see some political background to this beyond the charts and the lead in this article, like what I see at Conte I Cabinet or Conte II Cabinet. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Support as this has now been added. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Pinging and who are the main contributors to the Draghi cabinet article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Was this really a "political crisis"? Italy has had 67 governments since WWII, and as I understand it the resignation of the last government was strategic, to get this result.  Not saying I oppose this, just questioning the characterization. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As it always happens with a government change in a major country, I think we should include it. I’m Italian, maybe I’m a bit biased, but I support Ritchie92’s proposal. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Italy? Political crisis?  Routine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – New head of govt. Crisis over. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per ITNR . STSC (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Support per ITNR" is not required, as that's the whole point of the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Overall the article seems OK in terms of quality and update. STSC (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support it's a change of Prime Minister, which is ITNR, even if Italy does this all the time. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – While I agree that unfortunately Italy does change their head of government too much, the news itself is worth a mention since this is a national unity cabinet. My two cents. Broncoviz (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The header is referring to the government, the bolded item in the example sentence is Draghi. Can we have some kind of statement on which article we should be looking at here? Support either option: Both are well sourced. Italy changes its government regularly, but it is still a G7 country and changes to its head of government are important. The national unity government/grand coalition aspect makes this less usual as well Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure what is better in these cases: if we need to make the government bold then the sentence should be slightly restructured. An option would be:
 * Mario Draghi (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Italy, leading a national unity government after the resignation of Giuseppe Conte.
 * What about this? --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this one. Ready to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment What about Following the resignation of Giuseppe Conte, Mario Draghi is sworn in as Prime Minister of Italy and forms a new government. ? As mentioned above, the resignation was a strategic one. --Tone 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per ITNR, any succession of head of state. --Pithon314 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PM is head of government, not state, though ITNR still applies. ITNR items do not need support on the merits, as that is the whole point of the list. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Suggest we post ITNR Draghi soon, without foot-dragging, as another nom. seems likely anon. – Sca (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR . 36.76.235.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * change to Oppose I don't believe it can be posted as blurb due to fact that it likely to be collided with another blurb on the same about conclusion of impeachment trial. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mh, I don't understand. There is no such thing as "collision" of blurbs. There are many blurbs at the same time in the ITN section. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, a spacecraft just narrowly missed Liechtenstein! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose While national unity government is almost interested for me and seems be newsworthy, i don't believe Draghi will be come out as legitimate Prime Minister at the time being. The new prime minister will be legitimate if they held an election. As IMO, Draghi is caretaker prime minister, not "legitimate" PM. 116.206.35.20 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draghi is the legitimate PM of Italy as per the Italian Constitution. I don't understand your objections. Also, this is ITN/R, so it is automatically relevant for publication in ITN. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above. 98.116.113.193 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is ITNR, and the articles are good. Davey2116 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Passes WP:ITNR.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 01:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is ITNR, so any votes that don't have to do with quality are not relevant. Both Mario Draghi's article and the Draghi Cabinet article have no orange tags.  Draghi's article had two uncited sentences, as far as I could see, and the Draghi Cabinet article had one uncited sentence fragment which could probably be fixed just by rewording the sentence; so as far as I can see either article would suffice as the bolded article in terms of quality.  I think Mario Draghi would be the better bolded article, however, as this should really be about him as the new head of government. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rupert Neve

 * Comment: Instead of having separate sections for the associated companies, maybe make it 1 section and condense related info into paragraphs? (e.g. anything ARN consultants into 1 paragraph; merge Neve and AMS Neve into 1 paragraph, etc.) Also not sure if we need all the pictures too. Otherwise, looks pretty good to me. Support if changes are made.  Spencer T• C 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made those changes. 2 additional comments: what does "ARN Consultants currently trades under the name Rupert Neve Designs" mean? (What are they trading? It's not listed in the stock market, no?) If there are also dates for the associated companies section (what year did they do the designs, etc.) that would be useful if you have access to that info.  Spencer T• C 22:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Spencer. Let me give it some search. Doable I think. Ktin (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments. Edits per the above request completed. Ambivalent on retaining the images as-is vs removing them. I am not an audiophile, but, these might hold meaning for folks who are related to this topic. Article meets hygiene conditions for homepage / RD at this stage. Ktin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milford Graves

 * Support Graves is an American treasure, a figure vital to experimental music, music therapy, music education, and more. Recent subject of a film (see Full Mantis) and exhibition (Mind Body deal). Rest in peace. --Rgm38 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-sourced. Sad to see him and bandmate Chick Corea die within three days of one another. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He will be missed! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynn Stalmaster

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Male casting director. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Benneh

 * Comment: George_Benneh could referencing. Much of the career section is a list of positions in prose ("CV in prose format") and could use some more detail about what he did or accomplished in those roles.  Spencer T• C 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the main agreeing with Spencer's concerns. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Missing refs have been added. Could someone prose-ify the list of positions in George_Benneh? Joofjoof (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * please check this. The list of board appointments works better as is rather than as a paragraph. Joofjoof (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Isadore Singer

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. Prestley Blake

 * Support Article is a bit bare bones but seems fine all around, well sourced and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment American restaurant co-founder, 208 years of experience between he and his brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I’m not convinced they both emerged experienced on the days of their birth? Stephen 10:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good thing we don't discuss which recent births to post here. Pretty much everyone starts at the bottom, no article, no nothing. We'd just devolve into a royal baby ticker. But during an ice cream man's first year, that boy learns what milk tastes like, what cold feels like and what a smile buys the world. You can't find that in a book. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although surprised there's nothing more to add about such a massive career in those 44 years between 1935 and 1979... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bukhari Daud

 * Support Well sourced and updated correctly. Gex4pls (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Indonesian English teacher and regent. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can we add the sources as well while nominating. I have not been able to search / find an English language source that announced this death. While that is absolutely not a prerequisite for posting, will be good for an extra pair of eyes to see the article and the news item before any article goes to homepage. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose : He was known for being Regent of Aceh Besar, but the section about that is mostly about his resignation attempt and has some vague analysis ("assessment" section) without saying much about what he specifically did in his 5-year role. This is a common issue for sub-national politician articles here at RD.  Spencer T• C 03:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've drawn this request back after considerations., I'm sorry but I can't find one. If you allow me to use Fataldeaths.com and www.dead-people.com as a source then I will gladly use it. As for , I'm combing for sources in kompasdata.id and majalah.tempo.com, the two most reliable sources in Indonesia's media. The latter doesn't give me any results, but the former yields some interesting headlines. I'll see if I could add some more materials regarding his works from the sources. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some materials regarding his works from the available sources. I hope this satisfies you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jayalal Rohana

 * Oppose too many appearances missing citations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Most Distant Known Solar System Object Is FarFarOut

 * Comment The article is pretty short, and contradicts the blurb. I have added an altblurb more in line with article text. If this is incorrect, go ahead and change it elsewise.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's currently no mention of this specific discovery in the article as a news event. There's only a few sentences mentioning 2018 AG37 as "announced" in February 2021, which seems strange for an object discovered in 2018 with sources in the article describing it perfectly from 2019. If this were really a major news event, I would think that there should be some hoopla about it in the science community – I'm not saying there isn't, but if so, then the article doesn't currently reflect that at all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AllegedlyHuman, right in the lead it says "At a very faint apparent magnitude of +25, only the largest telescopes in the world can observe it.[1] Being so far from the Sun, 2018 AG37 moves very slowly among the background stars and has only been observed 9 times over 2 years.[4] It may require an observation arc of several years to refine the uncertainties in the ~1000 year orbital period and whether it is currently close to or at aphelion (furthest distance from the Sun)", it's physically impossible to have a good idea of how far it is when it was first discovered. At that distance (c. 4.35 to 4.45 times Neptune) probably 80-something percent of the motion or more is just Earth's orbit making it move back and forth in a little squiggle less than 1 degree wide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what your point is. (Please understand that I know much less about science than you.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For something that far, the discovery will always be too old for ITN when the distance is determined. And you shouldn't expect too much, it's just a speck the size of a millimeter from 30 miles away, smaller than the observers' pixels probably. And even that depends on how bright or dark its color is which is not known. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless that's a typo for 2018 the plus or minus error amounts as of 13 months after discovery in the infobox are huge, it's so big it broke their simple error system as it shows a year of 800 plus or minus 940 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose see DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DYK is the way for this one. There are many TNOs out there and they keep finding new ones. Planet Nine would be an ITN story for sure, otherwise. --Tone 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was discovered in 2018, and nothing world changing has happened recently. On a different note, this article wouldn't be DYK-eligible unless you make a 5x expansion of the article, or get it up to GA. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It took 3 years just to pin down its distance to "c. 4.4 Neptunes plus or minus 0.05". It's physically impossible for a 130 AU distance to ever be pinned down well while the discovery is recent enough for ITN. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose DYK hook material.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting but of no real importance. Gex4pls (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leslie E. Robertson

 * Weak support raw url and dead link in there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed the bare url and the web archive works for the dead url, otherwise looks ok JW 1961   Talk  09:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks JW. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katherine Creag

 * Support could be longer perhaps but as noted several times, not everyone here who is notable has a hugely inspirational and influential career. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Something sus about the birth date. The lede only mentions 1973 (without date) but the infobox mentioned 26 December 1973. When I check google 1973 is only featured once in FOX (RS) while 26 December only appears in mirror sites. The rest of RS only mentioned 47 years. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support, Support if above resolved. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've removed the unsourced birthdate. As you mention, all obituaries name her as 47 years old. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe remove the "/1974" part? Her home television, NBC, mentions her birth as 1973. See this also for screenshot. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Support Adequate referencing and OR fixed. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Stephen, is it possible to lock the article for a short period? As per above, her birth date part is considered unsourced, but an IP keeps adding the date again and again. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Forget about this, someone has already added a source to the DOB. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris

 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Rare case of over-redlink, the section named for the Supreme Court Case doesn't actually reference or link to the case, in addition to very many other issues. Has the appearance of a legal counsel's scratchpad.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on referencing issues, too many places where citations are needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Media Without a Choice

 * Oppose Apparently the virtual part lasts a day, not ongoing, and the physical crowd was around 200. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IncredibleHulk --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Libel! Eat me, brother! Oh wait, that's right, you can't!. Seriously though, you're alright. And the media is just appealing for hearts, minds and voter-induced tax relief, nobody likes losing some of their gross revenue to "fat cat lizard people from Hell". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem like a major deal. Article just says "some people" protested: "a few protests" with "several dozen people" in one and 150 in another; tiny. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  04:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is now orange-tagged for a section using us to advertise its virality for cheap. I added it, but not to suit my agenda here. Just noticed it truly deserves it, but will switch my vote to Abstain if now ethically required. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This brushes up against RGW, and I'm having a hard time making the leap from "taxing advertising" to "destroying democracy". It's a sort of bizarro libertarianism in service to progressive media message that would take a good amount of explaining to get across to a EN reader.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose On top of everything that everyone else has said, which I entirely agree with, there's no way this article meets WP:ITNCRIT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yurnalis Ngayoh

 * Comment seems to be an empty section for "Governor of East Kalimantan". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a quite new article, I'll work on that section. Besides, the article only mentions Saint Juvenalis but don't mention which one — since the person is dead I think that section would remain tagged forever and ever. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have filled the section. Feel free to check it. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alberto Corazón

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article has only two sections but they are adequate. Gex4pls (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Larry Flynt

 * Oppose RD very poor on referencing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it's very clear that Hank Aaron's death blurb has started a somewhat weird tendency to propose that everyone should also have it. Oppose for references.Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm personally neutral on a blurb – I can see how it might be maladroit for Chuck Yeager and Little Richard to not have blurbs (I'll never let those go, btw) while Flynt gets one – but I think he's worth at least consideration. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep - the Little Richard (didn't get one) and Carrie Fisher (did get one) incidents were two distinct low points for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Current sourcing is poor, but at least 20 edits in the last hour so it may improve. Oppose RD - being the second most famous pornographer in America isn't "transformative" enough for a blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he did get shot for interracial stuff, but see my above comment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What about single-handedly changing U.S. law regarding free speech? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He had a rather small part, I definitely would not call it "single-handedly". --M asem (t) 02:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two landmark SCOTUS cases (Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., Hustler Magazine v. Falwell) and noteworthy advocacy against a third (Miller v. California). You tell me. Also seems to have caught the FBI in a corruption scandal. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No question he had a role in some of the US free speech case law but certainly would not be as much as SCOTUS justices themselves that have come up with the case law that has formed the principles behind the bulk of speech case law today. --M asem (t) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose large amounts of unsourced content. Would oppose a blurb regardless. Black Kite (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. If someone is working on edits to the article in preparation for homepage / RD, added a Washington Post obituary as the source, you can lean in on that article for some help with content / referencing. Ktin (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as he was neither transformative nor on the top of any relevant field (it's surprising how blurbs get arbitrarily suggested for people far below the bar). The article has a long way to go for RD either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet certain he merits a blurb, but he did greatly affect free speech law in the US. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Same. He might not be more influential than Heffner (who we blurbed) but he was certainly more consequential. A stellar article would tip the balance for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hef did not get a blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on reference concerns. Oppose blurb I'm with Alsoriano97 and Kiril Simeonovski on this one. It has become a trend for people from you-know-where to get be nominated for a blurb although they did little to nothing on a wider scale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I do not "know where" perhaps you could be specific and enlighten us, and back your assertion with a statically relevant sampling of death blurbs (both successful and rejected) which show a trend vs an anomaly. If you're not able to provide such statistics, perhaps strike your remark as unsubstantiated? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me. I have struck my remarks. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – If that ... untransformative in any significant way. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. Nowhere near blurb status, and multiple unsourced paragraphs.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb; the relative significance of the field merits some consideration, and if Hugh Hefner didn't get one he shouldn't. Provisional oppose RD; relies heavily on a single source and many of the media appearances are unreferenced. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the more citations needed tag is there for a reason, and hasn't been resolved yet. Until that's resolved, there's no point even arguing about RD or ITN, as it isn't currently in a suitable state for either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Conigliaro

 * Support Not a blockbuster article, but as I said for the soccer player Tony Collins, the referencing is appropriately complete for someone who played before the Internet. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article has minimal depth of coverage of subject's career. At present there's just 3 sentences about his playing career, and 1 additional sentence about his trip to the World Series. Would like to see a little more detail.  Spencer T• C 03:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Update is adequate.  Spencer T• C 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Understand that he's a pre-internet player, but the bio should at least contain as much information as some of the obits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and, it has been expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Hale

 * Update: I've taken a stab at it, and I think it's a lot better now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose too many refs needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support much better, good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support To quote The Rambling Man, satis.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Removal of COVID-19 pandemic from Ongoing

 * This was just discussed at WT:ITN, where the point is that this banner is still very necessary but there has been a refocus of what topics are in place. Just because the main pandemic article is not updated is not reason to remove the whole banner where the other articles supporting it have been. --M asem (t) 02:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We're still in a global pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic is edited nearly every day, and sure it hasn't received "substantial update", because of the zillions of subarticles that get the updates (Indian farmers protest has no subarticles, so apples and oranges comparison). Updating this one article for a worldwide pandemic is unrealistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Removal it's been going on for a year, everyone knows about it. There aren't any major new developments, just the ebb and flow of lockdowns and vaccines. s stats showed that barely 10% of the hits to the COVID-19 article come from the main page. Having it in the box still satisfies some aspects of the WP:ITN but we've never had something up for anywhere close to this long before. Yes, there is still a pandemic going on but what is the benefit of linking to it from the ITN box? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The benefit is showcasing good work on the main page. We've never had something up for anywhere close to this long before: we hadn't had a global pandemic in a century. I'd like to think Spanish Flu would've stayed up too if Wiki had existed then. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So I think instead of this nom, we need a real discussion about the OG criteria. Either stale articles are OK, or "sub-articles" are ok. I had no serious expectation of this item being pulled, but the OPs interpretation of the criteria is technically correct. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose yeah, ITN is not self-consistent. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose How is this even being considered? Have you left the house recently? WaltCip- (talk)  04:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Hillis Miller

 * Support Referenced, updated. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 05:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Chick Corea

 * Support – article is thorough. Oppose I looked at the article more closely and there's more refs needed than I thought, even some time later. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Household name, won a lot of gold, several uncited sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Borderline potential -- but likely just under the line - for a blurb (in terms of jazz musicians). --M asem  (t) 00:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * His prog rock stuff isn't exactly revolutionary, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe a blurb was proposed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't @AllegedlyHuman, there was no blurb proposed. Kline &#124; vroom vroom 01:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support RD I studied with a lot of music majors and Chick Corea was greatly admired and well-known among my classmates. He has many classics. (I'm not actually a music major myself but I was in Choir in college). -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that beyond being notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, the notability of the subject is not relevant to whether or not an RD is merited. "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anybody remember the last time an "organism" got the nod? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean "non-human" then a horse went up less than a year ago. The "organism" is there probably for edge cases where the deceased is not multicellular eukaryotic organisms [from] the biological kingdom Animalia. Famous fungi? Fab fruit? Idk. I vaguely remember a tree being nominated long ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose if The Big Tree ever came down, I'd want it on RD... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly support Notability aside, I don't see enough issues with the article to not include Chick Corea in RDs – SrAlfredos (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "strongest possible" Oppose there are plenty of sentences in the article which are completely unreferenced, people need to get familiar with what is required here: posting RDs requires articles to be fully referenced in line with the requirements of BLP. Just arguing "strong support" etc when the article is clearly not ready is a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article should be held to a "minimum standard of quality". Combing over each and every sentence looking for sources is completely unnecessary. Yes, it could use more, but considering that there are citations in each section and important points are supported, the article absolutely meets the criteria. SrAlfredos (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Has anyone added the obligatory cn tags yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, just one big one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the news says that "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article"- but this isn't 1 or 2 needed, but at least 10 places with unsourced content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The minimum standard of quality is a prose argument. Any article considered for RD requires adherence to WP:BLP. We can't have a largely unsourced article on a recently deceased person go to the Main Page based on "well, that's probably all correct." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article absolutely does not meet the criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs more sourcing, as per my comments above. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Needs more sourcing.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Cleary meets first and second criteria for WP:ITNRD (which is not official policy but a guideline to assist with consensus forming). I'm not seeing nearly enough problems with the article to have the third criteria trump the other two and wipe out the nomination. It looks like bureaucratic pedantry and entrenchment might prevent this nomination from succeeding, which I would say goes against the spirit of our work here. RandomGnome (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being in the news and being of quality are equal "sufficient and necessary" requirements for ITNRD posting. We can't ignore the quality requirements that any element set for the main page just because of the importance of the person. --M asem (t) 19:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, however I didn't mention the importance of the person. Correct me if I am wrong, but the requirements you speak of are not strictly 'requirements', but just information intended to help form consensus, which itself is ultimately the deciding factor. WP:ITNRD is not official policy. RandomGnome (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support The article isn't exactly FA-quality, but it's solid enough, and Corea was an extremely important person in the jazz world. If the article isn't ready yet, I think it would be worth it to do a rapid revamp to improve the article before his death becomes outdated. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not the way the hundreds of other RDs on ITN have worked for the past several years: the article quality must meet minimum standards before it can be posted.  Spencer T• C 05:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elliot Mazer

 *  Support Article is good but I'm not sure if Allmusic is a reliable source, and even if it is I don't think it should be relied on so much. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * according to WP:ALLMUSIC (on the WP:RSP list): "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available." Please note that I did not use AllMusic for any of Mazer's bio details, and only to verify his discography list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, good to know. I still don't think it should be so reliant on the one source, but I'll change to support. Gex4pls (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment American sound engineer. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moufida Tlatli

 * Support The article is fine thanks to a lot of work done in the last couple of days. Tradedia talk 14:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Tunisian film director. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , Stephen, this posting has pushed M. Bala Subramanion off the carousel in ~5 hours. Please can we bring that back for a brief bit. for earlier context. Ktin (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like a broken record, but there is no consensus for minimum duration or more than 6 RDs. M. Bala Subramanion isn't even the last one to have dropped off, and wouldn't have got any time under the old regime as he was nominated rather late. Stephen 04:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The other article also spent ~5 hours and should also be reinstated. The article took ~6 hours of work to get it ready with all the research, and if we can not afford basic time on the homepage that just speaks about deliberate lack of empathy for contributors' time and efforts. This after the COVID banner was removed under the promise that it would afford blurbs and RDs more space. Ktin (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the COVID banner was removed without any consensus of how to use the space. We have fallen back to the previous 4 blurbs rather than generally 3.  There is no consensus for minimum duration or more than 6 RDs, and we are seeing far more posting under the new model where RDs only go stale after 7 days.  As I've said before an RfC is the only way to change the status quo, and in my opinion would likely support a modest change.
 * Respectfully, disagree with your first statement. The very first line of that COVID banner removal discussion starts with we free up a line for RDs or blurbs or whatever we want. With that discussion ending in the banner having been removed, we not using that third row for overflows seems like we are willfully reneging on the promise that was made. At the cost of me sounding like a broken record (to borrow above phrasing), an article being cycled in 5 hours is definitely disrespectful, when there is space to flow onto. Yes, one could argue that these didn't stand a chance in the old world, neither in the world of three years ago, nor in the world of a few months ago. But, that the community is working these many articles is an absolute win for the project and that is where we are currently. Queue management is not an unsolved problem. Ktin (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump

 * Comment - This was already nominated and closed/removed. - Indefensible (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait to see the outcome. --Tone 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose publish the outcome. Everything else is Trumpticker. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point, only the outcome of the trial matters. --M asem (t) 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait for the conclusion. Trump is no longer president, so the ultimate punishment of removal from office is no longer a threat. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - we can post the result. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The process itself is not really newsworthy. STSC (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just as we don't post sports events in progress, we shouldn't post trials in progress. We will almost certainly post the outcome. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marty Schottenheimer

 * My condolences to your inlaws for this recent loss. Also for Butch Reed, Willie Scott and the Superbowl. Been a rough four days for the Chiefs all around. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, many places where citations are needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Flagged a few Cn's, which I suspect some are WP:OR that can be removed. However, giving some time for someone to potentially source it, though beware of WP:CIRCULAR with obits that just copy duubious info from Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I've enhanced the sourcing. Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now. I have also marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Sowell

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citation needed and citation overkill in "Discovery" section. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation overkill isn't a valid reason for opposition, they can be bundled if required. Uncited material (tagged for nearly a decade) removed or cited where possible.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ten citations for a trial date is ridiculous. Delete seven or nine, or bundle them all, and I'll flip. Good job on the potentially libelous bit! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not all about the trial date from a cursory glance, just reports of various events during the trial. I'm not bothered, it certainly isn't something which should stop something being posted to RD, and I'm certain you're capable of bundling those refs yourself if you have the time to respond here.  It does take some understanding of bullet points, but not much more than that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be certain of that if you knew my setup. Even deleting the extra seven would take several minutes. If you're not going to bother, I'll just settle for swaying to Weak Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me one way or another. It's absurd to oppose on too much referencing, but that's your prerogative of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The bulk of it was about calling rape victims scared druggies with personal problems, unsourced. But there are good points about WP:OVERCITE. I didn't invent the notion that it's not ideal. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one said that. But you have definitely invented the notion of opposing an RD based on too much information being present in the citations.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Too many citations in the single line, no comment on the information therein. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How many is "too many"?? Good grief.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * More than three. As for calling someone a necrophile without evidence, once is too much. That much I was capable of fixing in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many unsourced victims at Anthony Sowell. Frankly, don't understand people's fixation with itemizing victims names, but (unfortunately) don't know of a policy against being tacky with non-living people esp. victims.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Names sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the fixation on the five featured females, either, but as long as six short stories are missing, the list at least lets us know they didn't die as Jane Does. They had families, families have names. Had ages, too, now included. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you just deliberately reintroduce unsourced material after opposing posting because of too much sourcing?  Seriously. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I got it from the source you added. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh the ages are in there? Amazing, I didn't see that at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to click twice, but yes, easy as any bundle. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hello Spencer. This article bumped M. Bala Subramanion off the carousel with the latter having spent only ~4 hours on the carousel. Please can you help restore the article for some time. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , re-added so that there is 7. Again, this isn't an ideal solution-- there are other RD items here that could probably be posted as well right now. This is why I had started this discussion on the talk page about turnover (Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_81). We may have to accept that some RD items are just not going to have that much time on the template, notwithstanding other Main Page balance solutions.  Spencer T• C 03:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Spencer. Re: that thread, I have lost the battle for sure. In my defense, I proposed a few constructive solutions. At least a couple of them would solve for these scenarios. C'est la vie. Specifically in this scenario, we either float next to third line that was afforded to us by removing the COVID banner, or hold the next promotion for a few hours. Neither are too disruptive imo. Please pardon my persistence. Ktin (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Until you can automate the posting of RDs, delaying them is just a non-starter. Admins pass by here sporadically  and act in the moment, they're not going to pause posting and return, like, four hours later, that's just not how people's lives work around Wikipedia.  Sometimes we're waiting for 12 hours to get anything posted so that suggestion would definitely not solve the problem.  A third line is the only option right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , a little bit of a rant. Please pardon this post. That this article is at 40 hours now (and is on track for ~45-50 hours), while the one that it replaced fell off in 4 hours says that we really should smoothen our outflow rate. Agree with your first statement. But, really, someone should start thinking of a holding dam to smoothen the outflow. PS: Without it being a reflection on this gentleman and his deeds, just pains me that this one is still on the homepage, while a community leader (in whatever little capacity) fell out in 4 hours. But, then, that is the world for us (for me). C'est la vie. Ktin (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can't control the outflow, there's no rota of admins here, sometimes we wait for 12 hours for stuff to be posted, it's just not practical to expect some kind of "holding dam" unless you program a 'bot to do it. But even then a human admin will still need to assess an article for consensus to post, so it's just not going to work that way.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Franco Marini

 * Oppose unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mary Wilson

 * Oppose a lot of work (and I mean a lot of work) required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - lots of references needed. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mars probes

 * Comment The Hope article is pretty good, and could go up as it is whenever orbit is confirmed. The Tianwen article is not. These being ITNR's, I think it best to post them separately. Certainly this will raise "why all the space articles at ITN??" comments, but so be it. I have added an altblurb to shortly describe the mission objectives, and I would suggest that the same should be done for Tianwen ("[...] arrives in orbit and prepares for landing" or such).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When there have been multiple car racing ITNR events in the same close time frame, we usually group them "In car racings, X wins Y, and Z wins Q." This would be similar, particularly as this confluence of Mars probes has been known for several months. --M asem (t) 06:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the Emirates Mars Mission article is okay (but will need updating), Tianwen-1 is not good enough. We could post Hope first and then merge if Tianwen-1 gets improved.  But right now, neither suitable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending editorial cleanup. The "Hope," aka "Amal" (Arabic), probe seems particularly noteworthy due to its sponsorship by space newbie UAE. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but only Emirates Mars Mission, which is good enough; and not Tianwen-1, which is not good enough (there are still many "citations needed"). Tradedia talk 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Emirates Mars Mission looks good to go, once the spacecraft is confirmed in Mars orbit and the article updated accordingly. Tianwen-1 isn't terrible, but there are still too many unreferenced statements and the article needs a thorough copyedit. Expand UAE in the blurb, or better yet say United Arab Emirates Space Agency. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support both articles, which have been updated and brought up to postable standard. Tbh I thought we could have posted Hope alone 24 hours ago, but a single combined blurb now is also fine. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once article is cleaned up a bit, per ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment UAE's Hope has confirmed reached orbit. --M asem (t) 16:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Hope article updated with the relevant orbit insertion details. --M asem (t) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, support posting Emirates Mars Mission now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - One blurb for both missions. I've cleaned up the Tianwen-1 article. STSC (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - for Mars Hope Mission. UAE becomes the 5th country to reach Mars and the second to do it on first attempt (after India). Definitely deserves to be up there. Gorebath (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - For Emirates Hope Mission for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are still citation needed tags in both articles. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any CNs have now been fixed and I know both are now updated to reflect successful orbitary insertions. --M asem (t) 14:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Emirates Mars Mission now has an orange tag but Tianwen-1 is OK. Shall we just post a blurb for Tianwen-1 first? STSC (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Tianwen-1 has successfully entered Mars orbit. Ngguls (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Marked  'Needs attention'  eight hours ago. – Sca (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Add Perseverance (rover) to this event's blurb when it comes around, instead of adding that as a separate event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming this one is still up, yes, and of course Perseverance lands successfully. --M asem (t) 02:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Micronesian countries quit the Pacific Islands Forum

 * Support per nom. Article has an decent update covering recent events.  Spencer T• C 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting occurence, though probably not exactly headline news. Regardless, the "Secretaries General" section could use some citations. Juxlos (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this requires each of the countries to follow procedures to vote internally to follow on that removal. "Each nation will undertake this process with respect to its own internal legal and procedural requirements and [the] final decision rests with respective governments." It may be that this action can be stopped through ongoing negotiations, so this should not be taken as final. --M asem  (t) 02:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While that is true, this is when the story is making headlines and it also dually serves as a posting for this year's edition of the PIF, which has been posted in the past and also had another major drama this year. If nothing changes and they officially leave the Forum one-by-one, that won't be big news since we already knew it was going to happen. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood this is likely the point of most importances, but that said, I'd reconsider the phrasing to be something like "...counties announced their intention to leave the PIF..." leaving the implication about the formal national process as an exercise to the reader. --M asem (t) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * News coverage is not including such qualifiers (see Guardian headline) and the official statement says “the Micronesian presidents jointly agreed to forthwith initiate the formal process of withdrawal from the Pacific Islands Forum respecting their national processes and will act swiftly like the Republic of Palau," which I believe has already completed the process of leaving. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Article is not ready yet, Pacific Islands Forum section has an orange banner currently. Per what Masem wrote above, have all of those nations left already or just Palau? If the latter, then the table is incorrect at the moment as well. Probably could use some overall cleanup and improvement in general before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to the orange tag, the Prospects section has nothing to say about these events, and is strangely weighted. The tables seem updated to me.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, article needs work before it can be considered for ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many problematic issues raised above, including sourcing (the orange banner is still there). Tradedia talk 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose From what I gather (from the news articles, ours explains less), the Micronesians are leaving because they feel the richer, bigger and more influential countries don't need them. If they're right, and already lack power, this shift should create only a small vacuum (with minor ripples). If there's something more potentially or immediately impactful here (supply disruption, treaty nullification, war?), the blurb should at least elaborate on what that is, if the article is ever ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It needs a substantial content about the impacts of the event. STSC (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, haven't looked at the article enough to determine quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not opposed to the idea of the nomination, but this event should really have its own article if it's as noteworthy as OP claims. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Guarnaschelli

 * Weak support Could use some more depth but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 02:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks Spencer. In the meantime, please can I request a couple of additional eyes on this one. I believe this meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good length, source coverage is sufficient, and tone is neutral. Joofjoof (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Maaher At-Thuwailibi

 * Weak oppose Content primarily highlights controversy without much emphasis on his role as a preacher.  Spencer T• C 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vera Wülfing-Leckie

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support long enough for RD, and all well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Carrière

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fine thanks to a lot of work done in the last couple of days. Tradedia talk 14:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: S. Clay Wilson

 * Oppose much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ok to me. I support bc Wilson made significant artistic contributions by being part of Zap Comix. --Wil540 art (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Egerton

 * Support - article seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Obeid

 * Support Looks good in terms of level of detail and sourcing. Tradedia talk 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but complete. Refs spot checked.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support lots of different positions but not much coverage of what (if anything) he did in any of them.  Perhaps he did nothing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support quite short, but it's possible there's nothing more about him. Although as he was foreign minister for a year, did nothing interesting happen that could be added? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shlomo Hillel

 * Support Fixed some refs, otherwise okay.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is all around good. Gex4pls (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing regarding the last 35 years of his life, nor mention of his death in the main body. Stephen 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed the 2nd part. At age 97, he was probably retired for most of the last 3 decades. He did serve as head of the Society for Preservation of Israel Heritage Sites, which is noted in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Collins

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose For someone who appeared in 333 professional games and managed a team for 7 years, his professional biography is quite light on details. Surely, we can flesh it out some before posting it to the main page?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and that's what counts for RD. The level of detail should be discussed on the talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article gives a good overview of his life without any significant gaps. P-K3 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is a lot more coherent, cited and complete than many, many, many of his contemporaries who played before the Internet gave us instant reports on every match. This is not a Good Article nomination, nor should it be, but it's at the threshold of many of the recent deaths Unknown Temptation (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louise Elisabeth Coldenhoff

 * Support - some question on the infobox material, but article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the service number? Fixed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That and her retirement date, not sure if that is covered by one of the refs but seems unknown currently. - Indefensible (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Liechtenstein general election

 * Oppose - article quality seems lacking, essentially a stub currently. - Indefensible (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm wondering about the 10 seats out of 25 statement; that's less than a majority for the two parties combined so I'm wondering why such a thing needs to be called out. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed alt blurb. We don't usually mention the year. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree removing the year is better. I proposed an altblurb2 that specifies it's each party that's getting 10 seats out of the total 25 to clarify the ambiguity I missed. --Pithon314 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Literally who cares. It's a nation that has the population of a large building in Manhattan that exists only because the global elites need to launder their money somewhere. It's so important almost none of the MPs mentioned in the article have wikipedia articles about them, presumably because they wouldn't pass the notability criteria. 212.74.201.230 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the Recurring events list, the general elections of all sovereign nations merit posting. If you want to change that policy, please start a discussion. As noted above, "Please do not oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria". 331dot (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, members of national legislatures do indeed meet the notability criteria; which means simply that no one has gotten around to writing articles yet. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 *  Support Article is fine now, any elections are ITN/R. Gex4pls (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality and notability. Regarding quality, important details like "which candidates won" and "why there were 10x more votes than voters" are missing.  Regarding notability, I think there will be consensus that countries with less than 1 million people (and certainly those with less than 250k people) shouldn't be in ITNR, and furthermore that in countries like Liechtenstein and Monaco where the EU and the royal families are responsible for most important governmental stuff, the local elections are not important enough. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why (on the merits) should this not be in ITNR? It was important enough to be in the news, and important enough for someone to write an article about it.  It's like we're afraid of learning something about a small corner of the world that is a sovereign country. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding quality, while significantly improved, the article still is missing the essential detail of which candidates were elected. On notability, we don't post the mayor of London or New York being elected, or the Ontario provincial elections.  The "but it's a sovereign country" argument doesn't convince me of anything here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * has added the results; I no longer oppose based on quality. Due to my concern about the ITNR guideline, I remain neutral for the nose-counting. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've significantly expanded the article, if people care to review it. Please focus on article quality here, discussion on significance should be separate as it would be a significant change to our ITNR guidelines - Dumelow (talk)


 * Comment Blurb 1 as currently written is confusing, making it sound like 10 seats total were divided among the two main parties, when it was 10 each. Alt 2 is preferable. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Your sig hurts my eyes. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, ALT2 is the best of the proposed blurbs. Pinging Indefensible, 331dot, Gex4pls, power~enwiki to take another look at article quality - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – Alt2 — As news it's UTR, but it would be very encyclopedic to post this, somewhat à la the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the second paragraph of the lead (starting "Following the elections") is unsourced, and the text doesn't appear to be anywhere else in the page (and so needs to be sourced in the lead) <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My additions were hacked back quite severely, apparently such background is not usual for election articles. I've cited the first woman part in the lead as I think that is quite an important aspect of the election - Dumelow (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment There is quite a bit of foreign interest in the fact that Sabine Monauni could become the first female prime minister of a country in which women didn't have the vote until 1984. I don't know how long it would take for a government to be formed, but I think we should wait until one is formed - whether Monauni leads it or not - as that's a news story with a bit more bite than an election in a multi-party state ending with no majority. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns above have been resolved. Article is good enough quality, and all elections in sovereign states are ITNR. People objecting to ITNR because "it's a small country" should try and get the ITNR changed at the talkpage, but the ITNR rule as it stands now means there is no reason for this nomination to be opposed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Wright

 * Support: First member of Congress to have died of COVID-19. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: As he was a US Representative. Important person in modern day politics. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: As this is timely, he was a U.S. Representative and COVID19 is an international issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose citation needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I took care of the missing citations. (Second biography I've created of an elected member of Congress dying of COVID). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, seems like no great loss. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a really crappy thing to say. Keep politics out of RD, please. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing political there at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support shame to give such individuals air-time. But seems to just about pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The two paragraphs related to Texas v. Pennsylvania (of which he was one of 140 other GOP that signed the amicus brief) seems excessive and stands out compared to the lack of any other cover of his polical career. --M asem (t) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I deleted some of it as UNDUE. The article could otherwise benefit from expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the reduction, Support --M asem (t) 20:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support First member of Congress to die from this global public health disaster. CoatCheck (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits is not required for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per quality improvements. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing of value was lost. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it classy. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment ready to go, let's get this one moved through ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karen Lewis

 * Weak support where does 2017 come from in the infobox? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea. I've changed it to 2014. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I found a source saying she retired in 2018. I've added that date to the infobox instead. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - spousal information in the infobox seems unsupported per The Rambling Man's comment above, probably could be removed from the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle She was significant in Chicago politics. Former leader of the Chicago Teachers Union. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I was hoping someone would take this on. Nice work AH. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Backstrom

 * Support No funky filmography, no Kansas City kayfabe, just old school hockey facts and figures. A "legend" nonetheless! No blurb, though, he was 83. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I support this article to be featured of the hockey legend as it is notable and worth mention. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD nominations do not require support on the merits, as noted in the nomination; this discussion is only to determine if the article is ready to be posted. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose [citation needed] and sucbox says he was "Spencer Penrose Award" winner but that's not mentioned anywhere in the prose. It's also categorised as "Canadian people of Swedish descent " but the prose doesn't say anything of the sort and claims his parentage is Finnish. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some Swedes do come from Vaasa. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Took care of the one citation needed tag. Can address the award in a few hours, unless someone else does first. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have re-added Swedish descent (in addition to Finnish descent). Certainly some Finnish Swedes consider themselves separate, in the same way that Iranian Jews consider themselves separate from Persians or Azeris. His last name is not Finnish, the source does not indicate whether his parents spoke Swedish or Finnish, and at that time the majority of Vaasa residents spoke Swedish. Might as well include both.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you verify that? Sounds like a lot of OR going on there.  If we have nothing reliable, the category should go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, fine, reverted, but it looks awkward from outside. Like if Jennifer Lopez moved to France and FR.wiki tagged her as "French of American descent", where in America she would be (more accurately) described as "American of Puerto Rican descendent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the category has now been removed by the IP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pedro Gomez (journalist)

 * Weak support perhaps a couple of places where sourcing could be added, but looks about adequate to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support one [citation needed] at least and the article seems a little light, but probably just about squeezes over the RD line. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Resolved Cn, looks like it was from early days when editors treated WP as their blog. Replaced and expanded some on career.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lilliane Brady

 * Weak oppose - structure isn't ideal, with the entirety of the body contained under one header. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks much better. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment., I gave the structure some minor rehaul based on comment. Please feel free to expand any of the segments as required. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LV

 * Comment we've been posting it for years now because it's WP:ITNR. I'd ask my colleagues to refrain from the deluge of "wait" !votes for this obviously premature good faith nom and wait for the results to be known and the article updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than close this and open my own, I'm adding the updaters to this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , with 3:52 left in the fourth quarter :)Ktin (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , this game was over not long after it started. Brady will be MVP again, but I won't add that and a photo of him to the blurb until they announce it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , cool. Congratulations to the winning team and their supporters. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MVP is Tom Brady. Added to the blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep in mind while the article is in decent shape, we need a decent post-game summary as well as a short half-time show summary. --M asem (t) 23:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Odd that it ends with the beginning of the game. Is it Backwards Day in Fla.? – Sca (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a routine event, maybe if something was worked into the blurb about Brady's record breaking. –DMartin  03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/R though.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why it will be posted. The game is over, so evaluate away. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I was just a bit confused about the oppose rationale.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ITNR LOMRJYO(About) 03:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Tom Brady's 7x Super Bowl champion record is a blurb in itself. CoatCheck (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted ITNR and adequate. Photo will come as soon as I find one that's locally uploaded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Picture procured. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - ITN/R, article looks good, record-breaking game with Brady winning again. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Shultz

 * Comment - definitely deserves to be posted, however "Honors and prizes" and "Selected works" sections could use some referencing improvement first. - Indefensible (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb I know this won't happen, but he deserves a blurb. I bet most people who're interested in international politics would agree he was one of the most prominent diplomats of the XXth century.   5.44.170.9 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Shultz was a competent operator but Kissinger likely more influential. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD only, if referenced properly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – George Schultz was a household name in the U.S. and to some extent elsewhere 30-plus years ago, but in current terms he is/was perhaps notable for being a centenarian. No blurb. – Sca (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That and Theranos, but agreed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can I request someone to tag the article with tags where required. Some of us can go in and fill those tags. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added 3 cn tags, but they seem to be easily resolvable, working on it. Gex4pls (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. the only one remaining is the LATAM cn tag. Ktin (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, nice. I think the selected works could use more sources but other than that seems good to go. Gex4pls (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , let's give it a go. Heading there now. Ktin (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC) . Done. All of the tags are now filled. Let me know if there are any other tags and I can help fill them. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood

 * Support - Hundreds feared dead. --180.151.227.65 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Tentative support - this is almost certainly gonna be already being covered by major international news sites in an hour or two (I don't have the time to check if BBC already has this disaster on their front page but they'll probably have it since it's just before noon UTC right now) (whoopsies, I was looking at the ToI reference in the article instead of the BBC link here) . It needs more info, however... And I added an alternate blurb since only Uttarakhand is affected as of now. 45.251.33.177 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a two-sentence stub with the majority of its significance yet to be confirmed. Expand and wait.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub. No WP:LASTING impact. No such thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you linked to a nonexistent guideline that you know does not exist. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While it does make sense to oppose on quality and the fact that there is no "minimum deaths" guildeline, the 2015 South India floods and 2018 Kerala floods had no lasting impact but were still ITN. Besides, what we know about this disaster is still developing. 45.251.33.177 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those were mistakes, I opposed the Kerala floods as well, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is hardly a justification to repeat a mistake. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment A glacier didn't "crash into a dam" a glacial dam burst the blurbs are misleading. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you consider BBC to be a reliable source, 'crash into a dam' comes right off the BBC headline here 180.151.227.65 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except 1) That's not what a Glacial lake outburst flood is and 2) Times of India disagrees. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with what you said - just pointing out the origin of that line. 180.151.227.65 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Several villages washed away. Count Iblis (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page" per WP:ITNCRIT. STSC (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Details developing. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The event is a natural disaster that should be notable enough to appear on ITN, but first we need a decent article to put up. What is there is not it. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - unusual natural disaster, article now of sufficient quality to post. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support on the importance of the event but the article needs expansion before posting, there is sufficient coverage in Western sources that should help. --M asem (t) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, article barely above stub class JW 1961   Talk  18:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Wait I don't know why this was proposed so quickly. The event is defiantly notable for ITN, but article quality sucks massively right now.  Looking at the ITN nomination, this was nominated 6 hours before the article was even started.  A 6 hour gap means a lot in terms of article quality for a current event.  Would ask all people who were Oppose to consider strike to a wait while article quality is being improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, wait on quality I'll strike the wait part of the !vote if and when the article more adequately covers the topic. As Sca and Elijahandskip mentioned, the story is still developing and this was nominated before an article even existed. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, article has been expanded past a stub, fully referenced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the interesting bit here is that apparently the lake was hidden under the ice sheet and no one really knows yet where the water actually came from. Reading the article though, the details about the event are littered with commentary about climate change. There is no reason to rush this WP:BODYCOUNT story to the main page, churn in the box is really slow, can we please wait until it actually reports some details before racing it up there? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well climate change cause some glaciers to develop weaknesses like rotting teeth, there has to be something there on that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Guardian puts toll at 19, Reuters says 200-plus missing. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, an important event, death toll over 200. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Major disaster; article looks ready. 142.120.100.241 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready article is good enough to post now. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready but nothing special. Gex4pls (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "Cause" section is potentially self-contradictory, as the last sentence offers an alternative explanation that conflicts with the first sentence. If the alternative is correct, then the article's title is also inaccurate. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, the scientists studying the event believe that there was a lake hidden below the ice that was formed by glacial meltwater. They think that a landslide could have disturbed this water or the glacial morraines holding it in place. In any case, it is still a glacial lake outburst flood.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This - something caused the glacier to break and release the water. It could have just been global warming, it could have been from impact of a landslide; that aspect they don't know they, but once the glacier's tip was broken, that release the water and the flood. --M asem (t) 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This ref on the article suggests that a glacier was minimally involved, as the flow may primarily have been from a landslide that surged into a pre-existing river. There was some ice of course, but not necessarily the responsible factor. The rock mass + kinetic energy would explain this event, not a glacier. - Indefensible (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert C. Jones

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Surprised to finally see a fully sourced filmography. Gex4pls (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ezra Moseley

 * Support would prefer to fix those bare URLs (and reuse) but otherwise it's probably satis for RD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks – done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Pretty short but all around fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Neat little article. well referenced now JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Pashak

 * Weak oppose a lot (and I mean a lot) about his election results, but not much else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done – I've added one paragraph of what he did during his time in office (off the CBC obit published today). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Santiago García (Uruguayan footballer)

 * Oppose literally no prose on the last decade of his career. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Rambling Man's gripe has been fixed, but the article is still lacking citations. Mlb96 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bansi Kaul

 * Support Article is pretty good all around, pretty short but adequate. Gex4pls (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Taylor (New Zealand cricketer)

 * Support No obvious problems, well sourced and mid sized. Gex4pls (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - No issues. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Dayan

 * Support Surprised to see one of these nominator comments actually being realistic. Article is just about passing. Gex4pls (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced and complete. MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment fix the bare URL and this is good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Leon Spinks

 * Comment I am currently working on cleaning up the article's sourcing. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sourcing has been updated. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment where is the table of fights referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I added it as another row in the table, but it was removed by with this edit, which cites MOS:BOXING/RECORD (Although references are not needed within the table, be prepared to provide one if challenged on anything in particular, especially if it contradicts BoxRec.) BoxRec was the source I added, so I assume by that guideline the table is fine as is.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying. Rounds and times in rounds are not mentioned in that BoxRec page.  The data needs inline referencing in the pertinent section, and unverifiable material in that link (e.g. rounds, times etc) should also be cited.  Sadly MOS:BOXING/RECORD is way out of touch with community norms, the record is not in chronological order, the tables don't have captions and don't comply with other aspects of MOS:ACCESS, the material is unverifiable, even after one is told that BoxRec is the gospel.   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we now have an editor warring over date formats (!) in an already badly-formed and poorly referenced table, unless we see some movement on that, this is a no-go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Butch Reed

 * Weak support Great wrestler, alleged football player, but that article quality... InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are reference gaps all over the article and some sections such as this one have no citations at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That section's also missing seven years of relevant material. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Huge body paragraphs that read on like lists remain unsourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Plummer

 * Strong support I'd actually consider giving this one a blurb.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I looked over the article and had no choice but to tag it. Lacking references here and there, writing issues left and right, this needs to be fixed before we think about even posting it to RD.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 21:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait - the article is not ready yet and still needs to be improved. - Indefensible (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready. Davey2116 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Tons of uncited paragraphs. Neutral on blurb if that becomes a point of discussion once the article is in better shape. Mlb96 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Let's be serious here. Just because someone was in big films, and maybr lots of people have heard of them, it doesn't make them transformative to the level required here. See Kirk Douglas et al. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. I would think we're talking potential blurb territory but sourcing is a long way from even an RD posting at this point, that should be figured out first and then we can kibitz on a blurb. --M asem (t) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A major actor and far more notable to the film industry than Sean Connery. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the sourcing issues are fixed up. Plummer achieved the Triple Crown of Acting among other major accomplishments and honors. Jusdafax (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article needs serious work before RD is a possibility. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of work needed on referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, and oppose on quality for the moment. A great actor, but I see no evidence of his being transformative in his field. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment now everyone has to go to blurb? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I think a lot of people are in opposition to that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, Support RD only He has little known contribution in global film industry, so i don't see it can be posted as blurb unlike Tom Cruise, Kristen Stewart, etc. But due to fact that needs to be posted as RD, the article needs for fixing many issues regarding grammar and others. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "He has little known contribution in global film industry" Seriously? Sometimes I see things here that make me wonder which rock the writer has been living under for the past 60 years. My guess is that the person wasn't even living for the first 40 of them. I am totally confused about the rules for whether dead people get a blurb or not. (Do we actually have any rules?) So I won't bother with a comment on that. Just fix the article and post him as an RD. Quickly! HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose blurb, oppose RD for now He was a well-known and highly accomplished actor, but he was not the Mandela or the Thatcher of the acting field, so I don't believe he is blurb worthy. He may have come close, but I think he falls short of being a "transformative world leader in his field."  NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Not quite top of the field in my opinion, and still needs more referencing for RD JW 1961   Talk  23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb I hate to say it, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Gex4pls (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb close but no. Support RD when ready. Rhino131 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD - While fixing the refs. STSC (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb for all the usual reasons. Article is getting there but has quite a ways to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD while fixing refs, though even then not sure he's quite "blurb-worthy." He was very prolific, supremely talented, and has global recognition, but I wouldn't say he's a superstar or a major figure in the history or evolution of film or anything like that. Definitely RD worthy though. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb --DannyS712 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb, nor one for the prolific, supremely talented and globally recognized superstar of wrestling, Butch Reed. Nor for Kristen Stewart. Maybe Tom Cruise, but not if he's 91. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per Vanamonde, Amakuru. Famous, but transformative? – Not really. — Sca (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb. Connor Behan (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is someone working on this article? If referencing is all that is pending, can someone go take a pass at adding tags, I (and perhaps a few others here) can help adding references. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything that needs to be tagged is tagged, but there are 20 in total so reffing could take a while. Gex4pls (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD only His contribution in global film history is unknown outside English-speaking countries and is ineligible to be posted as blurb. 120.188.64.200 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD The article, while having a few cn tags, the overall result is good enough and work has been progressive so far. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - All the tags have been cleared now. STSC (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD per the consensus. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dianne Durham

 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles McGee (painter)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Decent article, but really only has 1-2 sentences about his artwork itself (The artwork he produced afterwards centered more on fundamental elements and less on subject matter, and he abandoned the realism that had dominated his early drawings). A quick search reveals that nature was an important piece of his art, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Thus, there's limited depth of coverage and could use a full paragraph on that, which seems pretty doable, as it looks like there are multiple available sources with more information:   .  Spencer T• C 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Nature was actually mentioned in "Early life and education", but I've added it to the "Career" section as well for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had seen that, but it wasn't connected to his artwork in any way.  Spencer T• C 00:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: D. N. Jha

 * Support Article is a bit short but pretty good all around. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one. Article is ready for homepage / RD. Also, if there is an Admin online / reading, the backlog is growing, and this might be a good idea to send a couple of articles to homepage / RD, to prevent a large batch. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hy Cohen

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Neat article, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, mid sized and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Dean (Canadian politician)

 * Support it seems a little brief but once again, we can't expect all recently deceased to have had epically transformative lives, there's a spectrum between being non-notable and getting a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine for a RD, well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty good article, a couple writing issues but seems just about fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Most notable person in history. Very influential on planet Earth. Totally have heard of him before. ;) ;)  Tucker  Gladden  👑 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, nice neat little article but nowhere near blurb worthy in my opinion I'm afraid JW 1961   Talk  13:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mathoor Govindan Kutty

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppport good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While referenced, there is limited depth of coverage for someone with a six-decade-long career. It appears as though he has just 4 named performances listed over that time period, with 2 additional opening ceremony performances--the equivalent of one performance per decade. Was there a response/reaction to his portrayal of female characters?  Spencer T• C 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi there. Updated the article with a few more performances, and also added reactions and a few reviews of his performance. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty good Gex4pls (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good for RD JW 1961   Talk  13:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion. Please can I request you to have a look at this one. I believe this should be ready to go. Ktin (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) US Support for Saudi Arabian-led intervention in the Yemeni Civil War

 * Oppose Awful article, not updated, "announcements" as news.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose who cares who the US "supports" in war efforts? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not a US new site. A worldwide encyclopedia shouldn't publish every US policy and decision. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was obviously going to happen, and we can't just post every single US decision, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We are not a detrumpification ticker. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal of 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest from Ongoing

 * Support Removal The most recent update was the Republic day protest over a week ago and it was a month between that and the one before. Article also suffers the usual pathologies of hyper-reporting, quote farm, and need for a copyedit. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose again as this event is still very much ongoing. It is getting active international attention per the nomination, and another example is Greta Thunberg became involved on February 3 (per the article). It has not resolved in any sufficient manner to justify removal at this time. The Russian protests can be added to ongoing in parallel without needing to remove this item. - Indefensible (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: still in the news, especially after Rihanna's tweet yesterday strangely effected a strong reaction from the Indian govt. Coverage of the event via BBC, Associated Press, Deccan Herald, Deutsche Welle, and Nikkei, among others.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 04:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the nom, yes, this is still being reported in news articles, but Twitter drama involving Rihanna and Greta Thunberg is a pretty low bar with limited lasting notable impact, if any.  Spencer T• C 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as above; still making headlines; on the BBC homepage when I checked a short while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal This was up for removal as recently as last week, and we were all assured that THE NEXT BIG PROTEST that weekend would finally provide the updates necessary to keep it in Ongoing. That never happened; it was CRYSTAL as I pointed out at the time, and the material updates to the article do not even rise to the level of police blotter (we're now in Twitter beef territory!).130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an entire separate article about that here: 2021 Farmers' Republic Day violence. It was split off from the main article and linked. - Indefensible (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal article not being updated? Time to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support removal While protests are very much still ongoing, if noone is going to update the article I don't really see the point. Gex4pls (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal – Per TRM, and because the topic has long been hyped. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to, , : if you are going to support because the article is not being updated, then please look at the article history and note that it is being updated, therefore you should oppose. By comparison, look at the recent history of the COVID-19 pandemic article--2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest is being more actively updated! The last major content add to the pandemic article was on January 29. Are you saying that the COVID-19 pandemic should be removed from ongoing because it is no longer being actively updated? - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the new edits, though they are plentiful, many have been reverted or are reverts, and those that aren't are mostly either A: referencing or adding stuff from december/January or B: Adding info about social media controversies. These are still edits, hence my weak support, but none of these are about CURRENT protests or any substantial updates. About the COVID 19 pandemic article, you are right that the article should be updated more, and that is a seperate discussion in it's own right. Gex4pls (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a bit of edit warring going on (which indicates that it is an active topic), there are content edits as of yesterday (February 4). Again, compared to the last real content edit to COVID-19 pandemic being on January 29, nearly a week earlier. If this article is removed on the basis of updates, then I will nominate the pandemic article for removal on the same basis and it would be hypocritical to have a different outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not an active topic, it undeniably is, I'm saying the size of the updates doesn't reflect that. None of them relate to any substantial current events (save for some twitter tomfoolery). If the COVID-19 pandemic article is not receiving proper updates, then I may support nominating it for removal, if not simply to attract more editors. Gex4pls (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * here are all the content edits since January 10th. The rev links are broken because of a bug in my code dealing with apostrophies in article titles that I don't have time to fix right now. Please indicate the content edits adding "new, pertinent information" as stipulated in the WP:ITN guidelines. Seriously, what's the point of having criteria if we're just going to !vote count opposes which ignore them. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So similarly for COVID-19 pandemic, what does that look like and are you going to support removal if it is similar? - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't run the tool against it just because of the number of edits and how big the articles are now (I could probably look back 90 days with a few hacks) but yes, if I had the same data and it showed the same level of staleness in the target article I'd absolutely support pulling it from ongoing. Start that discussion if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Would have been support 2 days ago. But now Indian news is describing an insurrection component to this, which would suggest a change to more civil conflict than protests. Albertaont (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has not been updated to reflect these recent updates.  Spencer T• C 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1,200 words seems enough on this topic, for now anyway. – Sca (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The farmers' protest is still going strong. (BBC: "War-like fortification to protect Delhi") STSC (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In the time since this was nominated for removal, ZERO new information has been added to the article (diff). This is even more worrying because that time spanned a weekend, presumably a time when protests happen and editors have time to write it up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Removal Many of the new information added are trivial (Twitter war, farmers' statements, Super Bowl ad). Article also reqiure a lot more copy editing, and it is hard to scroll through too DogeChungus (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. While there is a roughly equal split between those "opposing" removal and those saying "remove", we determine consensus not by vote counting, but by WP:CONSENSUS as determined by strength of arguments. In this case, there was a clear message in the removal comments that the requirement for continual updates in an Ongoing item was not being met - recent updates have been largely insignificant in nature. This was not really contradicted by those opposing removal. I therefore determined that there's a rough consensus to remove at this time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lokman Slim

 * Oppose citations missing, raw URLs, odd Germanic Capitalisation of Heading... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose some citations needed, and I have questions over NPOV. The heading on his death is labelled "assassination", with no clear evidence that he was assassinated (just speculation). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He was a political activist who was shot dead, that's an assassination. P-K3 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends whether the killer knew that, and whether he/she/they cared otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Opposers @User:The Rambling Man, @User:Joseph2302 Can you please look back over the article once more?  Tucker  Gladden  👑 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for the record, thanks to TuckerGladden for bringing it up to scratch. P-K3 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert A. Altman

 * Support Looks like a good one!  Tucker  Gladden  👑 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article's pretty good, all sourced and whatnot Gex4pls (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of the BCCI trial section needs references, which I have tagged. I checked the WaPo and Times refs, which don't mention the tagged details. Rm "ready".  Spencer T• C 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and seems like a good candidate. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have resolved the remaining CNs, everything else looks good to go. But man, getting on the shitlists of then-Senator and later-Secretary of State John Kerry, the Federal Reserve AND the CIA? No wonder this guy's dead.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support BCCI section now sourced. Great work. Spengouli (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. Bala Subramanion

 *  Weak support. Article seems in decent shape. My only concern is that we're mentioning his tenure as postmaster-general as his major achievement, yet there's no detail on what he did in that role (the separation from Malaysia seems to have occurred earlier, while he was in his previous role; and the 1968 philately series doesn't seem like the hugest achievement he might have had). He died on the 3rd, so this needs to be actioned today, otherwise it will become stale... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added additional information on the revival of the Post Office Savings Bank during his time as the Postmaster-General. I believe with this, the article should be good to go to homepage / RD.  Ktin (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good thanks . I'll mark as ready, and hopefully we'll see if anyone else has anything to say. (If it's not posted by this evening and nobody has objected, I'll post it myself). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Amakuru. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support, kinda seems urgent! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Feeney

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, but I think Ron Wright should go first. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Trabert

 * Oppose - looks mostly good but lacking references in a few spots. - Indefensible (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have added several references, can you have a look again if this is sufficient? --Wolbo (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – the "Major finals" and "Singles performance timeline" sections are unreferenced. See Ashley Cooper (tennis) (which was successfully nominated to ITNRD last May) as an example of what is expected. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the above comment, those sections need sourcing- even if it's just from a stats website. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, sources have now been added to these sections. The Ashley Cooper example was useful.--Wolbo (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you found the Cooper article helpful. The last sentence of the "Post-playing career" and "Awards and honors" sections are unreferenced.  You may want to remove the Trabert Cup sentence, as even I found it difficult to find any reliable sources re its establishment in 2000. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I temporarily removed both sentences. Will re-add the Kramer comment on the 21 best players after I have found the reference (I know it exists). Could find plenty of references to the Tony Trabert Cup but those were all to editions of the tournament and have not yet found any source to support that is was established in 2000. --Wolbo (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks good now per improvements by.
 * Posted to RD. Referencing has improved.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Haya Harareet

 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A whole section missing inline citations. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  10:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Weatherly

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage; referenced.  Spencer T• C 18:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced; being a Mississippian is a plus. :)  Tucker  Gladden  👑 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Terwilliger

 * Comment References have been added. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a good article.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Millie Hughes-Fulford

 * Support Well-sourced and a reasonable length - this nom is eminently defensible. Joofjoof (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Libuše Domanínská

 * Support. Short, but quite reasonable quality-wise. I am not sure how much an article of this kind could realistically be expected to grow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support quite short, but fine for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per all of the above.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all. I added roles (some operas and composers I never heard of), and the German Wikipedia now has an article, in case someone has time to get over more from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rennie Davis

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support everything is in order.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bump Alexei Navalny

 * Weak oppose - agreed that this is in the news, but since we covered his arrest already, it seems slightly redundant to then cover his sentencing as a fresh item one week later. If the protests are major and ongoing, perhaps the "Ongoing" section would be a better fit? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support remove the previous blurb and promote this one to top of the box. Banedon (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting sentencing, per years of consensus around criminal proceedings, and completely expected. If this is still generating headlines and the article reflects that, then make an Ongoing nomination. Note: "roll-off" Ongoing posting was discussed in here, so please make a separate nomination.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's both conviction (of parole violation) and sentencing. Past practice has been to post at the time of conviction. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 130. Just a natural progression and suitable for ongoing should the main blurb roll off.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Bump Article is pretty good, topic is in the news, it won't bump anything off the bottom and the Estonian election is getting pretty stale. Oppose Ongoing he's been sentenced to the gulag and that's the end of it. All that'll be ongoing from here on it whining on social media and strongly worded statements of concern from various governments. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think anyone genuinely thought his trial would end in any way other than sentencing to a gulag.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mention it in protests page, not ITN.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the conviction/sentence was fully expected; more than likely the protests will continue (into ongoing). --M asem (t) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – In the news  and likely to engender further protests. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting when Putin imprisons an opponent would be like posting when a earthquake doesn't happen.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russia sends a putin opponent to jail! In other news, the sky is blue and fish are swimming in the sea. Gex4pls (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charan Gill

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. Sounds like an interesting life. - Indefensible (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Request to Admins. This article is now the last one (sixth) on the carousel and has stayed on the carousel for ~12 hours. When you post the next RD, please consider giving this article some more time on the carousel before bumping it off. Line #2 of the RD is currently 30-40% filled on most screen resolutions. Ktin (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * -- This article spent ~14 hours on RD before being bumped off the carousel. There is 50% of row #2 that is still available. I request you to consider bringing this article back on the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We already had this discussion on another item? Stephen 03:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fail to see why we can not use the 50% of the remaining space on row #2 to reintroduce this article and allowing it to run 24 hours. Is there anything we stand to lose by doing this? Editors do spend a significant amount of time to bring articles up to homepage levels of hygiene. The least we can do is to allow the RDs to run, particularly when space is available on row #2. Not to mention that the COVID banner was removed to create space for a row #3 if needed. Ktin (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained, there was no consensus for minimum durations or more than 6 RDs. Removing the COVID banner means we can now support 4 or 5 blurbs, as we used to before it was introduced. Stephen 03:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , But, there is 50% space remaining on row 2. How would we explain not wanting to use that? Ktin (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Statement of Protest. Adding my statement of protest here against the above Admin action. With 50% of space being available in row #2, the lack of flexibility shown to go on to retain this as RD7 on the carousel shows a deliberate lack of consideration to editors' efforts to work an article to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. While recourse available might be limited or even nil, there is nothing more this specific editor can do. This thread is being closed. Ktin (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What you can do is start a discussion to see if there is community consensus to increase to 7, or even 8 RDs, under certain circumstances. This is better than asking repeatedly and complaining when you get the same answer that you don't like. Stephen 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maureen Colquhoun

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - few citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you mind CN-tagging some of the places that need refs? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did about 12 hours ago. Looks like they've been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per Indefensible.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob McCallister

 * Support - short but sourcing is adequate. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This guy was known for being a golfer, right, so the "Career" section should be the most important shouldn't it? Yet our article has only six short sentences in that section, one of which is "He was sponsored by Lawrence Welk". Unmarking as Ready for now, because I think we can do better than this. I can see that his career didn't last that long, but give us a bit more detail on how it progressed please. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, but then there are an awful lot of golfers out there who don't amount to much. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose the Career section is only 3 lines long- this needs significant expansion. Also, the "Best results in major championships" don't seem to be sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this refers to the lines in the inbox with his best results in the Majors. It says that his best results were making the cut at the 1966 Masters, tying for 21st at the 1963 US Open, and that he never played in the Open Championship. That should be sourced. Otherwise I think your changes look good. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Missed that; thanks for explaining! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article missing out too much.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 13:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Sourced and all that. Gex4pls (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * been ready for 9 hours now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grant Jackson

 * Oppose plenty unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man, all fixed along with some help.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abu Salman Shahjahanpuri
*Neutral Part referanced, part not.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Eh. I don't know how to feel about this one.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 18:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anything is left unreferenced? Could you please point out? ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way enough time has passed to allow a sufficiently in-depth search for a free image. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , If that's the single issue, I've removed it. Image may be added later. What else stops the article from ITN/RD? Nothing? Article has a good shape. Good lede. Everything is referenced well. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The legacy section could probably be dispersed throughout the article. Gex4pls (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Fixed few things and updated a bit more references. I've exams in the morning and would leave this as it is until I'm done with the exams. I'd appreciate sincere advises. Daily Jang has now reported his death as well. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I think I'll Support if there could be a better image, good luck on exams! Gex4pls (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is better, I don't know about any wikimedia problems with the image, but the new one at least looks better than the old one. Gex4pls (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inadequate depth of coverage. Article has a huge gap in coverage between ~1960 and 2002, when he was presumably doing all of his writing. What did he write about/what was his research field? There is a single sentence stating that he was an "authority on historical and political movements of the Indian subcontinent", but this needs to be a whole section, or well fleshed-out paragraph at minimum.  Spencer T• C 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Allow me some time and I'll address this issue. I'll be back once I'm done with this. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  03:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , focus on your exams. Do not worry about rushing to make these edits. You have at least 4-5 more days to get this article ready for homepage. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,Thank you for the supplement. I'm done with the exam and this is why I'm editing the article. I'll be expanding and updating it timely. :) ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've tried addressing this issue as much as I could. It is very hard at this moment to find much in-depth coverage, even offline. I guess the book Akhtarul Wasey has co-authored about him would be available here, but still idk when I'll have access to it.The What did he write about/what was his research field? is addressed mostly. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM - too soon for a non-free image to be used. For all we know someone might have photographed him on Monday. Enough time needs to pass since his death to be certain that a free alternative cannot reasonably be found. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , If the image is the only problem, let us not use it at all. A free alternative image may be added later. Muhammad Adil Khan, that I wrote in October, is still without an image, and it featured in the ITN section on 18 October 2020. I don't know any other problem? ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Captain Sir Tom Moore

 * Support and added myself as an updater. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Did plenty for his community. May he rest in peace.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Article is impeccably cited, no reason to wait. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Note: his misguided first marriage to "Billie" (which lasted 15 years), has now been expunged, as his autobiography is not considered a suitable source (Talk page discussion ongoing). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the medals section is mostly unreferenced, but I also don't care. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Was going to nominate this myself. His death should definitely be "In the news". REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support ftr. In fact, the strongest I've ever given an ITN to date. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hal Holbrook

 * Support I was just coming here to nominate him. Johndavies837 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Deep Throat was Abraham Lincoln, the people need to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak neutral - the bio starts quite nicely, but then degenerates a bit into a series of one-line paragraphs. It's generally OK though, so I'll stay on the fence for now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Writing problems are fixed and it's all cited well. Gex4pls (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - thanks TDKR for addressing the point I raised... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emil J. Freireich

 * Weak oppose - the guy had a long career, but really the only thing we're covering is the chemotherapy developments which took place in the 1960s. Is there nothing else to say about his subsequent work? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional paragraph that should suffice. Please note that every award listed is post-1960s. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

-- Spencer T• C 23:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article really doesn't do his career justice, particularly his career in the 1950s at NCI. Ref 1 is a dead link for me (bare link url to the NIH site). Article should clarify when he started at MD Anderson. Possible additional sources:
 * Pop the DOI into Sci-Hub if you need to get around the paywall. Has more details about his personal life including family.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Thanks for the sources! I've archived the deadlink and made use of the first one to address the last CN tag.  The second source was already included (ref 9), but I've re-used it to verify his start at MD Anderson. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - sad to see this, remember reading about him a while back and he made significant contributions early in the oncology field. Article is understated and could use improvement but meets the minimum requirements I think. - Indefensible (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's fine. Gex4pls (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Shumiatcher

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Sweeney (labor leader)

 * Oppose Almost nothing on his death, and although it starts out well sourced, by the end there are only ~1-2 sources per section. Gex4pls (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , yup. Will require some work. I share your same concern, particularly the latter part. If you want to get to it before I do later tonight, go for it. Else, I will attempt later tonight. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try and get some sourcing and whatnot done in the next couple of hours, but I doubt it will be enough for the time being. Gex4pls (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I over-estimated my own ability to edit on a work-day night. This might have to wait until tomorrow. Ktin (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - presumably some of the same references which cover the early sections also apply to the later sections which need improvement currently, but still have to be matched appropriately. This is perhaps a case of having too much content being inhibitory to posting, versus someone whose article has much less content which can more easily get approved. - Indefensible (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, partly agree. But, we can definitely improve the article. Ricky Powell was in a similar state, but, we were able to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. This one will take time, but, will be done soon. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricky Powell

 * Support - looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Peter T. Fay

 * Comment American attorney and judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support per WP:PROMO. There is a bit where the writer mentions things about Fay that sounds like a promotion. Otherwise it's ready.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Meh, article is OK.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Added one [CN] tag for info not covered in a ref. Incomplete depth of coverage: as with other judges nominated at RD I would really like to see specific information on cases he saw, rather than vague obit-style quotes about his career. Article could also use an update, as St. Thomas will only be naming it's Moot Courtroom after Fay, not the whole school (source). Other gaps appear in his career, such as him serving on the Special Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel from 1994-2006 . Another source of information. Per this source, Judge Fay was noteworthy for "unique and innovative [judicial] procedures" related to an airline disaster case, highlighted more in depth here.  Spencer T• C 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Palladino

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment American private investigator and attorney. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Brooks

 * Comment - deserves to be posted but may be too late already, as he died on January 23 and an announcement came out on the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Eikes. My bad -- I missed this. Ktin (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the earliest announcement was on 26 Jan then you should be OK. You have up to 7 days to get it ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty close then, let's get this one ready . Looks pretty good already. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A bit short but says everything it needs to. Gex4pls (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A shade too brief on his academic/research career; he has 70 publications--what were they about?  Spencer T• C 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks Spencer. This is done.Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Simeon Nyachae
*Comment TuckerGladden and WikiLove Goat are the same user and have been blocked for sockpuppetry. P-K3 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose AleatoryPonderings' point is spot on, some of the tone needs adjustment, let's stick with biography, not hagiography. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Full of satis.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * :Oppose Thank you, AleatoryPonderings. Article needs tone fix.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 04:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PROMO. Reads like a bio you'd find on his personal website. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice job in cleaning up the prose. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Aleatory above.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pinging oppose votes: - I have gone through the article and done my best to remove the promotional tone and bring the article back in line with NPOV. I'd appreciate if you'd give the article another look. Thanks,  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article PCN02WPS. - Indefensible (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sweet, support.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, P-K3. Hope you are doing well. I was falsely blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet of Valkyried. I'm back now. Just wanted to clear the air.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 00:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I will strike - sorry about that. P-K3 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article improved, I don't see any issues now. P-K3 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dustin Diamond

 * Oppose - needs referencing improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now just about fine. Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very poorly written and has very bad referencing. Filmography is tagged; issues need to be resolved before we think about posting this.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Post posting support. Kudos to  for the improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. No, I'm just kidding. BD2412  T 00:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No joke, it's better now. Adequate, anyway, by my eye. I don't consider filmography sections, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unsourced filmography. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose filmography completely unsourced, multiple other places need a cite too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not completely unsourced, Screeched: Saved by the Smell has two. Granted, that just makes the rest look worse. But hey, at least the filmography doesn't imply he stabbed a guy, like the sourced section does. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in fairness, sources do actually say he was sentenced for stabbing someone! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They only got him for disorderly conduct and possession, they tried to prove more (and couldn't). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But yes, CNN did actually say what you say it did there, your point is fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose Horrible article.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. P-K3 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I WP:BOLDly commented out the filmography (not the first time this has happened) because honestly, Diamond was known as one character and that's covered well in the career section. Seems good enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate action; as an actor, I would fully expect a filmography section to be present, so commenting it out to sweep it under the rug is not acceptable. --M asem (t) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to fit the spirit of verification, not truth to me. Not sure why the films/shows themselves are not considered reliable sources; no difference in editorial oversight between a textual and visual medium, but that's not my hill to die on. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the films don't even have articles. WP:V is policy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As TRM states, if these were all main roles easily checked by the lede of the target article, this likely won't be a problem. But most of these are guest spots, which require more detailed sourcing, which should have been added when they were added to the article per BLP sourcing requirements. --M asem (t) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * IDK what the problem his, he had one role that mattered: saved by the bell, listing every guest appearance in a table adds nothing of value for our readers, but I also don't care that much at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't guarantee results, but I am making an attempt to clean up the article (writing and sourcing) in order to try to get this on the main page. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging oppose votes: I have done my best to improve the quality of the article and its sourcing. I'd appreciate any feedback or re-evaluation of the nomination. Thanks,  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Much closer, but still has a few too many items that need references I think. Good work on the improvements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if it's not too much trouble, could you CN-tag some of the places that need refs? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, have done so in the article in a few places where statements seem to be lacking a ref. Chances are they are covered by one of the existing refs and just need to be tagged. - Indefensible (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , all CN tags have been taken care of. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing now sorted.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Referencing looks in good shape now.  Spencer T• C 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamie Tarses

 * Oppose - needs referencing improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 *  All fixed up, nice job Bloom. Gex4pls (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * filmography all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sweet, changing to a support. Gex4pls (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per improvement by Bloom6132, article now looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Percy Tucker

 * Support Good little article, needs referencing though.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm surprised that if Computicket "drastically changed the fortunes in the global entertainment industry" that (a) it doesn't have an article and (b) I've never 'eard of it... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per Tucker above.  Wiki Love  Goat  🐐 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet RD requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - we're told that he founded Computicket and pioneered the use of electronic tickets (via a "source" which makes you click Next 18 times in order to view one of text!) and that he was CEO of the company for the next 23 years, but nothing beyond that. How did the company do during those years? Did it remain at the forefront of that business? And how was the product globalised? Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Amakuru. Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 16:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Aung San Suu Kyi detained in potential coup

 * Support but there should be a link to 2021 Myanmar coup d'état attempt. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support We should use this article instead 2021 Myanmar coup d%27%C3%A9tat attempt and also change it to 1 February, considering this happened at 1 February local time. Shushugah (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Davey2116 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait the article sucks. Detained where? How? No statement from the military? If you take out the filler "background" section there is no meat on the article. Also can someone confirm if we like Aung San Suu Kyi or not? If we do, it's a coup, but if we don't, it's an "uprising" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can support a coup or a not, but it's a coup. The article is written in an encyclopedic and neutral tone. Shushugah (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right but Maduro Derangement Syndrome compelled us to call the 2019 Venezuelan coup attempt an "uprising". Anyway I think we "like" Aung San Suu Kyi because we blurbed her nobel prize, blurbed her getting out of prison, blurbed her election, so I expect "coup" is the correct nomenclature here but I just wanted someone to double check me. Article still sucks. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we (and, indeed, many others) don't like her anymore (Aung_San_Suu_Kyi). Regardless, though, this is just a military coup. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We incorrectly called the Venezuela one an uprising, but I don't think calling this one an uprising too would right that wrong. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support but the article does need a little work. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the paucity of information in the article is just because not much information is available right now. However, what's there is clear and well-cited and no doubt will continue to improve as more information is reported. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update needed - as the military has now confirmed this is a coup, the blurb should be changed to reflect that when it is posted. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - the article is essentially a stub, Wikipedia is not a newspaper but rather an encyclopedia. It would be better not to rush but to wait until there is more information and the article is improved. - Indefensible (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait: The claim has not yet been independently verified. All sources are currently only referencing what the party says. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Military's own media has declared a 1 year state of emergency tweet journalist source Shushugah (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support military confirms, then it's legit. Article is short but good enough given this development. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Though could we please not have the wall of reactions? No reasonable country is going to endorse the uprising. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support military confirms.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Bio article is good, other is meh. A major coup, could have ramifications throughout SE Asia. Gex4pls (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The coup article has a statement by the military which I believe is the bare minimum to post, although I agree that it's currently a bit short. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson: Shouldn't it say "coup d'état" instead of "potential coup"? The blurb with "potential coup" was written when the situation was still unclear. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted to be cautious, but as it appears that the coup has been (for now) successful, it seems appropriate to duly change the blurb. (Also, FYI, use ping to get the effect you wanted.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)