Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 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: Michel Murr

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Really nice article. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good, all sourced and very well written. Gex4pls (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 World Men's Handball Championship

 * Oppose a data dump. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Needs some serious tidy up - there are far too many tables, and far too little prose. Including any commentary at all on Denmark's performances and matches which led to their win. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hire a mechanic or something, cause this needs serious repairs. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Say what? – Sca (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost no text about the tournament, not even a summary of the final. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Abraham J. Twerski

 * Oppose. Vast swathes of the article are large block-quotes of a single scholar's take on his work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AleatoryPonderings.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like a nice guy, but I agree with AleatoryPonderings. Also, his works have almost no referances at all. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only two of his bajillion works are referenced, as well as the problems mentioned above. Gex4pls (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilhelm Knabe

 * Support Very well deserved; only problem is sourcing. Either way I think it is ready for the main page.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - publications section may need clean up as it is largely unsupported, but otherwise the article looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a ref to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gerda -- very nice job in expanding the article. Can you take one pass on trimming the lede of the article? Currently the lede is a narrative, keep it only to the most important elements in a declarative tone. Move the narrative to the appropriate sections within the main body. Ktin (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I did. With life in East and West, in science and politics, two parties, and these "firsts", hard to drop something. - I tried anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Hammond

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of referances, really like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLove Goat (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per all of the above.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 17:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marc Wilmore

 * Support Good for main page.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 04:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like it meets the criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan Burns

 * Support The article was in mediocre shape when I looked earlier, but it seems well-sourced now. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Update looks very good, well enough for the main page. Nice work.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose citation needed and awards table unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * removed both. The table was added by another editor after the two support votes (but before your vote).  I hope no one decides to re-add it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * table now all sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Turki bin Nasser Al Saud

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support But I feel a couple sections could be combined. Gex4pls (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article really nice, guy seems important. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sophie (musician)
— We shouldn't trash other Wikis by bad-mouthing them as "rubbish" and "junk" – that's garbage, and I refuse to play the game. – Sca (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Please desist from rudely disparaging the Germans. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - some citations are needed here and there, which I have marked in the article. Other than that it looks in reasonable shape. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fairly widely covered. Sophie's last name was Xeon, so suggest she be listed in RDs as Sophie Xeon (more encyclopedic than her stage name). – Sca (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that last point I'm afraid. If she's widely known by the mononym, as is clear from the obits above as well as our own article title, then she should be listed under that mononym. I would say the WP:COMMONNAME policy should be followed for ITN entries in almost all cases, as it is for article titles. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gordon Sumner would agree. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Not to mention Louis Burton Lindley Jr. and Adele Adkins... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sophie Xeon (34), britische Musikerin († 30. Januar)" – Sca (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We all know that website is rubbish and often publishes junk. "Here come the Belgians!!" The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Xeon is a very unusual surname, and it's one of the interesting things about this person. Some, perhaps many, of Sophie's fans may not have known what her last name was.
 * I think we're all aware now, courtesy of the number of times you tell us what de.wiki is posting, that the contributors there are not interested in verifiable encyclopedic content, I do wonder why you think it's useful to tell us what such a badly managed Wikipedia is doing, unless I suppose it's to use it as a "what not to do" suggestion. They can't even get her mononym correct.   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point was not that German Wiki is so great, but that Wikipedians somewhere else thought it useful to list both names.
 * It's German Wikipedia and those who think BLP isn't worth adhering to that I'm pointing out here. Time after time we get shown what de.wiki is doing, but it usually does it so badly, it's hardly an "example" to follow.  They should be "informed" that they are incorrect, both on their main page and in the article.  But then, verifiability isn't something they're worried about.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've corrected at least one of their errors. Getting there! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Touché. I'm really not an apologist for German Wiki. It just happens to be the one other Wikipedia I can read easily. But my point was that Sophie's last name is interesting. (How does one pronounce Xeon? What's the derivation?) Further the affiant sayeth naught. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Some, perhaps many, of Sophie's fans may not have known what her last name was. surely that's a reason not to post it. This isn't DYK. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It might make an interesting DYK sometime down the road, though. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pity if all DYK could come up with about her was her surname. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine the DYKers – of whom I'm not one – could come up with something further. – Sca (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. A few stray cns left but they are easily fixed. Otherwise a comprehensive, main page–worthy article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Fully cited. I prefer the mononymous "Sophie" as the COMMONNAME, by far. feminist (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All CN tags taken care of, looks ready for main page. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Callahan

 * Support - well cited, and covers the main points of his career. Looks good to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 18:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go (repeat). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is an article. It is fine. Gex4pls (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hilton Valentine

 * Comment a couple of cites that need fixing, but probably more or less OK after that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose nothing to say at all between 1966 and 1994 other than reunions? It's possible...  And per Amakuru, some citations needed and needed to be fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral As per Rambling Man and Amakuru above. A solid Meh. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose One unresolved cn tag, and the body problems mentioned by TRM. Gex4pls (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Grady Gaines

 * Comment - the Career section is a little stilted right now, it reads more like a set of bullet points than coherent prose, particularly statements like "Gaines was playing his saxophone at The Whispering Pines" which lacks context. It would be nice to see some indication of his early career, how he got into the business. The discography and awards sections seem to imply that a lot was going on in his career in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but there's very little coverage of that. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed and a large career gap in the prose between the late 1950s and 1980. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not so great. Referances needed. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beatriz Barba

 * Weak support there's an unreferenced claim in there but the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks like a citation was provided for the missing claim mentioned above, so all looked good to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxine Cheshire

 * Support Looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. And the c-word. Happy Saturday!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Chaney

 * Support good enough, I guess.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 21:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Actually close to weak support, but it's OK. WikiLove Goat (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lai Xiaomin

 * Oppose this might be a WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME issue I don't see anything in the article to suggest notability beyond embezzlement. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability not relevant for pre-existing articles. This one dates from June 2018. – Sca (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * He's (or, rather, was) a billionaire. Billionaires are self-evidently notable. 212.74.201.246 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, billionaires are not self-evidently notable, and the article does nothing to explain what makes him notable outside running afoul of the CPC. Give me a minute, I'll take care of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When you said "take care of it", I presumed you meant improving the article. Silly me. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As for LaserLegs above. I agree with him. WikiLove Goat (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notability isn't an issue, but the sourcing needs work, particularly in the Personal Life section.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Once sourcing problem is fixed, support.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 23:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment at AFD now, which may well not be resolved in time for this to make it.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree with the AFD nomination (and will write something there soon), but I take real issue with the description of his character in the article. The degree of lavishness and outrageous behaviour attributed to him requires more than a government-approved source (in Personal life) or a Western sternographic relay of the same (in Investigation). That country being what it is, we are never going to read a defense or objection to these points, and after yes-yesterday he'll never get to make them. Many of these points are tangential at best to his actual conviction. These details (spanning 4 years) carry perhaps UNDUE weight compared to the rest of his professional career (34 years). It's an edge case of BLP1E. The article was started in relation to his investigation, which is arguably the 1E. Subject perhaps should have an article, but I don't think it should be featured on the Front Page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Godfrey Hodgson

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Constance Isherwood

 * Support Article is in good shape. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flavio Alfaro

 * Support it is a brief article, but one season in minor league isn't much to talk about. Notability automatically  conferred as an Olympic athlete, anything more that can be added to his silver medal performances?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibongile Khumalo

 * Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient, "worthy" is not relevant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty good, a bit short but good coverage. Gex4pls (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shaibal Gupta

 * Support Otherwise OK.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad. The reference fell out when I was moving sections / text. Re-Added that. Referenced now. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good condition.  "Worthy" is not relevant to RD nominations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well reffed, well sourced, and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * pardon the intrusion. This is ready for the homepage. Ktin (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Admins -- please can you help have a look at this one. Ktin (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cicely Tyson

 * Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely noteworthy, given her history and multiple award she has won. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on sourcing issues - Career and Filmography sections virtually unsourced. --M asem (t) 02:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a question of "worthy" or "noteworthy", only article quality matters, and that is far from adequate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support very nice work . The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two sections are barely sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Despite sourcing issues, definitely noteworthy. The article's not a mess or anything and quality doesn't matter to general readers as much as some think; the template is called "In the news," and she is definitely in the news. The quality of the article, or lack thereof, doesn't change that. --ThylekShran (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality matters to any articles that are featured on the main page of WP. We aren't posting a sub-par article regardless of importance. --M asem (t) 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several references have been added since this was nominated. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Now seems adequately sourced for Main page presentation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Filmography section still needs sourcing. --M asem (t) 04:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Filmography unsourced. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * can you give this another look? Added references to the CN tags, filmography and awards.  Spencer T• C 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fixed all of the remaining CNs in the body; added references to filmography and awards sections.  Spencer T• C 18:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Now 3 overall supporting references for Filmography (found an encyclopedia with a considerable list).  Spencer T• C
 * Support - article seems pretty good, filmography section has 2 overall supporting references per above comment by Spencer. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article problems are fixed, it's ready for the main page. Good work, @Spencer!  Tucker  Gladden  👑 21:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support In the principle that I recognize she is someone we'd want to cover on RD, I'd caution against the use of using cites like Rotten Tomaotes and TV guide as "catchall" for the filmography section - I know TV guide is rarely fully complete particularly when it comes to guest spots in episodes. That said, I would guess those 3 sources combined are going to hit 90% of the filmography lines which is, for the time being, better than most incomplete bios. (Ideally, in all cases where she wasn't the main actor or recurring there should be sources but I'm not going to oppose furhter at this point). --M asem (t) 23:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. Fortunately the book reference corroborates the filmography prior to 2008; the only things I noted missing are appearances on late night talk shows that are cited in the book (e.g. SNL, Tavis Smiley), and it does include references for individual shows and uncredited roles. The one challenge is that TV movies are under movies in the book but TV in the Wikipedia article. I'll do some additional tidying.  Spencer T• C 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rough consensus that filmography sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lewis Wolpert

 * Proposed. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Just from a skim, seems to be all sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Eligiable, but article is like clay. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposea few references missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Gave this one a reasonably thorough rewrite. Should meet hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. –Please give this a relook. I am awake for the next couple of hours for any additional edits. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks for the updates Ktin, looks like it's good to go now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. No further objections since the fixes and opposers haven't circled back to it, so assuming this one was OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * this article was on the homepage for ~15 hours. There is sufficient space on the second row (not even going to the third row) to have this one to run for 24 hours. Please can you consider. Ktin (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 15 hours seems sufficient to me, we've had plenty of RDs run far shorter than that. Adding a 7th RD is supposed to be a rare IAR action, not something we do all the time, and the community made it clear recently that they don't favour minimum posting times. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Not really, right Amakuru. The community specifically rejected a 36 hour proposal, with most folks in that thread mentioning that 24 hours (give or take a few) is reasonable. Specifically, that was the basis on which (i.e. to seek guidance on what happens if the quest for 24 hours takes us to row #3) the proposal to free up the COVID banner was introduced. Seems like here we would be not be beyond 25% of row #2 making the space truly not an issue. Greatly appreciate your reconsideration. Ktin (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with . There have been countless RDs that have had far less airtime than 15 hours, especially under the prior dated postings. The proposal for 36 hours was rejected.  There was no consensus reached for anything else. Stephen 10:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and overall the !voting in the discussion was 9–7 against mandating any minimum time at all (discounting those who voted "indifferent"). Right now, the two oldest RDs were posted at around 23:40 UTC last night and even those may have to be chopped soon, as the entries continue to come thick and fast! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Juan del Río Martín

 * Support Next time, list the event in the day it happened, NOT the day it was listed as an ITN candidate. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He died this morning, 28/1. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is at least start class and cites its sources.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 26 years of a career with not a single thing to mention? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not much more information on the internet. I'll keep looking. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose with regret, the article is basically a stub and needs some more info on what he did with his life and career. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is too short for what it's covering, needs more than two sections. Gex4pls (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Readable prose size isn't even 1500.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Crutzen
We'll need the article updated first ...--Tone 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support iff the Early Life and Education section is sourced. Everything else looks fine. <b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole unreferenced section and awards are verified by his own website? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaja Kallas' activities list seems to be supported mainly be her own blog as well, but was approved for a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - made some updates, should be ready soon. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you working on this one? Let know if you need a hand. Ktin (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, feel free to make any updates and get the article over the finish line. Deserves to be posted I think, might be simplest to just remove the unsupported entries since the rest of the article is pretty well supported. Looks like someone added a banner for the lead section, that is probably the only other issue remaining. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Ktin (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing completed. Lede streamlined. Article meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I have fixed up the issue re the awards section mentioned by TRM above, by sourcing everything to sources other than his own website. Looks OK to me now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonny Fox

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Ktin (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet RD requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Corky Lee

 * Support Very nice BLP. Spot check of refs turns up no problems.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Guess I'm involved, but there's a support from the IP and nobody has objected so doesn't seem much reason to hold it up further. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020-21 women's strike protests in Poland

 * Oppose to an ITN message, but Support for it to be added in the on-going section without a blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support readding to ongoing. --M asem (t) 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good for recent events, but not ITN. Still, article good and event important enough See 2020 Indian Farmers Protest about two months back. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose insufficient update. "Street protests re-started on the evening of 27 January 2021" how many protesters? Where? What did they do? Government response? How can we evaluate the significance of the item when the article is missing such critical information. Also oppose since this is the first protest added to the article since December 13th you've failed to establish that anything is actually "ongoing" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not attention-worthy. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The diff of everything since 17 Jan (!) reveals nothing of note. A single para in nearly two weeks is not updated.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Abortion related protests are hardly significant news. STSC (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. So far the resumed protests are much smaller than they were in Oct/Nov, when we previously posted this story. If they grow back to those proportions, or the bill is passed, we can reconsider. For now this seems too small to justify posting, even if there was a proper update in the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The news is that the Constitutional Court approved the near-total ban Wednesday, and PiS says it will be enforced right away. Abortion rights activists said more protests slated today. Unfortunately, the existing article is a rather jumbled 4,800-word chronology of events beginning in 1993 (most refs in Polish) . Cześć! – Sca (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These protests are big in Poland and have been covered by many news outlets couple months ago but I think that we should wait since the protests just resumed yesterday. Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You must add a reason why you support/oppose, as said in the ITN rules. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that I added my reason but it seems like not, thanks for this. Vacant0 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Cheers, ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing; article not receiving continuous updates (minimal update in Jan 2021 section).  Spencer T• C 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – but support retention in Ongoing, as there have been demos for three nights running.  – Sca (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) GameStop short squeeze

 * Oppose This is honestly the funniest business/economic story I've seen in years. But other than that, it unfortunately doesn't reach the threshold of notability for ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the article is "meh" and could probably just be folded into GameStop but I oppose featuring the Reddit angle in the blurb. The WP:RS mentions reddit but cites "small investors" in general as opposed to something organized in a subreddit. As a market phenomenon though this is interesting, and extreme, and I'd love to see it featured in the box in some capacity. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this was split off from r/WallStreetBets. This has attracted significant coverage and (despite the name) now extends to companies other than GameStop, such as AMC. There's no good single article to keep this in. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, billionaire investors like Elon Musk are involved. The genie is out of the bottle.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, if WP:RS is tying it to a notable subreddit I'll believe you. This nom is dying a quick and gruesome death, but it really is interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT cites the Reddit message board as a catalyst for the short squeeze.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Unless this leads to a massive market crash, this is stupid antics in the business world and how easy it is for online communities to manipulate it. --M asem (t) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reiterate my strong oppose here. The /r/wsb board is trying to troll everyone, and while the media may be unable to avoid giving them airtime, we (at ITNC) can. --M asem (t) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited if any lasting impact.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is trivia and much better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is big news, plenty of coverage. Benjamin (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Article quality ATM simple is not very good, but depending on whether Melvin Capital actually goes bankrupt and/or The SEC/platforms like Robinhood change their rules, this event may have a more significant lasting effect. I say wait until a later date when the article is of higher quality and better sourced. A potential day for an ITN listing could be when some sort of permanent change inspired by this event takes place, but I would hold off for now. (I think we can all agree, however, that this is deeply, deeply funny.) <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this one of those things that happens frequently in the US like shootings and is ultimately not as important as the breathtaking Gaelic football final? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very insightful, bravo, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the sound of no hands clapping? – Sca (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (ECx2) I think I would support an improved article. Right now it doesn’t actually mention the hedge fund that required $2.75b bailout (WSJ) after shorting Game Stop; more could also be said about spinoff squeezes like AMC (Marketwatch). And that’s just what I’ve heard of w/o intentionally following this at all. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. In broad strokes I agree with 130... below about still-needed improvements. The NYT is running this A1 above the fold so it’s a big story, but we should not be pushing out our entry until it actually succeeds at giving a solid overview. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If stock market rates were included in ITN, then it would have been a failure. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. If we were to include financial stories which affect only a tiny proportion of the population, we'd have to include post many such stories. The 2020 stock market crash was easily important enough, but this is minuscule in comparison to that. Jim Michael (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. Anyway, markets are volatile, stocks come & go like dust in the wind. – Sca (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - ITN rarely posts business news, and this is a news item that is resulting in calls for reforming the system, which would be significant. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my previous oppose vote and switching to support as this has now turned into a major financial event, since the speculative activity has resulted in major sell-offs in both the S&P 500, Dow and NASDAQ indices.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - this is so unusual and the article is in good shape. We are not being overrun with other, more significant news.  Jehochman Talk 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment take it to DYK, a perfect venue for this story. --Tone 21:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By the time it gets processed nobody will care anymore. This is a hot topic of interest to many people who have heard, and want a reliable overview. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Unless this leads to some kind of huge stock market reforms, this is just some stock market trivia that isn't really important in any kind of grand scheme of things. Gex4pls (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with TRM it would be down the line an interesting DYK once some consequences start happening. But its essentially part of a wider conflict between the new app-driven daytraders and the hedge fund wall street shorters. When you have outcomes like (as reported by the BBC) "Melvin Capital Management, reportedly had to be bailed out with more than $2bn to cover losses" while the situation is ongoing... Two billion is a lot of money. If this helps educate people as to the destructive practice of short selling, more the better. Its in the news. Article is of sufficient quality. Support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support iff it results in NASDAQ/NYSE actually halting trading for a period of time Anything that stops "the" stock market is ITN-worthy, and I say that as someone who usually opposes business news. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly many of the apps and daytrading platforms did effectively halt trading for the day for a lot of people by citing technical or risk issues. While post-close trading continued. (This has led to the usual conspiracy nuttiness, but its still interesting from an impact point of view) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now have that happen to the actual NYSE/NASDAQ, and you've got yourself a blurb. (I also feel the "technical" stuff is suspicious, but given volume can be 50/50.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, GME was halted by NYSE several times yesterday.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And stock brokerage firms have also stopped trades on GameStop stock and other companies like AMC 64.222.180.90 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Interesting story, and extensively covered by RS. Is it possible to trim the specific numbers from the blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure – we could put (REDACTED) in their place just like the govt. does. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - it is an unusual story, which is why it has been suddenly picked up by major news outlets all over the world. For those who know about business trading I guess the news would be considered much more significant, for the average person though not clued up in the matter it is still relevant as to how the world changing and the power dynamics involved.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - although this event still has not proven to have widespread and lasting consequences, the sheer magnitude of this event (mentioned in national media), as well as its uniqueness, warrants inclusion. Osunpokeh (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality The article is ugly. Single-sentence paragraphs, barely any images, etc. Would support if the article is improved. As a side note, GME TO THE MOON BABY. Mlb96 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Support Article looks much better now. Mlb96 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't pretend to understand how this market stuff works, but it does seem to be a pretty notable and unusual gaming of the system, and it has been getting a lot of coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I believe this event is unique and pretty much an unprecedented situation that has had broad effects on the market. In addition, there have been numerous questions involving this short squeeze at the White House press briefing and the Fed's press conference earlier today. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Funny as hell but I don't think this rises to the level of ITN. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's unclear if there will be any lasting impact from this beyond some volatile trading this week. If this continues over the coming weeks, then there may be consequences and we may have a story. TarkusAB talk / contrib 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait This is certainly "in the news" but the question is 1) what is the state of the article and 2) will this have any impact beyond the current news cycle? 1) can be worked on although the article appears acceptable as is, but we need to wait to see about 2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality and depth of coverage issues have been resolved (see further comment below).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. The blurb above isn't really decipherable to someone who isn't savvy with financial concepts, but even after reading some of the coverage I'm not convinced this rises to the level at which we'd post it. If someone can point out some tangible lasting significance then maybe, but at the moment it seems more like peculiar trivia.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the circumstances may have changed since your comment. Both Ted Cruz and AOC have commented that actions taken during this warrant congressional investigation. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message and perhaps you're right, but I think some context is needed for both myself and our readers generally to be able to understand what the global impact of this really is. An individual stock rising massively and then shedding some of that value doesn't on the face of it sound very significant on its own, so I'd like to see a blurb which drills down to why people think this will have a lasting impact on the stock market itself. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * fair enough. The situation is still rapidly developing, so it's hard to figure out what the relevant parts to put into a blurb would be (also, am I allowed to edit the nomination blurb?) Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you normally shouldn't edit the nominated blurbs, but you can add additional proposals for consideration. Just fill in the altblurb2 parameter in the template above, or altblurb3 etc. if there are more. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, makes sense. I think I'll leave that up to to decide. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support You don't see this every day in the business world, especially with the reasons why these subRedditors did this. This was foreshadowed by the stock being considered undervalued and many reliable sources are reporting on this story and giving live coverage. This was the big story of the day, and it is a highly notable event in the economic world, especially since trading was halted several times over it and a multibillion dollar bailout occured over it. Prominent personalities such as the richest man Elon Musk commenting too. Very important. Plus this news is different from what is usually reported on ITN, yet is significant enough to be included in my eyes. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable, referenced, neutrally written, a current hot topic. What more could you want for it to fit better with ITN? -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an unusual episode that demonstrates that share prices are sometimes completely unrelated to the underlying business. The current value is artificial and clearly cannot last for long. I'm therefore reluctant assign much significance to temporary price fluctuations (even large ones) or to advertise them in ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. It may be better to wait until the inevitable crash, to see if this has any wider impacts on the business world, not just a temporary rise in the share prices of a handful of medium-sized companies. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not at all what makes this story notable. This has exposed the "true" nature of the market to an wide audience like never before. The width and depth of coverage is truly staggering, and dwarfs virtually everything we post here on a normal basis (aside: I'm not voting because I've not reviewed the article).  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's a crystal-ball territory. You know that something is abnormal and it's not going to end well but you have no clue when it's going to happen. Financial markets operate the same way all the time and it's all about expectations. Could you please elaborate how this exposes the 'true' nature of the market to a wide audience like never before? What's going on has been known for decades and it happens regularly.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why I suggested waiting to see what happens. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The story is a very good example of how does information affect financial markets but it's only a spark that draws transient attention with very low potential to cause something serious. Anyway, if this eventually appears to be a bubble that will end up in a severe market crash with major implications, we should consider posting a blurb then instead of pretending that this is the right time when it's clearly not. I agree with those opining that, at this stage, this is a story that fits better for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Robinhood has frozen trading on GameStop and other volatile securities affected by the short-squeeze. Methinks the party is over.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Watch out, Walt! It's a full moon tonight. That's bound to bring out more GME gamesters. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They'll never get to the moon unless they can hitch a ride on some American Airlines. Hint hint. --WaltCip- (talk)  16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or an Elon-gated version of the same. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment To people opposing this on notability, please consider the fact that this has been one of the top stories in all the major media outlets for three days in a row now. Mlb96 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Larry King's death was front page news, as was Biden's inauguration. In fact, stories about Bridgerton are currently on CNN's front page. Being front page news isn't a qualifier here. Gex4pls (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Larry King's death should have been posted imo, and Biden's inauguration wasn't posted because we don't post inaugurations as a general principle. Neither of those are good examples. Mlb96 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point, Wikipedia doesn't operate on the same rules as a newspaper or a news outlet. Just because one thing shows up there doesn't mean it should also show up here. For example, here is a selection from the front page of sayyy, CNN: "11 soldiers injured after ingesting unknown substance, Cicely Tyson dies, Johnson and Johnson vaccine news, storm slams California" I'm not saying that these aren't news, I'm just saying that just because it is on the front page doesn't mean it's encyclopedically important. Gex4pls (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're clearly looking at different news outlets to me. I've seen a handful of articles, but far less than e.g. the AstraZeneca vaccine supply, or analysing the latest defeat for Man Utd. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Imagine the collective outrage that would ensue if someone like TRM dared nominate that Man Utd. story on ITN/C.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Has clearly reached a greater cultural awareness outside the financial markets. - hahnch e n 15:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, an iconic flash-in-the-pan  stock. – Sca (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. This is all over the news and the article looks to be in postable shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Highly hyped. Early trading in GME was erratic Thursday. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - the restrictions on buying GME placed recently and the fact that the whole thing is gaining political attention could lead to a very interesting and important situation coming about soon. I'd wait for a few more days, as I feel this story will only be growing. Lyrim (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - without waiting. The story is big now, and delaying because it might be bigger in a couple days feels very WP:CrystalBall. I know we don't often post stock market news, but this has been clearly a top story all week and the article has seen a lot of good development. We'd therefore be showing off good work on Wikipedia that is distinctly in the news. This is the largest short squeeze story in the market's history, not just another day of market swings. It is interesting and current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I revise my opinion to Strong Support — the consequences of this short squeeze have been truly unprecedented and have included (allegations of) egregious securities manipulation and fraud by Robinhood and the like. Lawsuits have been filed. Osunpokeh (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I added a new blurb to include what happened today. (Nominator) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I was leaning towards oppose when it was nominated, but I waited to see if this story would fizzle out of relevance, and it certainly hasn't. The article is in decent enough shape to post. <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> 💙 19:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that I prefer that the blurb does mention that Reddit was the catalyst, as this seems to be generally agreed upon by RS to be a relevant piece of information. I did a quick search of the term "game stock" and took a look at the most recent news sources, and they all seem to mention Reddit in the first sentence (if not the title). <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> 💙 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Fancy giving the consensus a look-through?--WaltCip- (talk)  19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the case looks strong for posting. However, would you or other folks be interested in reworking the blurb? "GameStop short squeeze causes GameStop ..." is kind of awkward and using "stock price" is more precise. Possible wording: "American hedge funds were targeted in a coordinated short squeeze that caused GameStop stock to jump from $4 to $500 in one week and then crash due to short selling." Or something in that direction. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support following today's developments with Robinhood, the story is just getting bigger.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- the story is not going away. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support interesting story in the midst of a pandemic. Developing story as well. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important story, needs help cleaning up... Nithin🚀 talk 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting The three things to consider when posting or not posting an ITN item are (1) community consensus, (2) article quality, and (3) general significance. I see that (1) exists, and opinions are shifting further towards posting over the past 24 hours. (2) has greatly improved since the proseline article I looked at yesterday. And (3) seems to have come along as we're no longer seeing this as a bizarre Reddit action and more of an indictment of Wall Street and hedge funds. The Senate is going to hold hearings. I'm posting this now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I concur, but the blurb is not great. See my previous post for some ideas on how to make it better. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point 'crash' would be an inaccurate word to describe whats going on. Not wrong, just inaccurate. Its dipping (almost directly linked to the various apps closing down the ability to trade) but the average has still been climbing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to suggest a pull per my ITN talk page post but lets get an actual ITN -appropriate blurb up there ASAP and not something that looks like a ticker newspiece on CNBC. --M asem (t) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, this blurb needs some work immediately. And as said, it's too early to characterize the decline as a crash. So perhaps stick with the main point: "American hedge funds were targeted in a coordinated short squeeze that caused GameStop's stock price to jump from $4 to $500 in one week." -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am good with that and will make that change now. Any other suggestions about the blurb from here on out are probably best discussed at WP:ERRORS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I put in an active tense, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks and the rewrite looks good. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not an expert on these things, but the "from $4" reference in the blurb seems to be misleading... it was around $20 in early January (until the 12th) and around $40 a week ago, according to the Yahoo Finance link posted earlier; hasn't been anywhere near $4 since last summer. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. Gamestop's entire market capitalization, even after the surge, is not even $30 billion. We've declined to post business deals worth more than this many times. One could argue it's funny or interesting or whatnot, but it's not significant. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I mentioned this at WP:ERRORS, but the blurb is wrong. GameStop's shares haven't been $4 apiece since last summer before Ryan Cohen bought some shares. After that, they started to climb. They were $20 on January 12th. After that, they started climbing more steeply.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – This too shall pass. – Sca (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting strong support This is really newsable! Really shows us how people could defeat the big traders if they unite! Power to the People! 125.160.239.17 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support after striking my oppose above. The article is now in a shape that informs the reader of the mechanistic reason for last few days' price action, which is the minimum requirement for WP:EV. "How/why stuff works/happens". The event is eminently in the news; it was a topic at the White House press meeting (for those that believe "news" must come from there). It is a superlative; the first short squeeze organized at the popular level (contra Hunt Brothers, VW, et all). The notion that this is non-notable because the stock market will keep trading is equivalent to saying elections are non-notable because the country stays on the map. A fund overseeing tens of billions of dollars has shuttered, a discount broker seems ready to declare bankruptcy, lawsuits have been filed for monetary damages. These things will not just go away if GME trades back at a "normal" level in the future.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull Posting for the sake of posting an "interesting" story. Only a big stock market crash would be notable for ITN than this non-descript one-off story. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - seems like an extraordinary event (due to social impact, has attracted scrutiny from politicians, and lawsuits).  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull - this is the most trivial item on ITN for a long time. Many much more important business stories have been rejected, and many more haven't even been nominated. Being unusual doesn't make it important. The overall effect on the market is minuscule & no new laws are being proposed due to what's happened. The unconnected fall in world stock markets this week is multiple times more significant & affects many times more people, yet no-one would nominate or support that being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's patently misleading. It takes a little while for Congress to get the gears grinding, but the Chair of the Financial Services Committee in Congress is already talking about holding hearings in response to this event. There will be new laws or regulations that will come out of this. I need to remind you also that this section is not called "In The World"; it's called "In The News". And this story, however odd it may be, is in the news. WaltCip- (talk)  13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If new laws result, it would be good for DYK. I didn't say that stories have to be worldwide, but they have to be important. There have been many much more important business stories that we didn't post. This is about a company most people haven't heard of. To the vast majority of people, the term short squeeze is jargon whose meaning they're unaware of. It's a niche story; unless you work in finance, it's not even something that'd be talked about around the watercooler. The vast majority of what the media publicise are things we'd never consider for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep annoying that this is necessary. Arguments were made, a lucid decision was rendered. There is no need to continue debate. I will reiterate my earlier point that most arguments opposing this post are completing missing the point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the elucidation. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Cloris Leachman

 * Support, article is in good shape, and the occurrence is all over the news. BD2412  T 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not in good shape with numerous CN tags and paragraphs lacking any soucing. --M asem (t) 00:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment I see only two cn tags, one for the proposition that Judith Lowry and Burt Mustin died of natural causes, which seems unimportant for this article. BD2412  T 17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not just where there are CNs, it is whole paragraphs missing citations, or where only one sentence may be sourced. This is not acceptable sourcing at a BLP level. --M asem (t) 17:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which areas particularly need improvement? I'll try to get this to a decent level, though I personally think it's already there and should be posted ASAP. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 00:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much her entire "Career" section is lacking sourcing; there are some explicit CNs but consider that given how it is written, each sentence describing one facet of her career, that you need a source for each sentence. There's also some in other sections. It needs to be the sourcing quality of a BLP. --M asem  (t) 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb just in case that's what BD2412 was implying; if Chuck Yeager or Little Richard didn't get blurbs, neither should Leachman. (I haven't/won't read the article to see if it's quality for RD, though.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not do that. Blurb conversations are a major distraction to just getting the RD done, and are utterly unnecessary in most cases.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, and agree, just that some of the people were "notable enough" as if notability weren't assumed for RD. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not in dispute. The notability requirement is assumed to be satisfied for any article eligible for RD. The condition of the article is what is important.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Severely lacking in inline citations. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose notability is not in question, article is in very poor shape. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's "recent dearths" on a template called "In the news." She died, she's in the news, so link her. If article quality is all that matters here then change the section to "Recent deaths of people with good articles" or something. Seriously, general wiki readers looking at the "In the news" template don't care whether the article looks great. The section should be used to inform people of notable deaths, not to flaunt your editing skills. --ThylekShran (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The quality requirement is something set by the virtue of being on the Main Page, which requires that we are showing some of WP's best work. A BLP article failing sourcing is clearly not that. --M asem (t) 16:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works here, if you want to change the policy then you need to have it discussed and approved beforehand. - Indefensible (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Billy Kenoi

 * Comment an awful lot of it is sourced to his personal website unless I'm mistaken... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. This shouldn't go up, until it's replaced with an independent source - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral Good article, but death source seems suspicious. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death source seems fine, it's just all of the sources from his own website. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Washbrook

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, seems like important guy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Good to go, although in places the language seems rather erudite. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Johnson

 * Oppose Kansas section unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support cool beans. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Good to go. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good. Gex4pls (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Thorburn

 * Support Short but meets minimum standards. Later life mentions a blog but doesn't say what it was about?  Spencer T• C 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't mention specifically, but I found the blog site (last article written by him posted 9 years ago). Should I add this to the article? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh it's probably something that could be omitted, although since he is a rugby star it's logical that his blog would be about that. Your call really.  Spencer T• C 04:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister of Estonia

 * Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks very well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ITN/R (but should not preclude posting). This is a change of head of government, not head of state. Only changes of the latter are ITN/R. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is ITN/R because it's a change in the national leader, similar to when Boris Johnson took over. The president is a pure figurehead in Estonia. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We finally fixed that. Changes in head of government are ITNR, and the only stipulation is that if it is elected, and the election is in multiple rounds, only the final round is posted. Restoring ITNR. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Changes in head of government are now covered by ITNR, it was expanded recently. I think taking up suggestion to base the ITNR listing on List of current heads of state and government(who is highlighted) would provide clearer guidance. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, if that's the case both the Dutch and Italian (only if a new PM is sworn in) noms should be tagged as ITN/R as well. The actual text has to be edited as there's a bullet about two-round elections below it that seems to be out of place. Changes to heads of government that occur outside of elections do not happen after two-round elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Thoroughly sourced, sufficiently long, ITN/R. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are Kaja Kallas' "other activities" properly referenced? The main source seems to be her own blog. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurbs are imprecise and they don't indicate what's going on, so I've added a new one to clarify things a bit. The truth is that she formed a new government with a new cabinet, not a mere replacement of the primer minister with minor changes. Also, I don't think the fact she's the first woman to hold the office is more important than tweaking the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per ITNR. STSC (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Adequate. Prefer Alt1 – although it would be good to get something about it being a coalition government in there but that may be too much detail for a blurb . – Sca (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Holmes Trujillo

 * Oppose Need to improve article. (Also, removed the 'posted' part of the submission's title. Didn't belong there.) WikiLove Goat (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely any sources, orange tagged and cn tagged. For the millionth time, notability isn't a concern when dealing with RD nominations :/ Gex4pls (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Resignation of Italian Prime Minister

 * Comment While i Support it to be posted as blurb due to significance, i expect that one of two articles may experience persistent IP vandalism. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Reminds me of Dutch resignation. In other words, satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wait until the new head of state is confirmed. STSC (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's Italy, standard, so wait for the ITNR change of head of state to happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the Prime Minister is not the head of state. Also, there could be no change of PM at all in this case, as he could be re-appointed by the actual head of state (the President of Italy) to form another government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Double oppose then. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait for the replacement to be announced, but changed in head of government are ITNR now --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, ITNR is for including recurring events, not for automatically excluding what is not in ITNR. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait for a successor to be announced per LaserLegs. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with LaserLegs and Vanilla Wizard, we should wait for the successor to be chosen. Vacant0 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nilda Pedrosa

 * Support Full of satis. Reminds me of death of Tunisian politican just recently. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Like a whole new article, nice job Bloom. Gex4pls (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is 3,111 characters long, well above the minimum ITN standard of 1,500 characters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to imply that it's a stub (sorry if that's how my wording came off), just that it's bony, with some sections comprised of just one sentence. If that could be bulked up a bit, then I'd support. Gex4pls (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. No worries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arik Brauer

 *  Weak oppose  ref error and one [citation needed] para. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Love article, and famous enough. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Sonnabend

 * Support A complete and referenced BLP. A single failed verification tags an inconsequential tidbit. WP:N demonstrated.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * N demonstrated by the fact he has an article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Guy was important, like the article too. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Added a cn tag but article seems pretty good other than that. Gex4pls (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  two inline tags need resolving. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - addressed 2 tags noted above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most important figures in the initial AIDS Crisis and helped invent the concept of safer sex; I'd suggest he merits a blurb, rather than just a name entry. May I suggest something like "A pioneer in the early AIDS Crisis in New York, physician and researcher Joseph Sonnabend has died at the age of 88; he co-created the first safer sex information and helped found several AIDS organisations." —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 09:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, I think RD is fine here. --Tone 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) 2021 Portuguese presidential election

 * Support ITN-R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very poor referencing throughout prose (now tagged). No prose Results.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support This one got cleaned up fast, nice job! Gex4pls (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Vacant0 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as elections are commonly listed in ITN and they are of international interest (Even if not mentioned much). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The elections are ITNR, of course, as long as the target article is up to scratch. In this case, there is no prose in the relevant sections (results? reactions?) and there is an orange tag. This should all be fixed first. --Tone 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Propose changes at WP:ERRORS - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 06:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull there is no prose for the results, as mentioned by two editors above. This is not ready yet, please pull it.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled as this article was not ready yet as pointed above. Still lots of missing content. --Tone 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the results section comprises more than just a table. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with pull. This is not ready - the article is mostly tables and there's no prose at all after the 'electoral system' section. Needs prose content before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Armstrong (ice hockey)

 * Support good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Assessed as GA in 2014, but still looks up to snuff. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Coaching record and career statistics sections need a ref. Otherwise looks great.  Spencer T• C 22:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. HockeyDB doesn't list him as being the coach in 1977–78, so I've removed that season's row and re-calculated his OHA totals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Not bad (for a Leaf). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, article looks good - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand

 * Oppose as calling out any one country's COVID response (positive/negative/otherwise) is covered by the banner. --M asem (t) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor detail in the big story at the top of Template:ITN, good for them making it two months without a single case, I'm jealous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why call out New Zealand for having one case and not the United States for passing 25 million, or India for passing 10 million, or Micronesia for getting its first case earlier this month? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NorthernFalcon. I find it absolutely hilarious that a country which has done a stand-up job of containing this unprecedented global pandemic is now somehow considered newsworthy for ascertaining the presence of ONE CASE of COVID-19 while the rest of the world is burning. We could learn a lot from the Kiwis.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Us New Zealanders have had it pretty good over the last year, and we sure appreciate it. I would not regard it as "being called out" for having a case of community transmission; I'd see it as an incredible effort that it's taken this long until another case escaped into the community.  Schwede 66  19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Rowland

 * Support Refs spot checked, article is complete.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article good, worthy for RD spot. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well reffed, written well. Gex4pls (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Bernstein

 * Support satis. 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks in good shape. Good work by Ktin. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jonas Gwangwa

 * Oppose about half unreferenced and for a "giant" of jazz, barely above stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost no important acheivements, unworthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, notability is not a concern with RD. Any gripes with the article itself are valid, but please do not oppose RD listings for being un notable :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy Torrens

 * Comment - actively being updated and may be ready soon, but not yet per orange banner. - Indefensible (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This looks alright to me, even though it's just barely over stub size. The verification tag seems to only have reflected a previous version of the page, and can probably be removed (though I won't, since I don't know much about cricket). Nohomersryan (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support brief but satis. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 00:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Would like to see more than 3 sentences about his playing career. Managing and administrative career could be fleshed out too. Overall, falling into "stub" category, as RDs should typically have more than 1 body section.  Spencer T• C 03:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Added some sentences regarding his playing career. I think it should be satisfying to the readers. Abishe (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy for RD spot. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Lil' baby article but well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment needs another look, consensus is that it's good to go and has had a little expansion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian protests

 * Oppose proseline. The background section is larger than the events themselves. Nothing in the target tells me, the reader, why this matters. 40,000 people marched? From where to where? Then what? Speeches? Police brutality? Putin resigned? What happened? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that table, almost all of it cited to Meduza.io which is an aggregator that provides no sources for it's map. Needs an orange tag -- of course it'll go on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless it escalates to something more serious. For now, it seems like Putin firmly keeps everything under control and the number of arrests confirms it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support – Widely covered. No. 1 story on main Eng.-lang RS sites. (Reuters sez 1,000-plus arrested.) – Sca (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Russian opposition claims 1,600 arrested, but that's not a lot. Also Reuters claims 110k people protested across Russia, but Reuters is an American news organization and is clearly not independent from the U.S. foreign policy so I'm not sure if we can trust them given the state of cold war between the U.S. and Russia.5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kiril Simeonovski. Relatively minor protests 5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me remind users that Navalny became a high-profile international figure last year in connection with the KGB-style nerve-agent attack on him in Russia and his lengthy convalescence in Germany. – Sca (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news, significant and large-scale, by the standards of a country as repressive as Russia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04F:6CAB:4650:3C70 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per IP. This is sufficiently unusual in Russia to merit attention and is being depicted in the press as a make-or-break moment for Navalny's movement. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once you peel back the hype, isn't notable. We had well over one thousand people arrested in the US the day after the elections with protests in tens of cities, yet nobody even bothered to nom. (Granted 600 arrests were in Minnesota which was already numb from George Floyd protests). Its bigger now (more than one thousand arrested, thankfully no deaths), so disregard previous comment. Albertaont (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, the United States has a history of protest and dissent. Modern Russia does not. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. The protests didn't just happen in Moscow, they were nationwide, in 70 cities from the Far East to St Petersburg, according to Giardian. For a repressive authoritarian regime like Putin's Russia that's highly unusual already. The same Guardian article says that "The demonstrations were some of Moscow’s largest since 2012." Although nobody was killed, the authorities used considerable force in dispersing the protests, and again the same article says that "The police at times appeared to be losing control." All of this is usual for Russia Nsk92 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unlike previous protests, these ones appear to be occurring nationwide and even in smaller, less notable Russian towns and cities. Twitter made its own news page for the event, calling the footage "remarkable." This thread has more videos of the protests and where they're occurring. Given the context of these protests (Opposition leader Navalny getting poisoned, being transported to Germany for treatment, surviving, and then returning to Russia despite warnings he would be arrested) I think it's important that readers are able to grasp the political momentum that is fomenting in Russia against the actions of Putin. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -I support posting this one because the protests are bigger than usual. And plenty of arrests.BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Washington Post is now saying 70+ cities/towns and over 2,700 arrested. gobonobo  + c 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per scale and location: both unusual and highly newsworthy Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per JoshHawkinsBois. Thousands of peaceful protesters were arrested in only a day, and the protests have already spawned demonstrations of solidarity in other countries. <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> 💙 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait/Weak Support I would prefer to wait and see if the protests are sustained and escalate to a point of being able to post it on Ongoing as well. However, if the actual "protests" section of the article could be expanded relative to the background section, I wouldn't mind a blurb now. Juxlos (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - this probably deserves to be posted, but WP:NOTNP and both the event and article continue to evolve rapidly so it would be better for the article to mature a bit more before posting as a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support because of the scale of hte protests. Still, Navalny's support in Russia is in the 2% range, hence I'm only weakly supporting. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Posts are running at a 5:2 ratio in favor. Marked needs attn. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I took the liberty of adjusting the blurb for better flow. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article for Alexei Navalny has his first name ending in an "i" contrary to a "y" in the blurb, should this be changed to match? - Indefensible (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb Events have developed and the facts I've added make clear what's at stake. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The total number of detainees (3352) is a record for the entire history of protest actions in the modern history of Russia. Prior to this, a record number of people in total throughout the country was detained on June 12, 2017 - 1769 people. The highest number of protesters to join an unauthorized rally in Moscow since at least 2013.  TarzanASG (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of detainees (1402) has exceeded 1,400 people in Moscow on January 23. This is a record for a single protest rally. TarzanASG (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: Larry King

 * Thanks to for adding The Independent source. Regards  So  Why  13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be a blurb. Household name worldwide (quite unlike that literallywho Basketball player we just posted) 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should keep both. No need to knock Hank Aaron (who played baseball, not basketball). UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb: Major household name and easily the most famous on-air talent associated with CNN, especially internationally. His departure from the network also marked a significant turning point for cable news and heralded CNN's decline. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment just wait: "old man dies" not worthy of a blurb nonsense incoming...!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Haters gonna hate Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Until his hopsitalization, King was still active as a host, so even less of "old man dies" here. --M asem (t) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We created RD to keep death blurbs from pushing other stories out of the box, so my threshold for a blurb is very high. No hate here. Will stop being "in the news" Monday morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb: Even Swedish media calls him "legendary" (as do French and Spanish). This is someone who made a splash all over the world. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb: Prefered to be a blurb. Every major news source in Serbia published an article about his death. Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb unless you can update the target article to show how king was "transformative" in the world of talk show interviews. He was no Mike Wallace, for example. We have guidelines for blurbs and King seems to fit RD perfectly. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mike Who? That's a US POV. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? Mike Wallace basically invented the confrontational television interview and 60 Minutes was the reference implementation for a television news magazine. Oh and Mike Wallace was a key character in a major motion picture. You're really going to accuse me of "a US POV" when both Larry King and the more accomplished TV news host I compared him to are both American? Really? I mean..... --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that Wallace might be more famous in the US than King, but living outside the US, I know exactly who King was but had never heard of Wallace. Outside the US, King was synonymous with US television for a long time. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got no clue who Mike Wallace is either.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From a non-American POV, I’ve never heard of Mike Wallace, but I do know of Larry King.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did a little search and King is front page news on French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, even Russian papers. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the view that Larry King was more famous worldwide and that's a very good reason to post a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide - agree with cart, I never heard of Mike Wallace on this side of the world JW 1961   Talk  14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb if the CNs are fixed. BBC: King was a giant of US broadcasting who achieved worldwide fame for interviewing political leaders and celebrities. AP: King helped define American conversation for a half-century.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb from another person outside the United States. Like it or not, his name is probably the first one that comes to mind when talking about television.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It’s obvious that the most famous television journalist since Cronkite and a cultural icon deserves an entire blurb, not a simple recent death mention. Most people under 60 don’t even know who Mike Wallace is. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I suspect most people under 60 outside the US don't know who Larry King was either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently judging by the reaction, that isn’t the case. This was a man who was also in children’s tv shows and movies. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cronkite who? Anyway, just checked with my partner and my sibling. I didn’t know if they knew of Larry King, but they said yes.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As to Wallace being a character in a major motion picture, IMDb has King appearing in 67 movies. When directors wanted to show how famous the lead character was, they always had her/him being interviewed by King in some montage. This was going on until 2016. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , lol I just scraped in - being 60 in a few weeks time from Ireland, most of us would know King :) JW 1961   Talk  15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew who he was as well, but I did base that comment on a small representative sample i.e. (a) asking my kids (nope), then (b) asking my wife (answer: "basketball player, isn't he?") Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sampling error of that particular subset would make any statistician's head spin.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, it was 50% by gender, 50% under-45 and over-45, what more do you want? :) Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide, he had a 63-year broadcasting career, which included 25 years as an interviewer on CNN's Larry King Live. - agree with cart. AbDaryaee (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb after the few CNs in the article are fixed. Also, this is not appearing as cut-and-dried as Hank Aaron, so recommend we make sure there's a clear concensus on a blurb (RD can go up rather quickly though). --M asem (t) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In case a blurb is supported, I've got the picture above into image protection queue so that it is ready to go. --M asem (t) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Easily one of the, if not the, most famous talk show hosts out there. Why are we even talking about Mike Wallace? All coz of Laser "Devil's Advocate" Legs? RIP Larry Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article contains a number of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb just for the record. I suggested this as RD since RD is certain but I agree that he was known around the world. I knew him and my g/f who I just asked knew him as well and we are both German. Not only was he famous for his work, he was also a staple in popular culture. A blurb would be more than appropriate imho. Regards So  Why  15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb definitely notable, not only in the US but also in journalism circles. Egeymi (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only, per TRM, Legs. Where's the transformatization? – Sca (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. We already have Hank Aaron up there atm; two American blurbs is two too many. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please do not 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."--WaltCip- (talk)  16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Influential in the television broadcasting field, death reported with significant coverage and article in decent shape. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I'd certainly never heard of him, but most importantly none of the +votes have offered any serious explanation for his transformative importance in the field. There are plenty of high-profile journalists and interviewers but their importance is usually national-only. For what it's worth, I think we did include David Frost in 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Larry King is one of the most influential, well-known, and transformative individuals in the history of broadcasting. I'd suggest reading the article if you've never heard of him. Mlb96 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As TRM and I have pointed out, this cannot be posted RD or Blurb until quality issues are resolved. Too many editors are arguing towards importance but forgetting the other major pillar for inclusion in the ITN box. --M asem (t) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem Which "quality issues" are there? I think they have all been resolved.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were more before, but there remains the POV orange section tag on the controversy section. --M asem (t) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Once the tag in the “controversies” section is gone, it’s ready to go.  Schwede 66  18:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the orange tag in Controversies is fixed. The article also contradicts itself on King's religious beliefs (Jewish agnostic or fully atheist). Although King was rather old, he was still very active and had a lasting influence in broadcast media. Spengouli (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb One of the most influential talk show hosts of our time. Deserves a blurb. Also marking as ready.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On a scale of 1 to 1, how strong is your support? – Sca (talk)


 * Comment Fixed the contradictory line about his religion. Basically, I combined the two.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - WP:NOTNP, having the listing in the RD row is enough for encyclopedic coverage and having a blurb will crowd out another entry. - Indefensible (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above, and per RS which say he had an international reputation. Davey2116 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - He was top field of his work. Interviewing everyone important from top politicians, sportsmen, celebrities over more than 4 decades. BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He was popular, but I don't see what's transformative about being on television a long time (especially given that he was never especially praised for his interviewing prowess), and he was in the hospital for over a month, so this is not a surprising death. Also, I promise I'm not some kind of blurb-hating maniac. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb King was certainly at the top of his respective field. I can't think of another individual in the television/radio host category as worthy of a blurb as him. He's been on the air for 67 years and is a recognizable name around the world. <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> 💙 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I feel like Aaron's picture should get a little more time so I didn't add King's yet. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:331dot - this entry has support but does not have consensus for posting per the opposes. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As of this moment I stand by my decision. It's not set in stone, though. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb, old men die, the name is recognizable enough on its own in RD for those interested in who this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb / Pull. I've heard of him, yes, but he's not of the major transformative level that we blurb. Not sure why this was deemed suitable for such an early posting either. Unless it's completely slam dunk and Uncontroversial, like the Hank Aaron case below, it's usual to RD first and let blurb conversation proceed at a leisurely pace. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "early posting"; there are numerous comments above with a good number of people weighing in. We have no arbitrary minimum discussion time. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained what I meant by this above. Several people had already opposed a blurb by the time you posted, and now even more have opposed since. That means it's not Uncontroversial, and as we always do with such cases, we RD it first (assuming quality is OK) while blurb discussion continues. To avoid the unseemly rigmorole of having to pull something that's already been posted. I was questioning why that step was bypassed here. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of that bring a formal rule. I evaluated the arguments and made a decision. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I must agree that while a major figure in American journalism, he does not quite rise to the level of blurb worthy in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/pull blurb I was a fan, but he died of old-age related diseases at 87, and he wasn't "top tier" famous. A big name sure, but most certainly not heads higher than several others in the world of journalism. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In Larry King vs. Hank Aaron, both "old man dies", I'm always astonished about the VIP treatment US athletes get on ITN, as opposed to US non-sports people who are internationally known. Just saying. I know I can't change that, but it's worth mentioning. (Ok, now let the "you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about rain" begin.) --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I invite you to make nominations of such persons that you think merit posting and convince others to support them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've noticed a few !votes pointing out that he was elderly; I'd like to politely ask that editors avoid those types of rationales in RD blurbs where the notability comes not from the way they died, but what they did with their lives. Any accomplished individual who is at the top of their respective field is more likely to die old than young, so age is not the determining factor here. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's elderly is a relevant factor because it means that his death is not in itself remarkable or independently newsworthy. If he had died unexpectedly at a young age, as say Kobe Bryant did, that changes the equation. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Age at death is also the exact hook of the proposed blurbs, what else are we supposed to oppose? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Amakuru and InedibleHulk. Someone who is entirely notable for "What they did with their lives" is on WP:ITNRD as a reason to post someone in RD, not as a blurb. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let Me Die A Youngman's Death by Roger McGough. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RE: Amakuru and Nohomersryan, both can be reasons why a death is notable (either that the death itself was unexpected or that the individual themselves was notable), but most RDs that get posted as blurbs are deaths of elderly people who died of natural causes, because the determining factor was what they did in their lives. Kobe Bryant dying at a young age was undoubtedly shocking, but this is very rarely the case. Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. If any editor were to oppose the posting of Aretha Franklin, Stephen Hawking, or Nelson Mandela because they were all between the ages of 76 and 95 and died of natural causes, they would surely be criticized for thinking that their advanced age makes them any less blurb-worthy. <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> 💙 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Vanilla Wizard - How is "field" defined? Should Sharon Begley get a blurb for arguably being at the top of her respective field? (See awards section on her article for reference.) - Indefensible (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what the discussion is for; whether an individual is at the top is inherently arbitrary and not for us to decide, it's for sources to decide, and Sharon Begley's passing resulted in nowhere near as many reliable sources covering it. I'm simply arguing that we can and do post the deaths of "major figures" (see WP:ITNRD: "The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb."), not just deaths that occur as a result of shocking freak accidents, hence "they were old" shouldn't be considered a valid reason to !vote oppose. <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> 💙 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb is exclusively about the age at which he died. Maybe propose an alternative if you don't want his age to factor in. Not sure where Supporters see any other accomplishment here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you take issue with the wording of this RD blurb? The format of "(field) (name) died at the age of (age)" is pretty standard. <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> 💙 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, it's old news. But yes, should have been RD (two days later at Annan, I voted No blurbs for anyone). At least that one had a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is inherently subjective, and what is for Wikipedians to decide is whether it gets posted and/or blurbed or not. Right now there does not seem to be consensus for supporting the blurb whether based on age or otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. - The bar is higher than simply being top of one's field, which was the old RD criteria that was rightfully junked. Besides, Franklin and Mandela's deaths were followed by a wave of tributes and lengthy memorials that dominated TV for days after they had passed. King was an elderly TV host who did not die in a surprising way; he won't be top news 24 hours from now. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While we should take into account a person who is simply elder and has not been active for a while in their field (meaning that they should have achieved a greater importance in their youth as was the case of Hank Aaron), until the start of 2021, King was still doing his shows and interviews and showed no sign of slowing down until he was hospitalized by COVID. So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant, in addition to the fact King was a luminary in the field already. --M asem (t) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant Wait, what?? An 87-year-old man who was hospitalized for over a month with a deadly disease is as surprising as a 41-year-old athlete dying suddenly in a helicopter crash? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb for the post-posting debate. A world-renowned figure in his field, working up until nearly his death. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb he would be famous internationally for the "people with American cable TV" audience, but otherwise I doubt the Mandela/Hawking levels of notability. Was King even top of his field in terms of notability relative to contemporaries? No issue with RD. Juxlos (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His shows were bought by TV-companies and aired in other countries, same as films and series were before cable. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb American TV isn't available in much of the rest of the world. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled - Because 6 of the 7 folks who expressed an opinion since the posting were either pull or oppose, it's best to pull it at this time until a consensus develops to post. Courtesy ping: -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting to the RD list is probably fine still. - Indefensible (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Repost as blurb. There was consensus to post as a blurb when it was posted and the given reason for removal is weak. Consensus should be judged as whole and not based on knee-jerk pull comments after the fact. -- Calidum  23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite true: there was already pushback by about whether a consensus had been reached at the time of posting, and the addition of 6 out of 7 additional voices to pull/oppose shows there is very unclear consensus here. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Knee-jerk, my foot, I've been blowing this same horn since Kofi kicked off three summers ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hank Aaron a virtually unknown outside the US is posted to Blurb. But Larry King is not per ”being unknown outside the US”. Let that sink in.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb it's inherently US centric (i'm from Australia); when someone who is one of the top figures in their field (broadcasting) and known worldwide - is seen as less notable than a baseball player (only really big in the US, Japan, Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic) - which proves international notability means nothing in the end. I doubt anyone here would blurb Sadaharu Oh either (or any cricketer like Garfield Sobers or Viv Richards for that matter - which would point towards American sports fanboyism instead and noone actually caring about the sport's international prospects). Unless we are going to claim a CNN show has less international reach than baseball. Only legitimate argument would be that Ted Turner would probably not get a blurb, so a CNN host probably should not! Either way, i support King's blurb. GuzzyG (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably the Hank Aaron blurb should be removed and added to the RD list as well per your comment and similar others, that would be better than having them take up ITN blurb space for other encyclopedic content. - Indefensible (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Noone would blurb Barbara Walters so King is in a similar playing field - although he's up there with David Frost and Oriana Fallaci - we'd probably blurb David Attenborough though, so in the end - it's just the person whose field tends to have Wikipedia editors as fans (like Carrie Fisher). Realistically, journalism is a relatively country specific area (although people like King break through internationally sometimes, moreso than a Walter Cronkite type of broadcaster). Sports though i would say only top notch footballers like Pelé (worldwide sport) or Olympic athletes like Michael Phelps (worldwide competition) should be blurbed regularly, with the rare pass for Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Michael Jordan type athletes that are known worldwide or people like Garry Kasparov with a bit of historical importance behind them (human rights) - most sports are very local ad very rarely are important in different countries than in which they compete. Either way, King's show broadcasted on CNN International; which means he is more international than some people here give him credit - but if we go by the original Thatcher/Mandela standard than none would probably make it, to be honest! GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Definitely the most notable person associated with CNN and probably talk shows in general. Maybe I'm biased by living close to the US but whenever a character in a movie goes on a talk show it always seems to be Larry King. Connor Behan (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being associated with CNN is not prima facie proof of notability, not even in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Most notable person associated with CNN" is a different sentence from "notable because he was associated with CNN". Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb -- can we please make a policy that once a blurb is posted, it is not pulled? This is unprofessional. I'd rather we wait a long period of time before blurbing than do this. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support such a policy -- this alone is enough of a reason to restore Larry King. It is troubling that an admin thought it was acceptable not only to pull a death blurb but to do so without moving it to RD. Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh 1. He is known worldwide, this is not debateable. 2. He was extremely successful and accomplished in his career over the years, in radio and television, by any standard you can name. 3. His article indicates nothing transformative, he didnt pioneer anything, didnt make any great advances to the world of broadcasting/news/interviews etc. He didnt invent the softly softly interviewing technique. He may have been highly influential, but its not in his article, which reads much more like 'This is who he was, what he did' not 'This is what he achieved and improved on compared to others in his field'. If the standard for blurbing is 'transformative', then his article needs something to that effect. If we are happy with just having someone at the top of their game after a long successful life, we need to dump the transformative requirement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Yes, a well-known figure but doesn't meet the "transformative" standard. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Well known is not the same as important. Quite shocked at the level of support here. I imagine the place King held at CNN when CNN was the be-all-end-all is inflating people's opinion of him. He interviewed everyone because he was such a lightweight.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Move Hank Aaron to RD too: no consensus to post there either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Well known around the world (except to young people perhaps) and he was definitely at the top of his field. His death has been reported as a top story not only in the U.S. but also in other countries. Larry King's show, by the way, aired not only on CNN USA but also on CNN International, which is available in many countries. I'm surprised Larry King is being questioned while we have a blurb for Hank Aaron, who I never even heard of. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD. It seems that King was pulled ENTIRELY which is very disproportionate.  He's easily important enough for RD (unless there's undisclosed BLP issues in the article or the like), but probably borderline for a blurb.  (Also, Hank Aaron >>> Larry King, surprised to see that incredulity above...  it's not unreasonable for Aaron to get a blurb but not King.  TV journalists are common; lifetime homerun record holders are exceedingly rare.) SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: why is he not in RD???-- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already rolled off when Dave Bolton was added. FYI to User:SnowFire as well. Agree that he should be listed for a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have been. Bolton is the only one on the ticker who passed more recently than King. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't do it that way anymore, it seems to be first on/first off. Anyhow, I have re-added this as a 7th RD since it seems like there was a great deal of support and it was hardly on there at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Only top of a narrow field; I'd say he was an Eddie Van Halen level television host... -  Floydian  τ ¢ 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, per User:Vanilla Wizard rationale above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only while very well-known, not transformative. It's pretty hard for a news host to be transformative because they can't proactively change the course of history/academics/sports techniques/jurisprudence/commerce etc in a way that a trailblazing politician/research professor/sportsperson/judge/businessperson could, but that is the lot of a TV host Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stats This needs revisiting now that Larry King has scrolled off RD but Hank Aaron is still there with a big picture. |Larry_King|Hank_Aaron|2020%E2%80%9321_Central_African_general_election|LauncherOne King peaked at over 1.5 million views and was still the top read on Wikipedia yesterday with 666K – a figure that Aaron failed to reach at all.  The other blurbs are nowhere in this contest – they barely twitched the needle.  The general consensus of our readership is clear.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb and oppose reinserting people who have rolled off as setting a precedent and oppose ITN becoming WP:TOP25 for about the 540th time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support re-blurb just to make ourselves look even more ridiculous.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyclone Eloise

 * Support – This storm is still strengthening and is almost guaranteed to continue doing so all the way up to landfall. Which is imminent. The storm is going to strike Mozambique, a country that was devastated by Cyclones Idai and Kenneth back in 2019. The country hasn't yet recovered, and they recently experienced a landfall from Tropical Storm Chalane near the end of last month. This storm is guaranteed to have significant impacts on a region still recovering from a devastating storm, and as such, it warrants an ITN mention. There will be more damage, and there will almost certainly be more deaths.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, though I would think that the blurb should reflect the strength and ominous nature of the storm. As written, it sounds like a thing that happened and is done with. BD2412  T 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eloise hasn't made landfall yet. It's quickly intensifying though. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now. Don't get too WP:CRYSTAL on us now, the storm hasn't made landfall yet, and so far the death toll is low. (Also, the article needs a bit of improvement) Gex4pls (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked over your sources and it looks like (correct me if I'm wrong) the 3 deaths came from previous rains not associated with the storm, and the only death mentioned is in the reuters article, where they claim that one person has died in Madagascar. Gex4pls (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3 deaths were part of the moisture associated with the storm. The Reuters article mentions flooding days before the storm's arrival. The storm was very large and had a large moisture field, with sprawling rainbands. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, makes sense then. Sorry about that. Gex4pls (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! It's entirely fine to question the deaths/impact of a storm if the source is unclear. Cheers, ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment didn't we 86 posting some storms at the end of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season because ITN was "not a storm ticker" or somesuch? What makes Eloise unique? Largest size? Highest wind speed? Largest storm surge? Unseasonable? Exceptionally high death toll or economic impact? Is there anything about this storm other than routine storm doing routine storm things? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On lack of significance. The civil war in northern Mozambique, from which half a million have fled, seems far more important than the deaths of four people in a storm. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks very run-of-the-mill, indeed I've been having stronger gusts outside my house today. Meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment More news articles are still being released about Eloise, so it may be too soon to determine notability. This article came out while I was in the middle of typing this !vote, and it mentions that the threat of floods related to Eloise is still present. It looks like the storm will thankfully be nowhere near as bad as Cyclone Idai was, but it's still possible that it was devastating enough to warrant mentioning it in ITN. I'd give it at least a day to wait for more information about the impact that Eloise had. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nine people are dead. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This storm hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Typical aftermath of a tropical cyclone. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unimportant. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest

 * So, I am guessing you are not aware of the recent happenings. The article is in dire need of an update; yes, it needs to be off the main page in its present state. There have been pretty recent and major developments to the case, wherein the government proposed suspension of the said laws while the protesting party refused. There is a plan to take out a major rally on 26 Jan - India's Republic Day. If someone updates the article, this should remain on. It still is a pretty hot topic being covered by international media. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the story, because I honestly don't care about it. I just evaluated the article against the WP:ITN criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care about it Uh-huh. That should violate #4. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the article, I didn't scour the internet for news about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I agree. Should be removed. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose For now. All of the recent news about the subject doesn't seem impactful (of the four articles published within a week ago, 2 don't mean anything for the story, 1  is about how the protests may end, and only 1  appears to be real news.) However, it does appear that the people are at least still protesting, with a bit of coverage too. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then get it into the target article, that's what we're featuring on the main page for our WP:READERS --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the article could use some updating, but looks like this is still noteworthy and an ongoing event that is not resolved yet. Some sources from a quick search: MSN/Bloomberg, MSN/Hindustan Times - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal per nom. This is an ongoing issue with items in the Ongoing section.  Spencer T• C 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just looked into it briefly, there were negotiations ongoing between the 2 sides which failed on Friday, and there is another protest planned for the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Single sentence bullet point updates (e.g. 2020–2021_Indian_farmers%27_protest are essentially minimal updates to the article. Without paragraph-length substantial ongoing updates (suggesting that the continuing events are substantially noteworthy), articles should not remain indefinitely in Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that the protests are not over so the nomination is not accurate, and it should not be removed for that reason. The event is still ongoing, there was a legitimate reason why things calmed down because directly-related negotiations were being held, but no resolution was found. So more protests are expected in the near-term, and it would not be unexpected to see major developments added. - Indefensible (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; have struck "per nom". I am not supporting removal because of reasons in the nomination stating that the event is stale, rather because the article is not continuing to receive substantial updates with recent events. Although more protests may be expected, possible future events is not a reason to keep a non-updated article in Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That reason makes more sense and I agree the article could be improved, but contrarily there is no rush to take it down since events in scope of the subject are still active and there is reasonable expectation for near-term developments. Realistically it could be similar to the newly posted Russian protests, it would not be right to take it down for lack of article update and then turn around in a couple days and have to repost it because of a new nomination for the same event IMO, so it would be better to just sit on it a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that there is going to be a major development in India (Republic Day Jan 26th - protest march in Delhi) which is now 24 hours away suggests we should wait until then. Albertaont (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which would make one update in two weeks --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support and thanks to the nominator for the background. If it's been more than a month since the last protest noted in a protest article, then the article is far from sufficiently updated to satisfy Ongoing criteria. Whether protests might happen in the future, and whether those might result in actual article updates is CRYSTAL. Per discussion here, there has been apparently many things going on that haven't gotten into the article; Why should be wait another day to see whether yet another "X thousand people marched in Y city demanding Z" update? If that actually hashes out and it's notable, the article can go back to Ongoing or as a blurb. But this should have come down weeks ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No longer CRYSTAL, Republic Day protests are definitely happening. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Still going on: AP BBC Guardian Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose demonstrations just turned violent yesterday. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 14:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Guzmán Tapia

 * Support A complete and referenced BLP and a clear demonstration of WP:N.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't a concern with RD, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is long and well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I had planned to nominate him and take advantage of this afternoon to work on his article, so I thank you for the nomination. You've done a great job of updating and it looks ready to be posted on RD.Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for homepage / RD. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luton Shelton

 * Support Important enough. WikiLove Goat (talk) 1:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:ITNRD. As long as they have an article here, any sentient creature is considered automatically important enough for inclusion. The discussion is just about article quality. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb His record (35 goals) matches his age (35 years), very few if any Jamaican football players can top that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support importance is not a criterion here, and certainly not a blurb. Article is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: how many unsourced paragraphs and sections before an article has to be improved before posting? This has to wait 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:D4D2:4979:ACAD:5237 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ready" removed, two sentences appear to need a citation, one of which looks like it could just go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Please Take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage for his playing career from 2008-2018. At present there are single sentences about a team he played for--what did he do while there?  Spencer T• C 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any citation tags have already been fixed, and I have added some more material about his career after 2008. please check this Joofjoof (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled A bit of an edit conflict, I had tagged Luton_Shelton as unsourced. I'm admittedly not a football fan, but this doesn't seem like WP:SKYISBLUE.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * technically those are club honours, not individual honours. I have added citations and wikilinks, so it should be resolved. Joofjoof (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: F. X. Sudjasmin

 * Support Full of satis. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support relatively okay, few tone issues and only linked to the "Deaths in 2021" list article so could use some links into some real encyclopedic articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine. Gex4pls (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment marking for attention, has looked ok with support for 18 hours. Still could use being linked into articles beyond the list of deaths. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Hank Aaron

 * A blurb maybe? Just putting it out there. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The greatest of all time, and a really well written article too. Not too many recent blurbs in ITN anyways --Rockin (Talk) 15:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Yes. Absolutely iconic in his field. Sui generis in every way. Even if you don't follow baseball closely, you've heard the name.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Definitely in favor of a blurb. He was the home run king for decades, this should be mentioned.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  16:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb article looks good. I would say he's the most notable player of baseball who was alive yesterday.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment legends speak for themselves, hence ALT2. The first blurb is too "in-universe". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per nom. Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hank Aaron is considered a top 5 baseball player of all time, with only the long deceased Babe Ruth clearly ahead of him. Willie Mays is the only living baseball player on or above Hank Aaron's level (unless we want to include the steroid cheaters).  See this as a reference. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (alt2). Article appears to be fully referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 Very big name in baseball. Article is in good shape. Gex4pls (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Hero and history-maker -TenorTwelve (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Unanimous support. Now's the admin part to post this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. A tremendous baseball player and a civil rights leader. -- Calidum  17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Household name even for people who don't follow baseball. Mlb96 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the posting, but I think your idea of what a 'household name' is does not apply to most of the English-speaking world. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have never read of this man, although I have read of Babe Ruth.  starship .paint  (exalt) 00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anyone is going to judge you if you decide to post this given the unanimous support.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean we don't need to wait for every timezone to chip in?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Got beaten to it, but thanks for the confidence . 331dot (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If HiLo raises a fuss, we can have that discussion then.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb No-brainer. Will followup on the picture. --M asem (t) 17:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And pic in place. --M asem (t) 17:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him. Support, of course Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - major news. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Should be moved to recent deaths. WikiLove Goat (talk 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?--WaltCip- (talk)  19:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it is a recent death. WikiLove Goat (talk 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Important deaths can be posted to ITN, not RD. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg a couple months back. Gex4pls (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note for future reference the "5th greatest" in a sport was herein considered to warrant a full death blurb. 205.175.106.98 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... the reason he's being posted is because he is also an extremely important icon in the civil rights movement. He got a standing ovation in the deep south in 1974 for breaking Babe Ruth's record. That's an insane accomplishment. It's not just because of his ranking (which is impressive all on its own). -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Futile Oppose He was 86 and died, his real newsworthy accomplishments came decades ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, just so it's on the record. I love baseball and Aaron, but I don't see what makes this blurbworthy. This isn't a surprising death, and while it's true he's one of the best to ever swing a bat, he isn't worshipped on the scale of, say, one of the best footballers ever. As for the civil rights angle, it's pretty broad and hard to fit Aaron into as easily as, say, someone like Jackie Robinson. (What makes him greater in that aspect than someone like John Lewis, who was yanked from ITN quite resoundingly?) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He also isn't reviled on the scale of one of the best footballers ever, if you know who I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * yanked from ITN quite resoundingly: Looking back at the the Lewis nom, it seems that 24h of very strong blurb support got pulled for a few hours of non-rebutted, post-blurb opposes. The post-pull comments were harsh on the removal. "resoundingly" is open to debate.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to the comments made after the posting, which seemed unanimously negative. I figured this would be the same kind of nomination that attracts a flurry of supports for a blurb, only to crumble when it's actually posted. Guess I'm no clairvoyant. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its the "Thatcher–Mandela rule".—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb in the strongest terms. This is the whole reason the RD section exists, and quite frankly there are bigger things to put in the news box This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please propose those "bigger things" for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support A legend for the sport of baseball. The fact that there might be other ITN/C is irrelevant. Nihlus  01:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning support blurb after the fact, given remarkable achievements both as an athlete and as a civil rights figure. BD2412  T 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - unknown to many around the world who died of old-age. I guess only Babe Ruth would have qualified for a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose blurb - does not seem to meet the criteria at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths i.e. not a transformative figure on the world stage. Also, completely unknown outside the US. This is a world encyclopedia, not a US encyclopedia. MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I don't know baseball that well and I don't live in the US but I have heard of Aaron and his death is being reported in the UK (BBC.co.uk, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph etc etc). Also making headlines in other countries such as Canada, Germany, Australia, India etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Global recognition is not a requirement for any ITN posting, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Observation - this discussion makes an interesting comparison with this one about a different top-of-their-field "national icon" (leaving aside the technical issue of whether that article initially needed a tad more work). Davidships (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb is referred to quite literally as a "legend" of baseball. The "old man dies" argument is ridiculous, do we think if Pele dies we won't blurb it??  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not blurbing Dave Bolton, also referred to quite literally as a "legend". We haven't blurbed a lot of alleged "legends", in a lot of fields. When Pele dies, he'll be called one, too; he'll get the blurb by sheer numbers, I bet, but I already Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Post posting Support blurb The bottom line is that he was an influential figure and the article is in good shape PERIOD. The “he’s old” argument is overused and frankly a weak one (everyone gets old, even influential figures) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noticed a few people citing his civil rights accomplishments as reason to post, but I'm not familiar with them and when I go to the article, CTRL+F "civil rights" returns zero results. If it's just his status as an accomplished black player through the civil rights era, I get it but the article doesn't make it seem important (the term "black" is only mentioned twice in the article). I am leaning support though because of his numerous baseball accomplishments and how well-known he was. TarkusAB talk / contrib 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That he got old and died, like everyone who doesn't die young, is the content of the blurb. It doesn't say shit about his feats, his influence or what changes now. The "old man dies" story is overused and weak, hence the routine opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - same as for Larry King, WP:NOTNP and having the RD entry is enough for encyclopedic coverage whereas this entry crowds out the space for another entry. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb The article is in great shape, and has attracted over 500,000 page views yesterday. It's nice to see a black face on the front page after the events of the past two weeks over there, and readers could learn a lot about the United States from this article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Doesn't even seem to be close. This only matters to people who are fans of baseball, and even then it matters less than the results of major baseball events. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably matters to BAME people too don't you think? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Banedon. Larry King was very known outside U.S and his death was reported as a "Breaking News", unlike Hank Aaron, who even his passing has not had an impact on other countries around the world. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support blurb He was an African American historymaker.-TenorTwelve (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. American boomer navelgazing, unknown elsewhere among those who are not fans of his sport.  Sandstein   22:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meherzia Labidi Maïza

 * Support Political deaths have value. WikiLove Goat (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the value of the death, political or otherwise, is irrelevant to this process. The article quality is what we're assessing here and it's satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the writing needs to be copyedited now, and there's some conflict over the manner of her death, the prose claims "rumours" about COVID and the categories claims COVID (for example). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks The Rambling Man, looks like someone messed up the death section a bit when adding (in good faith) the dispute over cause of death.  I've given it a tidy and removed the cause of death category - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, marked for admin attn now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mauricio Herdocia Sacasa

 * Support Looks good. Adequate depth of coverage and fully referenced; marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 03:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencer. Joofjoof (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. While I did support the nom, this is further down the page and multiple other recent RDs have been posted. Please ping me if there are issues and it needs to be pulled. Best,  Spencer T• C 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mongolian Prime Minister resigns

 * Oppose per orange banner, needs better referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just not good enough. STSC (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Henryk Chmielewski (comics)

 * Oppose. I'd love to support, but the article is almost entirely sourced from the subject's autobiography. — Kpalion(talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - hesitant to support per above, referencing is questionable. - Indefensible (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nathalie Delon

 * Support Looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support one citation is missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sourced now. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to go for about 24 hours now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Bolton

 * Support "stasis" or whatever it is you kids say these days Gex4pls (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "stacist" or whatever. Well sourced and not a stub. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb Quality is sera, BBC headline screams "legend", no-brainer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointless and disruptive. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis, once I addressed the gratuitous overlinking . (It stands for "satisfactory" for those above struggling with it). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer - Larry King was posted for less than 24 hours and there was even significant support for a blurb, would it make sense to extend the RD list temporarily and add him back? - Indefensible (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Had not realized the posting time; my apologies. ITN needs to better figure out its RD processes, as the turnover time is becoming even shorter and shorter: at present there are 3 "ready" noms, 7 RDs on the template, and there's still not going to be space to keep King in for at least 24 hours.  Spencer T• C 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Resignation of Canada's Governor General

 * Comment Unless I am mistaken, isn't Justin Trudeau the head of state? He's the prime minister. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 23:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Trudeau is the head of government. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm from the U.S. and don't know Canadian politics. I've read that Payette has direct communication with the queen but is not the queen. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 23:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Queen is the head of state. The governor general is her representative. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, you're already half Canadian with that unnecessary apology :) In commonwealth countries, the Prime Minister is the head of government, and the Queen is head of state. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen for that nation. Purely ceremonial role really, but still a very high ranking political office none-the-less. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some Commonwealth countries. There are 31 Commonwealth nations that are republics, and the Queen is not the head of state. -dmmaus (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes, the governor general is the representative of the head of state of Canada, which makes it a pretty important position, important enough to be listed at List of current heads of state and government. But the Prime Minister is the one with all of the power, so I don't think this is notable enough for ITN, unless we're planning on making positions like the president of Israel, the president of Italy, the prime minister of Bahrain, and other similar positions ITN/R.  The one thing that might be notable about this is that Payette is the first governor-general in Canadian history to resign because of a scandal.  (P.S. nominator's comment is incorrect, as Romeo LeBlanc also resigned, albeit due to health reasons, so it wasn't a spicy resignation.)  NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Resignations happen all of the time, and apparently the position is purely ceremonial, so I don't really see the importance here. Gex4pls (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ceremonial position. Unless if it was a significant controversy, this should not be at ITN. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No small cheese, she commands the armed forces, but details of the allegations are sketchy now, prone to rumour and innuendo (for starters, the report was not released). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it triggers a constitutional crisis of King-Byng proportions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This resignation doesn't seem to portend anything for now. If it somehow affects the government and Trudeau eventually resigns as a result, then posting a blurb will be a no-brainer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous posts regarding slight political significance. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Baghdad bombings

 * Support - easily notable enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Definitely a major news story that merits greater coverage, especially given the U.S.' role in creating these conditions. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Missing too much Who, How and Why. Basically a stub, like a hundred before. These feeling new again is no excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ISIL claimed it; explosive belts, strapped to the bombers in a busy marketplace; to try to force Iraq to submit to becoming part of an ISIL-ruled caliphate.
 * Had this happened in the Western world, it would have been posted within minutes of being nominated, with every comment strongly in favour of that. Suicide bombings having been common in Iraq from 2003-2017 doesn't make this double bombing less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – Per previous. The first such attack in three years; claimed by 'IS' – with more than 100 wounded. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For the 999th time, IS isn't an "IS-affiliated website", Amaq News Agency is (social media presence, anyway). Seriously, this isn't hard, never has been. Simply read past the headlines, read past the headlines, read past the headlines! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Amaq is the propaganda arm of IS. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And The Washington Post is the propaganda arm of Amazon. CNN and Fox have their favoured subnational entities, too. There's a clear difference between any thing and an affiliate of the same distinct but related thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I can see this event important enough. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll, international coverage and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this really is another disaster stub, and like every other one we post it'll not be expanded once it rolls off the main page. No one will ever be held to account for it, nothing will change in the Iraqi security situation because of it, once the wire services stop covering it the English speaking world will never think of it again, unless it's needed as filler for OTD. Could we please stop posting these rubbish articles? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you stop putting the English speaking world over everyone else? A person killed in a bombing in Iraq is no less significant than one in the States. Just because people there don't/can't edit here doesn't make it less newsworthy. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * People in Iraq can edit en WP, providing they understand English & have internet access. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the English Wikipedia. Not sure what else to say. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing in English doesn't mean that we should favour the Anglosphere. Prosecution & change in a country's situation aren't requirements for posting. If you think the article could & should be improved, you're welcome to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose like LaserLegs says, this has almost no value from an encyclopedic perspective and could be covered in a single line in a "list of terrorist attacks in Iraq" article. There's no long-lasting value, nothing will change as a result of this, no-one notable was killed, nothing notable was destroyed.  It doesn't make it any less tragic but it does call into question the entire EV of the story and certainly isn't something I'd expect to see in the top 365 news stories of this year.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be covered in a single line, or even a single, short paragraph. Your arguments could be used to reject the vast majority of mass murders. Would you be against posting this article had this double suicide bombing which killed over 30 people happened in NYC, London or Paris? The mass media give stories priority based on popularity, but we don't. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it could. "A double bombing in Baghdad which killed 32 people was claimed by IS.  Everyone else condemned it."  And yes, I regularly vote down "mass murders" in regions where mass murders are commonplace.  It would be fascinating to see where this article is in a year.  As LaserLegs calls them, they are "disaster stubs" and usually remain that way, simply because they have no encyclopedic value.  And yes, if a double suicide bombing afflicted New York, London, or Paris, of course it would be newsworthy, because they are not war zones and mass murder through bombings in those locations is far from commonplace.  This is about context.  This particular event would not make the top 365 news stories of the year.  Probably not even the top 1000.  See also: Category:Suicide bombings in Baghdad, Category:Suicide bombings in London, Category:Suicide bombings in New York and Category:Suicide bombings in Paris.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mass murders ceased to be common in Iraq 3 years ago. Many fatal bombings have occurred in London and Paris (London attack & Paris attacks lists them). The main reason for there being less media coverage of the Baghdad bombings is that the public are less interested in them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The categories speak for themselves. "many fatal bombings" have NOT occurred in London and Paris in the past 30 years.  And certainly not with 32 deaths.  But nice try.  Nothing more to say than the two sentences I suggested for this "news".  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Less interest, less coverage, less article information. If a single victim or killer profile ever emerges in English from this objectively obscure and very different story, I'll eat my left shoe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike the mass media, we don't measure importance by popularity. A perpetrator or victim of a mass murder having their own article isn't a requirement to be posted to ITN and there's no article about any of the people involved in the large majority of our articles about mass murders.
 * If you think the article is missing info it should include, you're welcome to add it. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've nailed it. There's literally nothing notable to report about this event, just a location, a date, a number and a perp.  And the usual "everyone condemned it" blather.  Two sentences in a list.  Job done.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote "profile", not "article". As I used to regularly remind you years ago, reading genuinely helps when arguing about mass murder norms. We have no names, no ages, no hometowns; if this was about London, Paris or Tokyo (which it isn't), we would. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The media haven't said anything about the identities of the bombers or victims. Even if names & profiles of the victims were released, we tend not to include them in articles about mass murders. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Per other supporters. ArionEstar (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is in no better shape today than it was 4 days ago, when it was nominated. In fact, it might even be a little worse off. "Disaster stub" is pretty apt. Apparently, nothing of note about this has come out or been added, and I highly doubt that another 4 or 40 or 400 days will improve things.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suicide bombings are much more often described as mass murders &/or terrorist attacks than as disasters. Although they can be classed as a type of man-made disaster, the term disaster is much more often used to describe natural & accidental events.
 * The length & quality of the article are sufficient for ITN. It would be improved significantly if it were posted, because it would greatly increase the number of people who read & edit it. Most of our readers probably don't even know that it happened. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't improve at all, there's literally nothing more to add to it. As noted, could be adequately covered in two (or three, at a push) sentences.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Newsworthy current event with significant number of deaths. STSC (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited depth of coverage in the article, essentially a disaster stub as mentioned above.  Spencer T• C 22:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kamala Harris

 * Support This is a history setting event in the United States and was globally covered in the top news. It was also one of the highest viewed inaugurations due in part to enforcement of pandemic social distancing rules and the security crisis in the wake the pro-Trump attack on the US Capitol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C100:16A1:0:0:0:1006 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please use Template:ITN candidate for this (and future) nominations, as RD (Recent Deaths) implies that the subject has died, which is not the case in this situation. Gex4pls (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have posted the elections but not the inauguration per consensus. I think this blurb is a trivial extension of the inauguration. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The election result was posted on ITN in November; there is no need to post an ITN item for the inauguration as well. Chrisclear (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Affirmed at the point of the election results. --M asem (t) 04:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to fact it needs to respect the election results that was posted in WP:ITN in November 2020, which she already won alongside with Joe Biden. 180.242.50.227 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Contrary to popular belief, being born a certain way is not an accomplishment, nor is it a matter of historical import. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and closer per WP:SNOW. This is pure trivia. Also, the blurb is racist.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aslan Byutukayev

 * Comment Once the person has an article they are deemed notable enough for RD, So the only things that have to be checked are quality of the article and its referencing (I'll come back and read this one later) JW 1961   Talk  14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems fine to me., did you have an opinion? Otherwise, seems ready to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks fine for RD Support JW 1961   Talk  20:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment has support, can't read most of the refs myself, but marking for admin attn. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mira Furlan

 * Comment – filmography all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Brief article, but I think sufficient for an RD and now fully sourced. Took the liberty of removing an IP edit that had snuck in an unsourced addition to the filmography. Miyagawa (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Sad and unexpected, but the article seems in good order. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mulyadi Tamsir

 * Support Article's been fixed up now. Changing to support.Gex4pls (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to a start. It is over 300 char above stub if we used the DYK counter. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage, per above.  Spencer T• C 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article by two-and-a-half fold, please check again. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice job, I think the Personal Life and Death sections could be merged, but other than that seems good. Gex4pls (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I hadn't seen the article before the recent expansion, but certainly the current version meets the requirements IMO. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Much improved, nice work.  Spencer T• C 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Baptist Kaggwa

 * Support just. Brief but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meh. Pretty fine all around. Gex4pls (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose At present, essentially a resume in prose format with limited depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Spencer, I've added some more information now if you'd be able to take another look - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the ping. My apologies for the delay.  Spencer T• C 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Not important enough, but liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is no longer a restraint on RD noms, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Cross

 * Support Article is pretty good, but a bit on the short side. Gex4pls (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced and in good shape. Key figure in one of the biggest incidents in Canadian politics. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the "histori.ca" and "crimelibrary.com" domains no longer appear to be active so it's hard to judge their reliability. Any opinions? - Dumelow (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first is a reliable source from Historica Canada (and the archive info has now been updated by another editor). I've replaced the second source with an entry from The Canadian Encyclopedia (which is published online by Historica). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted, thanks for the extra info - Dumelow (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibusiso Moyo

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fine article, could use a little bulking up. Gex4pls (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Madrid explosion

 * Oppose Gas explosions which cause fatalities are common. Frankly, I question whether this incident is even notable enough to have an article. Mlb96 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "Caused by a gas leak." Fairly frequent. Minor. – Sca (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose accident, hard to believe it even warrants an encyclopedic article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a national catastrophe like the Beirut explosion Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There have been many explosions with higher death counts within the last two months, and we don't post those (for good reason) Gex4pls (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC seems to have killed their story – at least the link doesn't work anymore. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there's an errant "n" in the URL. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. Fixed. – Sca (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For context, in the time since nommed an explosion at an uzbekistani power plant has killed three. Gex4pls (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And 32 killed by suicide bombers in Baghdad. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Inauguration of Joe Biden
*Support I hate to be different this time but I think I should. The inauguration event would be one of the most watched event this world. Even from my-country-centric point of view this is very notable. One of the main tv channel in my country has even scheduled a live report. This, this, and this too. If the nominator opposes this I'll take over. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Biden's election was posted on ITN in November; there is no need to post an ITN item for his inauguration as well. Chrisclear (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) We don't usually post inaugurations, which are just formalities; we posted the election. We did post Obama's first one due to its unique nature, but the only first Biden is setting is that he is old. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this item should not be posted. Chrisclear (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you nominate it if you don't think it should be posted? 331dot (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I might not be on Wikipedia in a few hours to oppose it then. Chrisclear (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't make a nomination unless you support the item being nominated. We don't preemptively nominate something to reject it, especially if the only reason is because the nominator simply won't be on Wikipedia later. That's just the way it is, none of us can be here 24/7. As I said, we don't generally post inaugurations. In the event that it was posted per a consensus, consensus can change; we can and have removed posted items. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding "We don't preemptively nominate something to reject it", is that a policy or something you are merely requesting? Chrisclear (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the difference is, given that many practices here are not written down, but I am requesting that you not preemptively nominate something for the simple reason that you won't be around when it might be nominated. If everyone did that, this page would be impossible to manage, sorting out good faith nominations from those just wanting to get their opinion in. The instructions on this page are for those who wish to "suggest a candidate"; you are not suggesting a candidate, you are preemptively nominating something you don't want. That is not nominating a candidate. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just to make sure, you made a nomination with the rationale that it should not be posted? Did we post Trump's? If not, we probably should not post Biden's either, unless there is some extra addition to the blurb, like the extraordinary level of security (which is what is a thing most media focus on these days). --Tone 10:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that we did not post the Trump inauguration(hard to link to but the discussion is in the archive). We did post Obama's due to its historic nature. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , here's the link for the Trump inauguration: In_the_news/Candidates/January_2017 Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close. The Nominator doesn't even want this posted, so why are we discussing it? As above, we posted the election and there's no need to also post the inauguration as it follows directly from that. Unless some unrest occurs or something, but that would be a separate story in its own right to be discussed if and when it happens. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course if something untoward happens like one of the orange followers goes rogue, we can consider it, but this is a run-of-the-mill part of the process, not noteworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just a formality; it has long been known Biden will be president starting at noon(even if Trump and the rioters did not know). No first is being set here as with Obama. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Argh, this again. If that's the case then there should be an ITN policy that says "do not nominate news items that discuss a) regular events with a clearly determined outcome beforehand; b) ceremonies and formalities" Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We used to list it in ITNR as something we don't do, but it was removed. The election was the notable story here, not the formalization of its result. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the case. I believe I'm not a newcomer here, but the lack of any formal criterion for ITN blurbs still confuses me to this day. I see that "The election, not the inauguration" has already been an informal criterion amongst the regulars here. Someone should really make an unofficial guide to ITN blurbs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The results of the elections have already been posted. Yes, it will be an act seen by millions of people around the world (including me), but it's still something ordinary that, as they say above, is never published. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For someone who oppose the posting of this event to become the blurb, it is major event that had significant attention around the world. I rather wait for this to be posted until Joe Biden is actually inaugurated at noon EST, after that it can be discussed whether the blurb can be posted or not. 180.242.50.227 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that it should be posted and then we should discuss whether or not it should be posted? 331dot (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - for Trump, we posted his inauguration as a secondary mention, two days after the event, but the main focus of that story was the 2017 Women's March that occurred because of the inauguration, not the event itself. As for Obama, back in 2009 we did post his first inauguration, but looking at that it feels like ITN was a different beast back then. There are seven stories posted, and each one is less than a line in length. And the discussion was just a couple of people saying let's do it. In 2013, the proposal to post Obama's second inauguration was roundly opposed. So I'd say precedent is that, in the current ITN format, we don't post unless there's something special about it.
 * Oppose - Close it. STSC (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Sutton

 * Support Perfectly structured and well-referenced. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks great and the update is sufficient. Rest in peace, I'll greatly miss his commentary.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  04:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Was going to suggest Blurb, but the provided obit sent me into an endless redirect, what's readable seems OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. Shanta

 * Weak oppose citation needed in a sentence which looks like it needs to be updated in any case following her death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose mention of her death in the article, will revisit if updated JW 1961   Talk  10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support - updated and cited JW 1961   Talk  13:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, , I've added in a section about her death, with a citation from an RS. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 02:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Almost there, but could use some additional cleanup to be more encyclopedic (e.g. "complained of chest pain, and was rushed to hospital." could use some rewording) and better organized (For example, there is info about her role in the Adyar Cancer Institute that is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, and is unreferenced.)  Spencer T• C 00:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Greetings. I have taken a pass at fixing these issues and some reorganizing of content. Happy to make any additional edits, but, I think this is ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 19:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Ready to go to the homepage with the edits that have been completed. Ktin (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James D. Heiple

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Of medium length but well sourced and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Outside of the link to the Baby Richard case (with no additional detail about his decision in the case), little is written about his judicial career itself in the article. Additionally, it's not clear what the role of the "Illinois Courts Commission" was in his impeachment. It is alluded to once, but it is not clear what role that they played.  Spencer T• C 00:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would really like to see more about is judicial career outside of that decision; it's pretty unbalanced tbh.  Spencer T• C 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to WP:NPOV concerns. Short article currently seems too dominated by text of the traffic stops and impeachment investigation.  That can be balanced by a bit more about his judicial decisions.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the only decision mentioned in his obits. And in this 1998 journal article about the debacle.  There's this decision he wrote in 2000 on reckless driving, but that reaches the level of WP:HTRIVIA. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO obits as sources are not going to provide the level of depth of coverage that RD articles require. The article does not mention how he was elected to the state Supreme Court as a Republican judge, or how many lawyers perceived the subject as more willing to participate in oral arguments compared to other judges in the state Supreme Court and write more dissenting opinions as an "independent thinker" .  Spencer T• C 03:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source! I've added that info into the article now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. While what makes him notable is in the article and there is consensus to support, I don't think that this article is ultimately balanced. That said, there is enough in the article to meet minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020–21 Central African general election

 * Support Article is well-structured and all parts are referenced. African news items are quite underrepresented here in English Wikipedia, so I'm quite glad to see some of these came into light in the ITN. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Per ITNR. STSC (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have marked as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Its an election. Pretty good article too. Gex4pls (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting as soon as the image is protected at Commons. Now Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gatot Sudjito

 *  Weak Support article has been created today (which is no problem) but is essentially an orphan which, by the looks of the article, could be remedied. What's there appears to be satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Orphan? The article has been redlinked to Deaths in 2021 since yesterday... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Orphaned in the sense that not one single encyclopedia article bar a trivial list of deaths links to him. Orphan can mean "none or very few" in this sense.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I am an en-1, could you explain to me what is the meaning of "bar" in your sentence? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I meant "except". I wonder if there are other encyclopedic articles (not just lists of deaths) which could link to this individual?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been linked to two different articles: his alma mater and his birthplace. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems just ok. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Ice hockey championship host change

 * Oppose Changes /rescheduling of these events are trivial matters for ITN. --M asem (t) 20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough for ITN. P-K3 (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing important, just a host change. Gex4pls (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The target article is mostly tables.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sharon Begley

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article and subject seem well qualified for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sammy Nestico

 * Oppose as most of it is unreferenced, as noted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose More unreffed than reffed. Gex4pls (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated. Should be up-to-par now; someone uninvolved can make that call. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Much improved, nice work .  Spencer T• C 00:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abel Gabuza

 * Comment - Invisible article. STSC (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doh, now fixed Dumelow (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All good. Gex4pls (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nikolay Antoshkin

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose but support if resolved. I've noticed that one of the article's main sources, http://www.warheroes.ru/, has a forum on the side. In the forum, I found what seems to be a place for new article submissions. The third-from-top channel forum says: Новые биографии: Сюда выставлять готовые материалы, для публикации на сайте (New biographies: place ready-made materials here for publication on the site). Could someone who understands Russian investigate if there is any editorial process for the biography materials in the forum? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The vast bulk of the Military career section relies on 1 reference as mentioned above. Is there any secondary referencing we can use to confirm the info?  Spencer T• C 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Full of opinion, but great article. WikiLove Goat (talk 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Phil Spector

 * Rolling Stone. gobonobo  + c 16:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saw that, so confirmed. --M asem (t) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So did the Washington Post. But we should be asking ourselves if a murderer should be posted there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RD doesn't care about the ethics of the bio. --M asem (t) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * People get denied for much pettier reasons. Trillfendi (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation needed Spman (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The article quality is not there yet, but I would support a blurb in principle - "among the most influential figures in pop music history" as our article says. P-K3 (talk)
 * Oppose tagged. Would consider a blurb as per P-K3's observation, although it is questionable to give a murderer a blurb.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Oppose RD until everything is fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – when deemed presentable. A known name to several generations, but his age and history militate against a blurb. – Sca (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for deciding to kill an innocent woman, should have stuck to producing beloved family entertainment, petty but true! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a chance.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you opposing, exactly? The item has been nominated for RD. Nsk92 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb solely due to significance; if neither Chuck Yeager nor Little Richard got blurbs, neither does Spector. The whole "he's a murderer so doesn't deserve one" smacks of RGW IMO (we could've posted Manson, and I don't remember if we did). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Manson was posted as RD, there was no consensus for a blurb. P-K3 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at that discussion it appears that none (or at most very few) of the blurb opponents were doing so because of any moral/Son-of-Sam compunction, but rather due to notability, which I agree with. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even accepting him as a famous murderer, he's not in my Top Ten of transformative or proficient ones. The Son of Sam totally is. Spector's one sloppy hit mainly just changed public perception of himself, dragging his otherwise A-level music career down to an asterisked A. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I only have issue with using the murder as the sole reason to oppose a blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was in a rush, but will now also add that fading away after 80 did this story no favours. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, leaning oppose blurb. A significant figure in the history of music, but not in the most significant roles in the field. He neither performed nor wrote songs. He took works created by others and produced them well. BD2412  T 00:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not true... 72.208.178.248 (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per current orange banners, oppose blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. And why the heck are people saying they oppose a blurb when this is just an RD nomination? Am I missing some context here? 106.208.66.63 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Cuz several users said early on they would support a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I showed up fifth and just wanted to fit in. I felt cool, at first. But looking back, you're right, should have opposed the RD listing. Too late to change now, though. I'll remember to stay focused for our inevitable O.J. Simpson "trial", thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD as too many unsourced and tagged claims that need verification (BLP still applies). Oppose blurb regardless as the subject is too controversial to sum up in a manner that would be generally accepted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Spector was famous for producing bankable but artistically corrupt work. He was certainly influential for a time, but he was more infamous than famous, even before the murder. The sui generis rule for blurbs tends to inflate figures in the popular arts. There is no way we'd be blurbing the 28th most important person in modern astronomy.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Over 1.6 million views in two days. Just sayin' ...  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose some unsourced statements in the discography section. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You should know that any RD nominated within the last seven days is eligible for posting, so it is not stale. It is still possible that the quality issues can be fixed, so this should remain open.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The key word here is getting. In the real world, it's old news – regardless of what the rule book says. – Sca (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That rule was recently adopted by universal consensus, and we will not be ignoring it just to close a nom.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not pontificate (2)(3) without a license. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Baloney WikiLove Goat (talk 19:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. – Sca (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jubril Martins-Kuye

 * Support slim but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems adequate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Information about what he did in his role as Minister for Commerce and Industry is lacking, but since he was only in the role for a year, willing to go ahead and post.  Spencer T• C 00:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Philip Wilson (bishop)

 * Weak oppose it's in decent condition but more than half of the entire bio is dedicated to (yet another) child abuse scandal. With a main article.  I think here it could be summarised down significantly.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree, there's too lengthy content about the child abuse cases but overall the article seems OK. STSC (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 20:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) LauncherOne

 * This is ITNR and the article seems reasonably developed, but there are a bunch of uncited statements that I've tagged with cn. Those need references before posting. I've also added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have added a number of references that addressed all of the 'cn' and 'update needed' tags. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There's one cn left in the table, but I don't think that's worth holding up posting. Nice work. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I had missed that tag in the table. Upon further review, I removed that item from the table as it appears to be obsolete. An Oct 31, 2020 news report indicates that when Virgin Orbit acquired a stake in Sky and Space Global, they cancelled their lauch contract. The report says that "The contract would be replaced by two other agreements", including an "A$1 million per annum launch services and consulting agreement, commencing on 1 July 2021". But there are no specific new launch dates mentioned there or in any other articles covering the stake acquisition. So until and unless new information becomes available, I took the line about that planned launch out of the table. Nsk92 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support surprised to see the bias towards politics and disasters that ITN has been going for lately. 2601:602:9200:1310:20AD:98FB:41D9:D7C6 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's now been 36 hours since this ITNR nomination and no-one has any remaining objections. Marking ready, despite the low number of support !votes. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Absence of posted opposition isn't prima facie evidence of a consensus to post. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support While it does technically occur in the ITN/R criteria, it just seems so specific. Gex4pls (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITN/R. Article appears to be sufficiently cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Cramer

 * Weak oppose not convinced this individual passes BLP1E really, it's all about the siege and not much else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a little and added some new sources. I think being head of CNN International for 11 years pushes him over the notability boundary - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ok. P-K3 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I do not see anything which would cause me pause. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If being head of CNN international is what gives him notability, then would like to see more than 1 sentence about what he did in that role.  Spencer T• C 04:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Sca (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What gives him notability is his longstanding efforts to improve the safety and well-being of the journalists reporting from dangerous locations, such as the founding of the International News Safety Institute. That work overlaps him time both at the BBC and CNN. I have added to the article, and hopefully it does a good enough job of explaining this.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Not exactly thrilled by what's there but meets minimum standards and there's adequate consensus to post.  Spencer T• C 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sergi Mingote

 * Oppose. It's a stub, mostly about his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose concerns over BLP1E and in any case, a stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pedro Trebbau

 * Comment. Thin, not properly sourced. I've just updated the tense, but the death isn't mentioned in the text. The body does not mention the notable book mentioned in the lead. Works could do with thinning; the only one with any significant citations in Google Scholar is The Turtles of Venezuela. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have included a description about his death in the main body. From what I understand, would it be advisable to remove or merge the Works section? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For academics known for their publications it's usual to include their authored books plus a short (3–5) list of their most highly cited research articles. In this case, everything that Google Scholar found significant citations for was one or more editions of The Turtles of Venezuela, but you might include a small selection of other articles to show he wasn't just interested in turtles. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per everything above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Carlos Copes

 * Comment: OK, I've replaced the refs to Copes' website and overhauled the structure of the article. I think it's OK now - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bheki Ntuli

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose No information about what he did in his 4-year National Assembly term outside the fraud charges. Some limited info in his state legislature career, but that too is basically a simple list of committees that he was on.  Spencer T• C 00:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo

 * Support pretty fast work. Last sentence of the "Deployments" section is uncited though resolved. Juxlos (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It looks fine. I concur with Juxlos about the Deployments section but otherwise it should be passable. Ricky250 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies for exceeding the planned timeframe (it is now about 10 hours); the article is now 90% complete. I would add some more pictures in the remaining 10%. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now 95%. Adding later life between 1999 and 2021, medal ribbons, and legacy. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider it done now. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ugandan election

 * Support - Per ITNR. STSC (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - as far as I can see it also looks OK quality-wise, mostly thanks to the updaters mentioned above. There's lots of cited text, and I've added a prose summary of the results and reactions so far. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the Museveni article is quite bad and has multiple tags, the section starting Yoweri Museveni, the man who loves wearing big hats as described on BBC probably the worst. I'll try to improve it.  Election article looks good. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's a shame. Museveni used to be an FA back in the distant mists of time when I first started editing. It's not strictly necessary for it to be improved for this hook as it's not the bolded link, but would be good if you can get it improved anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – There's not much on the military entering Wine's home property, which reportedly occurred Friday, or on him alleging voter fraud. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is much known about the fraud at present, other than that Wine alleges it. I'll try and add a bit more on that and the break-in you mention tomorrow morning, if nobody else does so first. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per STSC, good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good and the event itself has the significance. Ricky250 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is OK. I would prefer that it also contains something about the parliamentary elections, but I guess that'll have to come later. Juxlos (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage Sunday of Wine's alleged arrest, his National Unity Party saying it will challenge election tally.   – Sca (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The election article could do with more information about the response to the results; we have held out for two or three solid paragraphs in the past. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this just going to be a thing in every worldwide election from now on, where the opposition party claims fraud? --WaltCip- (talk)  17:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's always been a thing, mostly outside the west Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This will be the norm only in bandana republics. – Sca (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is sufficiently updated in my view. P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. The election of a national leader is significant. There is no reason to suppose Bobi Wine's complaints will lead anywhere.Calmecac5 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

First winter ascent of K2

 * Support if this is the last of the Eight-thousanders to be ascended in the winter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The article you're linking to mentions it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but oppose on quality We have posted other world records in various sports and this one is more interesting because it's a "World's first"-type record and ,therefore, it's  technically unbeatable. With that said,the K2 article needs some work, there are several red links and cn tags Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redlinks don't matter so long as there's reasonable expectation that the article will eventually exist, even FA's allow them. I'll see what I can do with the CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is pretty much the holy grail of eight thousander mountaineering, which was impossible until now. Albertaont (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article has more than a dozen [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Need to resolve citation tags.—Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Cleanup first. STSC (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Salleh Abas

 * Oppose this has been tagged for nearly 12 years. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "tagged for nearly 12 years"? CyberTroopers (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a "disputed" maintenance tag on top of the page which was dated February 2009. Check the history. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops my bad, I have fixed the first paragraph and added a citation for the case. I hope you can change your stance. Sorry for my inexperience, this was my first time nominating an article on EN Wiki. Let me know if there's anything more wrong with the article. Ricky250 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was just saying why I couldn't support, immediately. I'll take a closer look later. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Ricky250 (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Very notable person. CyberTroopers (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a requirement at RD (and hasn't been for years), as long as the individual has a standalone article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Two claims in the article, at Early life paragraph 3 and Constitutional crisis paragraph 6, are not referenced and there's one When tag at the Honours section, especially given the fact that BLP applies. However the article is in good shape, and meets criteria 1-2 for RDs.  Gerald WL  14:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added two refs in regards to the paragraphs. About honour, i'll see what I can find. Thank you for the support. :) Ricky250 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dustin Higgs
Executed by the US Government on January 16. While this innocent death is absolutely fucking outrageous (excuse my French) and the execution is full of controversies, he has still died none the less, the death itself is notable on a political level (but not for a blurb), and the article quality looks good for RD. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant, fine work.  Gerald WL  08:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with regret another proud moment for Trump and his legacy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – As noted regarding the Lisa Montgomery nomination, this nom. seems to depend for noteworthiness not on the event itself but on the political situation in the U.S. Apart from that, the execution of Higgs lacks general significance – except perhaps for the topic of capital punishment. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't oppose an RD on significance, which of course you know. The precedent you cite did not have a stand alone article, this one does. It has citation to varied sources, no real chance for AfD.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Okay, relabeled as a comment, then. (Though IMO the same principle applies, i.e. "we are not a DT ticker.") – Sca (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's any relief, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced back in BC, and had his appeals denied on another two watches. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguable, Higgs and Montegomery have the same situaiton around notabilty and BLPCRIME - Higgs shouldn't have an article, as he isn't notable for anything but the crime, though yes, there was controversy around his death sentence, but so was in the case of Montgomery. Just because there wasn't a standalone for Montgomery should not have stopped the RD for that because having a standalne is not a required, only a sufficient condition. --M asem (t) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not a suitable biography (no opinion on my part), it's best for the RD process if this page was either formally AfDed or renamed—either boldly or via RM.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd strongly prefer some sort of blurb about this last-minute run of federal executions, that might also encompass Lisa Montgomery. I'm not sure why Higgs has an article while Montgomery does not. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this case had too many victims for a "Murder of..." pseudobio, and not enough for an event article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin de Rothschild

 * Support - I bought shares through his investment company. He should be remembered. STSC (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, need a second opinion here: is this a valid RD support? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't laugh. STSC (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article long enough and well-referenced; lead summarizes the points of the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Osian Ellis

 * Support. A leading Welsh harpist. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. G2G. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Not sure if you saw changes in posting RDs, but for anyone whose death occurred or announced in the past 7 days will be posted at the top of the list, and then will age off as new RD (from any time point) are posted above it.  Spencer T• C 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sjarifuddin Baharsjah

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apparently (per source 2 and the lede), he was chairman of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, but the body of the article has no information about this. (When? What did he do in that role?)  Spencer T• C 01:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The chairman is most likely a formality only, no info can be found about the works. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - short but seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Dutch Cabinet over child welfare fraud scandal

 * Support significance, oppose stub please please flesh this out. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support massively expanded from nl.wiki, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For someone who nominated this article, the resignation of Mark Rutte as Dutch PM is actually a WP:ITNR which it means "a change of head of government" which includes a resignation. So i would "Support" this to be posted if this article needs to be updated and improved due to significance. 36.65.38.213 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having dug a bit deeper, there are regular elections coming up in March regardless of this. And while Rutte has resigned, he is remaining on until that point; he could be re-estated if his party wins and he's named back to that position, in a case that they're using the election sort of a vote of no confidence. So I'm not sure if this is ITNR but it definitely feels like an ITN regardless on its own merits. --M asem (t) 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the resignation is largely symbolic. They are barely "taking responsibility" as elections were coming up anyways. Also, the VVD was okay with remaining in power, but the other parties in the cabinet (CDA, D66 and the CU) wanted the cabinet to resign. They will continue dealing with COVID as if nothing happened as a demissionary cabinet. Now I may be a bit of a cynic, but this may very well result in more votes for these parties in the upcoming election, as people think "wow, they are taking responsibility!" and then vote for them. Whether it's ITN worthy, I dunno. I guess. But I think the shit in Hong Kong is actually much more important than this despite the Dutch news being much closer to me personally. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Any resignation of a prime minister is certainly significant news. STSC (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Something that isn't obscure, yet not that notable. I still support the creation of this article regardless. DavidCostell44 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - A government taking collective responsibility when something has gone wrong is an extremely rare thing nowadays. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Rutte looks pleased as punch about it. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Sulawesi earthquake

 * The article is already in a good shape. 27 dead at the moment. --Tone 07:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Information can be changed. Until now, there are 35 people killed. 110.137.127.103 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant, recent. Article's in fine shape.  Gerald WL  12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the article is easily good enough & the earthquake important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 35 deaths is a lot, and that is likely to rise. Gex4pls (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending results of search for survivors. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted with updated numbers from the article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 arrests of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists

 * Suggested blurb for entry. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this happend on Jan 6, and there were reports then (the larger media sources slower to pick up on it), so this may be stale. --M asem (t) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 11 additional arrests on Jan 14. IMHO the resignation of the Dutch cabinet (still the second bullet point on ITN) is more stale than this. It came as a bit of a surprise as it wasn't really announced before it happened, but now we are already moving on as it isn't that big of a deal in practice. The effects of the Hong Kong arrests of pro-democracy activists will probably be felt for years if not decades. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sadly arrests of pro-democracy figures have become a common occurrence in Hong Kong since the security law was enacted (which we posted as a blurb). We can't post every time an opposition figure is arrested; ITN usually waits for convictions anyway, though those might be inevitable in these cases. The article focuses on the 53 arrests on 6 Jan, with only a couple of sentences on the 11 arrests on 14 Jan. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sylvain Sylvain

 * Weak Support Decently sized article and references seem to be clear, just concerned about the excess of red links. Neverbuffed (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - references need improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bryan Monroe

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just a quick check but this is another one with material in the lead that's not expanded in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it could just be moved and reduce the lead down to the bare minimum, my satis was based on the fact that it was all sourced, and it's not GAN or FAC so I was kindaokaywithit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, nearly all of it seems covered, but it's suffered badly from update-the-lead-and-not-the-body syndrome. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kathleen Heddle

 * Support Not a very long article, but decent. Well sourced and no grammar issues that I could see. Gex4pls (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siegfried Fischbacher

 * Support. Article appears to be in decent shape. On a side note, this is also an example of someone not having a stand-alone article per WP:ITNRD who still obviously qualifies for RD. Regards So  Why  15:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it's okay in my opinion because the article's main focus is the two individuals and nothing much else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, pay no attention to the great white manticore behind the double curtains. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never did get on with the mother-in-law. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – In this case, it's fine, since they always worked together. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Enough about the individual that posting is fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Leaning Support So Wikipedia does treat beloved family entertainment bios preferentially to reviled murderous babysnatching tales. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When being measured against RD, yes. If you want the story of the killing and subsequent execution to be nominated as a normal blurb, feel free to do so.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * She doesn't meet the Bathory standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I love Swedish metal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same, I have a Volvo myself. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerry Cottle

 * Weak support like a fainting goat, I was dismayed at the bare URLs, weak lead and [citation needed], but the rest is chipper. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dismayed that neither Reflinks nor ReFill currently working for me. Might have to actually juggle the refs in manually. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither have worked since yesterday!, brought up un talk page of refill JW 1961   Talk  18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per TRM - there is a Telegraph article that may be able cite the remaining cn but unfortunately I can't access it from Ireland  JW 1961   Talk  20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are 2 citation needed. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These have been resolved by User:Joofjoof. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted citations have been resolved, looks good - Dumelow (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seyoum Mesfin

 * Comment: I think this would be passable if a little more could be added about his early life. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose early life section needs expansion, refs and copyediting for English, the rest appears to be okay. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Does it need a separate ref on the flat statement that he was "killed ... by the Ethiopian National Defense Force" – ?? — Sca (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, I've expanded on his early life. Sca, it's covered by the ref to Reuters at the end of the paragraph which states "Ethiopia said on Wednesday its military had killed three members of the Tigray region’s former ruling party, including former Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin" - Dumelow (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article. Gex4pls (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been good to go for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ndubuisi Kanu

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A bit short but well referenced. Gex4pls (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked fully but the article is disorganised and has a lot of short paragraphs. The lead lacks a capsule definition and contains information not present in the body. There is very limited description of his career, and even less on his personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, I found a useful BBC obituary (albeit in Nigerian Pidgin) and have been able to expand and revamp the article. Hopefully you will find it much improved - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, much better, thanks, ! Bit concerned at how much is sourced to Ref 3 which is dead (also Ref 9, but that's only one sentence). Many of the live non-BBC sources are pay-walled but they look legitimate. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Weston

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Was coming to post this, but on a references spotcheck... Where is the date of birth and middle name sourced (not in Ref 1, can't make Ref 2 download)? Ref 3 does not currently mention any of the material it is supporting, except the fact of patronage; some of this is in Ref 4, but not the school or the patronage of Heritage Railway Association. Ref 4 needs details adding but luckily does support a few of the unsourced statements. Ref 5 is probably usable for date of birth, although it's a blog. Newnham has some details but isn't cited for them. Are there any national newspaper obituaries? (Not questioning the subject's notability, by the way, which I think is obvious.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have done some tidying up and referencing. can you review again? MurielMary (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had another look and I think most of it is now sourced, though I haven't checked exhaustively. It seems thin for the bio of someone of such considerable contributions; I don't know how much more will be available until the round of obituaries, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a bit thin but satisfactory IMO. MurielMary (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Robertson

 * Support satis+. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well written, well sourced, etc. Gex4pls (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for nominating, I was holding off until a date was published. An IP has added 11th but afaik it's not been published anywhere yet. I haven't been able to check the Telegraph interview on which the original stub was based, but everything is now sourced elsewhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Source cited for her death says "has died aged 90" without an exact date. The WP article says she died "January 2021".  Sometime notices are released weeks or months later, so can we be sure it's even January?—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Google is now saying 11 Jan too (which it wasn't when I last tried her), but where it comes from Googling is not showing me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like google is just using the date the IP put in. Im seeing a lot of non verifiable sources saying Jan 9, Jan 11, and Jan 13, but i cant really narrow it down. Gex4pls (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tim Bogert

 * Oppose Article contains only a single sentence related to subject's biography, details even in the infobox are incomplete, and there is no prose update. CN's added for multiple paras. An otherwise notable figure in his circle.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are 4 citation needed. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marielle de Sarnez

 * Oppose One section is tagged and there's a missing source. Gex4pls (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Tags added where appropriate. Contra the 2017 tag, the list section would be okay if it were referenced. More importantly is the 1-sentence Personal life section, where the actual BLP details should be. The entire Early life section is sourced from a single Le Monde obit. While not itself a problem, it gives the impression that the subject is not widely notable.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are 3 citation needed. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. Thanks all. I believe all points have now been addressed: all unverified material either sourced or removed. List rewritten as prose (where verifiable). “Early life” section now has five sources. There was an “expand” tag on “Personal life” section—it has been, but there is also a sourced note explaining she divulged very few personal details to media, hence limited amount available. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article has improved so much and issues have been solved, thanks to Innisfree987. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs copyediting to remove WP:EDITORIALizing language from the sources. But at least there's more material to work with now. Joofjoof (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have tried to remove language that could be construed as opinionated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks, that is much better. Kudos to  and the other updaters for building up what was a résumé into a good article. Joofjoof (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) President Trump impeached by the House of Representatives

 * I have conflicting thoughts on this, so won't support or oppose, but to save other people the time, this was posted at ITN the first time he was impeached. diff of posting. previous discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not pushing this idea - as above, not sure what I think - just suggesting it for others to ponder: and ongoing item? It's likely to keep evolving thru next week at the very least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could also be an additional sentence in the existing blurb on the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, to avoid totally monopolizing ITN with US news. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 upon passage of the article of impeachment. This is unquestionably ITN material. Article is well sourced and under constant construction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we going to see "Americans impeach all the time" (WP:ITNMINIMUMIMPEACHMENTS) arguments? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is only the fourth impeachment of a U.S. president. Needless to say, none has previously been impeached twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Now official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer including the charge ("incitement of insurrection") in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support not quite up there with The Boat Race but I can let it slide. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support this is only the fourth time in 150 years that one of these extremely major events has happened. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * probably alt II. Gives a lot of context. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Nihlus  21:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb Two edit conflicts render my rationale irrelevant. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support, even more significant than The Boat Race. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back Martin! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "That's one small step for the Republican Party... " Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Not only is this the fourth time impeachment in the U.S. has ever happened, it's the first time a president has been impeached twice, but also in the same term. Ocelot Creeper  ( ta lk ) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Starzoner (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 4 or 3. Preference for 4, since it gives context about why he was impeached. Crucial development in the US election cycle, top-headline international coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Would propose it in some manner be structured as an update to the insurrection attempt blurb (though bumped to top ofc), since it's a direct result. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1. The vote just ended.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, the House vote has now officially concluded, 232-197. I think the original blubr is fine, but I don't have a strong preference there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- half of all of the times the US has impeached a President, it was to impeach Trump. Fun fact. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Vacant0 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment My preference is altblurb 2, though I'd be fine with any other blurb that either provides context as to why he was impeached or mentions that this is the first time that a US president was impeached on more than one occasion;. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also recommend consideration of adding Second impeachment of Donald Trump to ongoing events until the Senate votes on it -Nywillb (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Edits to WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: As I've said before, I'm not a Trump supporter. But aren't world leaders generally addressed by their titles? Shouldn't it say "U.S. President Donald Trump"? UncomfortablySmug (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article." (For an example, go look at the article on Elizabeth II: The term "Queen Elizabeth" does not appear once in the body of the article.) In this case, the rest of the sentence makes clear that Donald Trump is the president of the U.S., so there's no need to redundantly say "President" or "U.S. president" before his name. Tamzin (they/them) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In some German media he's been known for weeks as the Noch-Präsident – the "Still-President." – Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a related, ongoing discussion at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The picture of a grinning Trump is ill suited for this blurb. I think this image would be better: Donald Trump January 2017.jpg Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on the image at Main Page/Errors.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The photo on there now is amazing. Never ever change it! --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question. Has there ever been a faster ITN nom > post in Wikipedia history (1 hour and 6 min)? CoatCheck (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A few months ago, RBG's death was posted after only 23 minutes. That blurb actually ended up sparking this discussion: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 77 (it doesn't seem to have come to any kind of consensus though). -- Ununseti (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Diego Maradona's death was posted after only 8 minutes. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joël Robert

 * Support. Article seems well sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outside of 2 sentences about his death, zero biographical details.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because extremely little has been written about his personal life. In Belgium, if famous people want to keep their private life private, this is mostly respected by the media: as a consequence, we have information about what made him notable, but not about his life, education, family, ... The Flemish main sports newsite, Sporza, has 4 articles about his death (plus one from right before reporting about his critical condition), and they provide no information about his private life except his date of birth. Fram (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD, ready to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Tartaglia

 * Support Could do with a little more on his death though. Gex4pls (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A complete BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant support not my cup of tea at all to "honour" such "people" on RD, but rulz are rulz. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lisa Montgomery

 * Comment, how about linking it to Murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done so, though her "bio" is spread through the article itself (based on the events related to the murder investigation). --M asem (t) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would this be pipe linked in mainpage? Or would it remain as it is? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article in good quality and structure. A decent amount of references. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ITNRD says "if it has a biographical Wikipedia article", apparently meaning a standalone article. So WP:CRIME is in contradiction when it comes to RD. Brandmeistertalk  15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there isn't a stand-alone article about her, and WP:ITNRD doesn't have a specific note on allowing this (only for people who are members of groups). Therefore, not convinced this should be on RD, especially as we'd linked to a page about a crime in 2004. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the point of the ITNRD guideline is to avoid RD listings about minor persons who are only mentioned in passing. Montgomery is notable by all standard definitions on Wikipedia and the only reason she has no stand-alone article is a style-related decision not to have such articles in most cases. But the article Masem linked to contains enough text and sources to support a stand-alone article in other cases and thus I think ITNRD has to be interpreted to encompass such articles as well. For example, neither Wachoswki sister has a standalone article but no one would really argue that ITNRD were to deny her an entry in RD if one of them died today. Regards So  Why  15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wachoswkis: That exception is covered in WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This nom. seems to depend for noteworthiness not on the event itself but on the tense political situation in the U.S. Apart from that, the execution of Montgomery lacks general significance – except perhaps for the topic of capital punishment. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very rare for female defendants to be executed in the US, so it is significant in that sense.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Due partly to the fact that women are less likely than men to commit violent crimes. – Sca (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A blurb would be the route if its the rarity of the event that is notable. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ITNRD: An individual human ... if it has a biographical Wikipedia article ... I could possibly IAR for victims, but not the perpetrator. No need to encourage copycats.—Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNRD is a sufficient but not necessary condition for an RD. I fully recognize the standalone is not there. --M asem (t) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support We've posted deaths of murderers without a standalone article before, eg. Ian Brady.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready for posting. Sourced and historically significant.BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even not considering the fact that the person doesn't have an article, all of the info is spread out across the article, not concentrated in the section linked. Gex4pls (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The inherent notability of this death is that an execution was carried out, and that in itself is not newsworthy.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when is the cause of death relevant for RD? Regards So  Why  11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure that this qualifies for RD; I'm opposed to linking to a murder from 2004, but perhaps a separate article could now be created given the coverage of her execution. A blurb relating to the execution might be warranted, although I'm not 100% sure why it is so much more notable than the other (?)two recent executions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a special case. Yes they do not have a standalone article, but her death is more in the news than the other RDs. Fourth woman executed by US federal government, last time was 67 years ago. First woman executed in the Post-Gregg era. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note There is precedent for posting an RD for a murderer where only their crime has an article (Moors_murders, discussion), though obviously Brady was far more notorious than this case. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Brady was, I believe, far more of a household name? Also his crimes were much further back in time, historical to most readers, and the article about them much more developed. I strongly think that we should hold to the must (almost always) have a separate article principle to avoid being flooded with similar RD requests. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - What the hell, just ignore all rules. STSC (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD. No standalone article. Brady article nom did not have clear consensus IMO. If the significance/newsworthiness is the execution, then this should be considered as a blurb rather than shoehorned as an RD.  Spencer T• C 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Brady nom was for a blurb - many of the opposes were against that, before the idea of an RD came up. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will stress that barring WP:BLPCRIME, Mongomery would have been notable for a standalone article, given that in the last few years as her date of planned execution drew near, more attention had been drawn to her case. But properly under BLPCRIME we don't have a separate article for her as she is not notable for anything beyond the crime, conviction and subsequent legal events tied to it. The complaints that there's no standalone are not really valid as the ITNRD only makes it it a matter of asking about quality for standalone articles, and says nothing against cases like this, which we have posted of the likes before. --M asem (t) 02:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * People are interpreting WP:ITNRD's has a biographical Wikipedia article as needing to be a "standalone". People could choose to IAR in this case, but that's different than claiming that opposing arguments are "not really valid".—Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose IAR use of BLPCRIME to circumvent basic BLP requirements. The personal details are scant, relate overwhelmingly to a single event, and omit many rudimentary biographical points. This would be a clear BLP1E, were it not housed within an event article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Technically a BLP2E, notable for the murder itself and being the first woman to be federally executed in the USA in almost 70 years (and the first woman executed in the USA in over 5 years). 1779Days (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we should be stricter about these kinds of things, the individual was not notable without the crime article, so does not meet RD requirements. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out above, the RD RFCs were established to set the standalone as a "sufficient but not necessary" requirement for adding to RD, we've never had a consensus discussion on the lack of a standalone - though obviously not having any type of sustained section in any article would be not enough for an RD (like the spouse of a notable person). --M asem (t) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be your interpretation, but sneaking in these RDs with articles that might just mention individuals in passing is a bad idea, the bad precedent may have been set but we don't need to make a bad thing worse. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with TRM here; the last thing we need is a precedent for people without articles to be considered. (Obvious exceptions people like Ant & Dec or the Coens who predominantly work together.) I'm open to a blurb on this; but the bolded article would have to be something relating to executing women or the federal executions that Trump has forwarded. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's Capital punishment in the United States. Cursory look didn't show anything Trump or women specific.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution, if someone is willing to work on it. (Too grim for me just now, I’m afraid.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – This isn't going anywhere and it's getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shingoose

 * Support almost satis, I'd like to see the lead expanded, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A bit short but well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A quality C-class biography. Nice work . AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would like to see a little more detail about the subject's musical career in the 70s. Not opposed to posting, but could use some more depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation

 * Support (but note I created the article). Culmination of a years-long investigation will see a state apology from Ireland's Taoiseach in a story that will dominate the news in Ireland for a week. Already garnering international attention. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Shocking news in a Catholic country. STSC (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Reminds me of the Australian war crimes investigation from a few months ago. Making news even across the pond,, , , . Gex4pls (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb modified to include bold link and (to my eye) a missing article. The Criticisms section is not what I expected, and there is no text comparing this situation to analogous if not contemporary situations (France, Russia, Low Countries during occupation, etc.).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support bloody hell. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment awful mistreatment and in principle a blurb seems warranted. However, the outcome was widely anticipated and it's not clear what's in this final report that wasn't already in the interim publications. The article update so far is minimal and provides no more information than we had before the report was published. I'd like to see new information incorporated into the article before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair comment in part - the scale of deaths and the extent of the disparity in infant mortality rates between the general populace and those in homes was not generally known. The reactions section will be expanded as the Taoiseach makes his state apology and survivors' groups issue their own statements; but this may take some time - the report is over 3,000 pages and frankly, it's hard going. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I expect there will be plenty of reactions. I just would have preferred ITN to wait a day for that material to be added to the article before posting. It's not as if stories are rotating off quickly at present. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Even from an Indonesian-centric point of view this has very wide coverage.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support notable, awful event covered in news in many countries. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe "mother and baby homes" is a proper noun. See usage in this Wasington Post article.  Also, the 18 affected institutions listed at Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation show this it's not limited to some chain named "Mother and Baby Homes".  It's only capitalized as part of the proper name of the commission. I've add altblurb in lowercase.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it's regional, but I'm not familiar the term "mother and baby home". I've offered alt blurb2 which is more accessible, describing them as "church-run homes for unwed mothers and their babies".—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I went with Bagumba's blurb as I too was unfamiliar with the term. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've noted a concern over the blurb at WP:ERRORS. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Stacy Title

 * Comment. Going to need some work; currently a stub with only a few sentences on her work. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unreferenced filmography. And per Espresso Addict, just above stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The filmography is now sourced though the article is still somewhat small. May be satisfactory, I'm not sure. Spengouli (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now fully sourced and a complete BLP. At 1,6 kb it is no longer a stub (but just barely).130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 300 words it does seem rather stubbyish, though. Oh well. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian farm laws suspended

 * Question Does the suspension of the laws mean that the laws are repealed, or does it mean that the implementation has simply been postponed? Gex4pls (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are definitely not repealed/vacated/nullified. All articles I see reported them as suspected or temporarily put on hold while a panel is brought in to oversee negotiations between the gov't and farmers to try to work out compromises on the laws. --M asem (t) 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, Oppose. If the laws were repealed, then maybe a support, but the laws simply being put on hold doesn't stop the protests. There is also barely any update in the two articles linked. Gex4pls (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is huge. People died protesting these laws. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For now, while the ongoing status should continue. STSC (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, should keep in ongoing, and this is in the article. If the protests stop or lose coverage, we can have another nom to remove from ongoing at that point. Albertaont (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the ongoing should have this covered. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first article doesn't seem to have been updated. And main thing that's happened is that a committee has been formed.  That's just kicking the can down the road and so this will be ongoing interminably. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is part of an ongoing event, and the event is already sufficiently covered in the ITN ongoing section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Adelson

 * Support Awesome. Er, the article quality I mean. Mostly. Cites seem to be all there, just a tag about the number of section headers which should be easily fixed. Davey2116 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Great looking article. Also, I initially thought that the nominator comment was "feminist" which I thought was pretty funny... --Rockin (Talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A death to throw the GOP into shambles. Nice article. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose grimly structured article, currently tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not as long as the section headers would suggest, but long enough it's clear where the issue has come from. It's still structured better than lots of one-section two-paragraph short articles we post to RD. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The tag seems to be more of a style issue than content (e.g. NPOV, sourcing, etc), so I've changed the template as such. It's now a yellow tag, instead of orange, which is not a show-stopper per WP:ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some referencing issues as well, but should be fixable.  Spencer T• C 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per WP:PROMO. Lots of buzzy business language about his casinos. I've tried to moderate it a bit, but this needs some more detailed scrutiny before being posted IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - Changes should be requested at WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship

 * Support - major news headline, definitely one of the biggest U.S. sports events of the year. Posted last year and absolutely should be posted again. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The DeVonta Smith photo doesn't look too great so I don't think that the alt blurb should be used. --Rockin (Talk) 05:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced with a croppped photo. Resolution is ok for a thumbnail, at best.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, the 2020 championship was posted here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bring up the past issues with the BCS as a general issue, but I would ask if this year is really a "fair" competition given the impact COVID had on the participation of various schools, and thus making this a type of "asterick" win. (To contrast, the NFL has continued its season as normal, outside of rescheduling games due to COVID issues, so the Super Bowl winner isn't "affected" by the COVID factor) --M asem (t) 06:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's "asterisk". And the concern is similar to that about "unfair elections".  If somehow the notability has been diminished by the impact of COVID, that should be covered in the article.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * fivethirtyeight.com which is the most scientific analyst of elections (they gave Hillary c. 33% chance of losing cause she needed many states which weren't that blue and states' polling errors are correlated, this was more accurate than anyone) and one of the most for sports has said that nothing was weird about who won. If you know American football you'd know that Alabama soundly defeating Ohio State is not unexpected enough to make you think coronavirus asterisk. As of the Jan 2020 edition Alabama had won more championships than anyone since the previous system started in 1998 and did it all since 2009 and Ohio State was one score away from this game last year and won in 2014 and was champion 7 times between 2002 and 1942. The winner is so non-asterisked in fact that this is Alabama's 6th championship in 12 years.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that this was in the US, I think Blurb2 using "American football" is more relevant per MOS:SPECIFICLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 (but only include MVP pic if a better pic can be found) — Article quality is good and readers will certainly be looking for this. Last year's championship brought over 90,000 views to the article, and when this year's semifinals concluded 10 days ago, this article about the finals received 45,000 views. "American" is more specific and recognizable than "gridiron". I agree the blurry MVP pic isn't good enough for the main page; would support MVP pic with a better quality pic. Levivich harass/hound 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are excellent pictures here and here on Flickr, but they both have all rights reserved. Any way we could get rights to them? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One example is here—an editor asked the owner to change the licensing on Flickr, and they did.—Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll give that a shot. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's the same old story every year and my opinion is still a resounding no. The Super Bowl LV in less than a month is enough from this sport (or family of sports if you dare). We've been discussing this for more than ten years now, which is enough time to conclude that this particular tournament hasn't impacted the youth in the world to play the sport at all nor is there any significant expansion of the sport as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now, gridiron football gets one ITN/R a year. Two is not too much to ask for. It was posted last year, and consensus has moved more and more towards support each year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I ever ask for a second event from this sport, I'll definitely go with a league in another country. I see that Japan have won the IFAF World Championship two times, which makes me really curious to learn more about their league.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL if we post the Rice Bowl, we'd be posting the winner of the Japanese American college football championship (one of the participants in the Rice Bowl is the Japanese American college football champion), and not the American American college football championship. AFAIK the IFAF World Championship doesn't include Americans who have played in the highest levels of football, pro or college. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Accessibility Note Could someone fix the Ohio colours, please? That grey on red text doesn't even come close to accessibility requirements, which is not negotiable (I'd change it myself, but it's probably better if someone more familiar with team colours does it). Black Kite (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed the gray to white. Unfortunately, too many editors pay more attention to branding than readability.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. 1) The sport is only known in America 2) Coverage is very limited to just one country, have tried switching IP to different countries but failed to find any non-American source. This would be similar to me nominating World Pencak Silat Championships, which would be definitely closed with SNOW and a trout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 08:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It took me 5 seconds to find coverage in two major UK newspapers  and a French news service, so that isn't a good comparison. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The event certainly has coverage in non-US media but it's not front-page material (see BBC, Euronews, DW etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC doesn't even mention it on their page devoted to the sport <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They must not realize how big the second highest championship is then. Or think their readers won't care about it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just insist sources don't care about it for X, Y, Z (here, at my comment below) reason but it's still important and should get posted. From your random paragraph analysis of the game above, it's clear you really care about it, but sources don't, at least not this year, sorry. No exceptions for the second highest championship because one guy swears it's big when RS's don't. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the top story on the sports page of the New York Times, New York is not particularly interested in the teams involved as they are at least 8.5 hours of continuous driving away and outside the Northeast US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the point. You have been replying to every comment bringing up the lack of news coverage (a main criterion) by saying "but they are distracted by politics" or "but there's a pandemic" or, here, "but they don't count because they don't know how important it is" - particularly bad since importance is often dictated by news coverage, not in spite of lack of it. So I say, you can't ignore a criterion because you think sources are getting it wrong. If they're not giving coverage, they're not giving coverage, and it doesn't matter why. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also the top story on the San Francisco newspaper sports page and they're about as far as you can get from these teams without leaving this parochial Europe-sized country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same thing for Alaska Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And Guardian US Sports Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently Tor wasn't giving me good IPs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as one of the biggest events in the year. That it's limited to a single country is irrelevant -- ITN gets sports events that take place in one country all the time. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I am as perpetually bemused as most non-Americans as to why amateur sport is such a big deal, but it clearly is, and it's not difficult to find non-US coverage either as you can see in my reply to Jeromi Mikhael above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't let the "amateur" status mislead you into thinking it's not a big business. O'Bannon v. NCAA and Fair Pay to Play Act are examples. College football and men's basketball has strong ties with students and alumni, as well as in areas wihtout professional teams. It's one reason Trump pushed for a college football season among the pandemic.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems to gather enough interest, but I find it staggering that nearly 15,000 spectators were allowed to share their Covid. Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And now you know why we have so much COVID for our population density. Handwaving that meh 15,000 is only like 15% just doesn't happen in some states though, America isn't all this crazy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, this was one of the professional football stadiums which means it was almost quarter full and spectators were 1 yard apart at most. Makes me think of the Florida man meme. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Pretty much every source calls it the "College Football Playoff National Championship". Not sure if the earlier blurbs intentionally dropped "Playoff" or not.  I've added ALT III.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An amateur sporting event only open to students at certain universities; not the top level of American football in any sense (that's the Super Bowl). Teams are selected by a subjective committee not on-field performance. We have consistently avoided posting this before - I'm amazed that 2020 had a different outcome, which seems to have been due to lower participation and no clear consensus. Let's not repeat that mistake. ITN shouldn't be posting student sporting competitions (yes that applies to the Boat Race too). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The teams had $116 and $95 million of revenue last year. The winning coach is paid $9.3 million which is almost as much as the professional football #1 of $12 million. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that the fact that it is an amateur competition detracts from its newsworthiness or notability as it pertains to ITN; in fact, the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament is ITN/R. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think NCAA basketball should be posted either, and have consistently !voted to oppose it and all other student sports. As I've said in previous discussions, we should be posting amateur sporting events only if there is no professional competition in that sport (Gaelic football is the only one that springs to mind). Otherwise we should stick to the most important competitions in the highest (professional) level of the sport. College is not the highest level of American football. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Kiril and numerous arguments over the last decade. I did find that in a year which has had (in the first ten days): Britain leaving the EU, The US president inciting violence in storming the capitol building, Ireland set to publish the report into the mother and baby home abuse.... the description of a non-professional college-level sport as "one of the biggest events in the year" to be laughably and hilariously blinkered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the argument that the event should not be posted because it is non-professional and college-level is somewhat invalidated by the status of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament at ITN/R. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kiril and Only in death.Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Frankly the decision to host the CFP during COVID-19 was so dubious that it ought not be publicized to begin with.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect that really isn't an ITN criteria.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But you !voted to publicize the Capitol domestic terrorists. OK.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major event in American football and it is a good quality article. P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The NFL Draft is also a major event in American football, but we would never consider it newsworthy. ITN looks at general notability and not just insular notability.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We consider it newsworthy because it is being covered by reliable sources, as is the case here.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not ITN/R but we can still consider it here at ITN/C. The article's in decent shape. But, I have to oppose based on the fact that even though I like college football I had no idea this happened. Just missed it. Nobody was talking about it and it can't have been above the fold in any news. And you'd think getting multiple colleges together during a pandemic would have been news in itself, so this must be really down the newsworthy pecking order right now. (edit: and this is without getting into the fact it's second-tier non-professional competition in one country. It could be the most popular thing ever for fans of the sport in that country, but until we start posting all the other second-tier non-professional championships that fans go crazy over for all sports in all countries, it's US bias to suggest college football deserves a blurb) Kingsif (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Somebody give me my oars... wait I'm a duck I don't need that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be very entertained to watch a college football vs Boat Race battle. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be water polo then? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Boat Race would just walk away taking the moral (and ITN/R) high ground.... See you in April! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any boat race that takes the high ground has failed as a boat race. Gex4pls (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Touché! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone has virus and politics on the mind now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were truly newsworthy, it would still be covered, like the many other things taking up the "good news" and "sports column" slots. And for the personal experience side, if it was even given a small headline in the general news sources and social media I peruse, it would have caught my eye. But it isn't. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's been quite prominently featured on sites such as ESPN, and has been tirelessly brought up during every ESPN bowl game broadcast. I, personally, would disagree with the statement that "nobody was talking about it." PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, the US sports broadcaster that covers everything talked about it during their football broadcast. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you, as someone who likes college football, go unaware of the sport's biggest event of the year, that could very well be an issue on your end rather than an issue with the noteworthiness of the event itself. Articles about the game could be quite easily found on both "general news sources" and "social media" both before and after the game. I agree with below when he says "I didn't know it happened" or "This shouldn't be covered at all" aren't valid reasoning.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I assumed that it wasn't going ahead, so didn't look for any news on it. And I saw no news on it. This, to me, shows that unless you are looking for news on it then, at least this year, it's not on your radar. That doesn't make for wide newsworthiness: having to go looking for news isn't equal to simply "I didn't know it happened" and we all should recognize that comment was mischaracterization. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , again, basing your !vote on a misguided assumption of yours and yours alone is not a sound reason to oppose a nomination. And again, the fact that you did not see news articles about it seems to be more of an issue on your end. The nominator included three very mainstream and prominent news sources, and many more can be found with a simple Google search. I think we could both agree that if I asserted that because I didn't look for news about the FIFA World Cup, and therefore didn't find any, the World Cup was not newsworthy, my argument would not be valid. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what misguided assumption? That I'm a fan of college football but not delusional like you seem to be that this got any mainstream coverage this year? You appear to be willfully misinterpreting me; I read multiple news sites and I check social media, so if something doesn't come up on my feed it's pretty obscure. I'm sure that's the kind of principle anyone reasonable would agree on. I explained, then elaborated, then literally said you were mischaracterizing my argument. Either you can't understand it, or you're trying to claim a good oppose is baseless. In either case, it's going to be fruitless to continue explaining to you that just telling someone "there's a problem on your end" when there really isn't, is not actually a way to refute them :) So stop pinging me with your insistence that gosh, I clearly haven't read the news or whatever this bs is. Kingsif (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kingsif's point is related to the point I made. I know the NFL is in full gear and its activities outside the field are pretty much getting the same coverage as last year, but anything related to college football was extremely muted since many areas did not have teams playing since most schools did not have in-person classes. Yes, the BCS still has its importance to the field, but I don't think there was the expected interest in it this year as in past years. --M asem (t) 15:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I hadn't been following it so did not know that. I just assumed they would at least play without fans like the first sports to return. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it is a mischaracterization to say that "many areas did not have teams playing." Of the 130 FBS teams, only three did not play a single game. While I do concede that some teams had much shorter schedules than we'd be used to in a normal year, the fact is that the vast majority of FBS teams played this year. (Also, just as a note, the BCS is not the system used anymore; rather, the CFP has been used since 2014.) PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is for those who want to see what caused this article to be featured as a blurb in the mainpage last year. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, I opposed it last year. Must be going soft in my old age. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This isn't really ITN/R, and with the super bowl just around the corner i doubt anyone will really care. Gex4pls (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides the sports fans of the 0.2% of Earth that lives in those states you mean. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 90,000 page views isn't enough to meet the "wide interest" criteria? Levivich harass/hound 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the fact is that the College Football Playoff National Championship is not ITN/R, and that is not a valid reason for opposing it. Non-ITN/R events are not automatically non-notable. Further, I disagree with the premise that the event is not notable or newsworthy because it occurs the month before another newsworthy event or just the notion that you don't think others care. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 3 - We posted it last year and I fail to see any convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be posted. "I didn't know it happened" or "This shouldn't be covered at all" aren't valid reasoning. Spengouli (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I vote to support this, obviously, as a completely disinterested and neutral editor. Also, it is a major sporting event, of near-Superbowl size. "I doubt anyone will really care" is prima facie incorrect, and it's not just the sports fans in those states. It's a huge nation-wide thing, with non-stop coverage on ESPN starting days before the event. The Rambling Man, the COVID superspreader event was more likely on the strip in Tuscaloosa, rather than at the actual football game (and I am not proud of that). Drmies (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, sports fans: 4,300 words' worth of heart-rendering rhetoric. – Sca (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The criteria in question is wide interest. "Wide" can be somewhat vague, but the interest her is far more broad than many items we post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope that the closing admin will safely disregard all votes that we should post this because we did it last year or because there is other stuff that we post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I hope they will safely disregard all votes that are unmoored from ITN criteria. Levivich harass/hound 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True, especially for the opposition based on the relation to a single country, although it's not even close to be dumb as the belief that we should post because we did it in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Support because we posted X in the past" and "Oppose because we usually don't post this sort of thing" ... either they're both valid, or neither are valid. I think neither. We should gauge reader interest based on evidence of current reader interest, not past reader interest. Past reader interest can predict current reader interest, but not determine it. Levivich harass/hound 20:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN is not driven by reader interest, because we know topics from certain regions naturally draw more interest than others; we're trying to normalize topics to worldwide importance, and we have generally discouraged the posting amateur sporting events (of which the BCS clearly is) unless it is the only top event in its field (like marathons and rowing, hi TRM). --M asem (t) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we better revise the first sentence of WP:ITN (The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.), and the first bullet point (To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.) and third bullet point (To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.) of WP:ITN. Levivich harass/hound 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wide interest" dos not mean "popular news topics" though, which is what you're arguing. The results of an amateur sporting event may be popular in the US but has been argued does not have a compelling wide interest globally. Its why we avoid posting every Trump story that passes along as well. --M asem (t) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you or do you not think page views is a metric by which we can measure "wide interest"? Levivich harass/hound 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't. We don't know where those hits have come from.  For me, "wide interest" means more than to just one specific locale.  I wonder how many pageviews came from India or China?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But your view, that "wide interest" means international interest, does not have consensus. According to WP:ITN, which Howard quoted just above, the consensus is against requiring international interest. In any case, what metric would you use to gauge "wide interest" as it's used at WP:ITN? Levivich harass/hound 21:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked me if I thought page views was a metric for "wide interest". I don't, I think it's a metric which measures page views, not "interest from a wide audience".  If we're going for pageviews and want that to apply, we should be saying "large" interest, not "wide" interest.  I think most of us understand that "wide" doesn't mean "from one demographic".  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you what metric would you use to gauge "wide interest"? Levivich harass/hound 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would pre-empt that by saying don't create requirements which aren't testable. Everyone knows that. Basics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By what metric do you measure the significance criteria? Levivich harass/hound 21:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By consensus, that's the same across Wikipedia. You asked about pageviews being somehow equivalent to a "wide" audience.  I think, at least, we've put that silly one to bed!   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I answered both your questions: (a) pageviews doesn't prove wide audience (b) significance is measured by consensus. Why so salty?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wide audience not required if it's a small ex-Dominion like Australia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would avoid conflating ITNC with ITNR. If you don't like an Australian ITNR, nominate it for removal.  This discussion isn't about that at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a major Aussie-only sports item being posted, I'm not a deletionist. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're talking about deleting anything. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the higher inclusion standards equivalent for ITN, as technically ITN doesn't delete but simply doesn't add. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Australian football Grand Final hits come from a country even smaller than the mainland US without Alaska and that's itnr. We almost have a metro area with more people than Australia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither does Irish or Australian football but I wouldn't mind them being posted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose because ITN isn't a college sports ticker. If it was national/international sports - fine. These are a bunch of college students playing football, not an NFL competition. This seems to go a big overboard on what we post. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Destroyeraa, it is "national sports". Like, it's literally in the title. It's the national championship, the biggest money generator in the billion-dollar industry of college sports. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:ITN/C 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarified. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Here in England, our most popular sport is association football. The Premier League is in WP:ITN/R, but we don't post any other English competitions, such as the FA Cup - still in itself a big deal domestically. In fact only two other national leagues, those of Spain and Germany, are in that list. As such, given that we already post the top competition in US American football, it would be overkill to post a second one. I get that this is a big deal in America, nobody's denying that, but so are many other things within their respective countries and we don't want to inundate ITN with endless sporting events. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument isn't really relevant. By your logic, we shouldn't post the Premeir League, because the Champions League would be the "top competition", no? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or even the Club World Cup, sometimes the South American champion of champions even beats the European. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or endless discussions either. Current count: 5,500 words. – Sca (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gee what a useful contribution to the discussion. If you don't want to take part in it, don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussing the discussion, Muboshgu, which has long since exceeded any reasonable parameters of garrulousness. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ALT III w/o photo based on interest and article quality. I read through the !votes. Opposers should to reminded to not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, then there's the sub-variant that it must arbitrarily be the topmost level of that country. WP:ITNR, for one, doesnt follow that. Country club exception? This is part of a recurring ITN debate over how to balance that one English-speaking country has a 300M population while others are 60M and below.  A second post of the most popular sport of a country with likely the most English readers by far is reasonable. And ITN does post "popular" items, like its obsession with WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.—Bagumba (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this looking like there'll be any actual consensus? Because there's two users literally harassing anyone who dares oppose and it's at half the page, so make a decision soon. Kingsif (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who's doing that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A few more opposes and supports and this should be closed with a no consensus instead. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Thomas G. Carpenter

 * Support - citations look good enough. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it may just be what it is, but his "academic career" didn't really amount to much here, a couple of things relating to a few building projects, but nothing else, over quite a lengthy period. Is that all there is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Article says that after Carpenter's first wife Oneida died, "he and his second wife continued visiting the campus for major events" – but doesn't identify the second wife, nor does the cited article. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the articles published today mention his second wife's name. Nor do any of the reliable sources I've searched through. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How very strange. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) – So ↓


 * Oppose – Unencyclopedic & unjournalistic. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * can you elaborate on this? Did you mean to post this to some other nom?130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support A complete BLP, and his professional career is well documented here. Contrary to some points above: being a president of not one, but two public universities is quite an accomplishment in itself. The bureaucratic and academic wrangling to pull that off is not a common skill, and having multiple architectures named after not only himself, but his family attests to that.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose No details about his presidency at Memphis state; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eve Branson

 * Weak Support Well sourced but a bit too short and list esque for my liking. Gex4pls (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Short (1800 characters), nearly all sourced to non-independent sources; are there any independent obituaries? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have not seen any yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support it may well be the sum total of all that's out there, but it feels on the brief side. Everything that's there is alright, although per Espresso Addict, not really independently sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a minimum word count for posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At 350 words it's brief, but it seems to cover the essential points. Interesting person. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No minimum length beyond not a stub, but "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." My main problem with this is that the subject's notability is not well demonstrated with sources independent of her, her family and her agency. Only Refs 6, 7, 12 and a few others repeating Branson's press release about her death are remotely independent. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose A shade brief; any additional information about the Eve Branson Foundation beyond the 1 sentence currently there?  Spencer T• C 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Times has now published an obituary (link added abeve), but it's subscriber only. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Perhaps the article has been improved since the above comments, but I find this to be a well- and diversly-sourced, complete and succinct BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The Times obituary gives date of death as 8th January (apparently - ), so may be already too late to post now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Acker

 * Weak support did anything happen in his life in the 61 years between his retirement and his death? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just added a "Post-playing career" section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Maboulou

 * Support tragic and although brief, such a young player and only just getting started. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and well structured. Not much else to say. Gex4pls (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. While brief, the subject's life was short so the relative length is acceptable.  Spencer T• C 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Kellard

 * Support Decent little article, well cited (I cited and removed the only CN on the page) JW 1961   Talk  10:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a cn tag (feel free to remove if wrong), also, I'm not sure if it's standard for sources to be mid sentence instead of at the end, as this article is full of these, but correct me if I'm wrong. Gex4pls (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. A great deal more sourcing is needed. Nothing wrong with citations mid sentence if the last part is covered by something else, but this is not the case for much of this article. The section on his later life is very bitty. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose just feel like the prose is mostly a re-hash of the infobox. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject is 56 years old before the first biographical detail is noted. Not a BLP; article could reasonably be moved to Career of Bobby Kellard.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nancy Walker Bush Ellis

 * Comment. I made some cursory edits to improve some of the references formats and try to tie in some of the info better. But there's also a dead link that I couldn't revive and some PDFs and primary sources that I didn't have time to amend. Tunestoons (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail. Still fairly short, particularly given how much of the article is given over to relatives, wedding guests and details of her death -- in general her personal notability apart from her family isn't well developed. I particularly don't like bulking the lead with all her notable relatives, it makes her look less notable for her own achievements. "[B]ecame a champion tennis player and athlete in her youth" is intriguing; more details would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 42 years seem to pass without mention. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I found a new source for the PDF (10, supports Tufts charity work), and deleted the dead link (3, supports wedding guests). The latter was redundant because the information is referenced in the source immediately following (was 4, now 3, NY Times special on the marraige). All other refs look good, BLP details are complete.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ved Mehta

 * Comment. Not checked in detail but on a quick look doesn't look too bad. Not sure what "monumental" means when applied to an autobiographical work (usually used to imply it was a monument to the subject), and I don't know that it is all that flattering to be best known for writing an autobiography; perhaps his other achievements could be summarised in the lead. The career is rather skimmed over -- he wrote >24 books, surely some are worth mentioning in more detail? The emphasis of the career at the New Yorker appears rather negative. Did he have any children? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks generally okay and well-documented, with 38 cites, many from NYT. "Monumental" appears to refer to the length of Mehta's autobiography, which per per Amazon was published in six separately titled volumes. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Concur with Espresso Addict that I would like a little more info about the subject's writing career for this to be adequately fleshed out.  Spencer T• C 01:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment LISTCRIT is unclear for Selected works. If "selected" is being used to mean "these are all the works for which sources can be found" then the template could be switched for incomplete list.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beddu Amang

 * Improvements done, please comment below. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail but a quick scan revealed some queries. I've moved the education out of the lead, but the 1977 degree is not cited. He appears to be referred to throughout as "Beddu Amang" -- is this necessary or can a single name be used? There's a translation error with "relinquishment/relinquished", not sure what the right word is. (It looks as if he were fired, but I don't want to add that to the article if it isn't correct.) Espresso Addict (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the 1977 degree is not cited — removed the sentence, it is out of place and unrelated
 * is this necessary or can a single name be used? — Beddu seems to be his single name based on the Who's Who of Several UGM Alumni
 * There's a translation error with "relinquishment/relinquished", not sure what the right word is. — Dismissed is a better choice.
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 00:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've requested some sources. There seems to be a lack of detail on his career. What did he do in his various positions? Why was the agency reduced in scope so drastically during his tenure? What did he do between 1998 and his death? Can anything be said about his personal life? Lead could now do with expansion. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * lack of detail on his career. What did he do in his various positions? — no clue, it is just a regular promotion, but it shows us his journey to became the number one person in the agency
 * Why was the agency reduced in scope so drastically during his tenure? — i put a single sentence to it — the thesis actually entirely discuss the reason, but that's for a GA
 * What did he do between 1998 and his death? — sleeping in prison and picking up soap carefully
 * Can anything be said about his personal life? — he has a wife and children
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can anything be said about his personal life? — he has a wife and children
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Filomena

 * Oppose No article. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an article, its just not standalone. There's no requirement for a standalone as long as there's an update to an appropriate article. Though Kiril's concerns below are valid. --M asem (t) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well what I meant was that this one storm is not a significant subject in the 2020–21 European windstorm season article, and that the content about it doesn't constitute enough of an update - it happened. The other storms listed there happened, too. It doesn't have an article nor would it qualify for one, which does preclude ITN. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no difference between this cold wave and those that hit North America in the last couple of years. It's wintertime in Europe and such weather is not uncommon even in Spain. Also, the one-paragraph update is very unfortunate and not in par with the detailed articles that we typically have for similar cold waves (for instance February 2015 North American cold wave). What is AEMET? What are the lowest temperatures recorded? What are the regions that were most severely affected? I'm wondering if this nomination suits better for ongoing given its extended duration (normally, after a separate article with all details comes in).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Record breaking snow happens all of the time, and this windstorm doesn't seem too different from any of the other storms in the season. Gex4pls (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Countless Northern Ontario snow sculptures and structures have been literally melting in traditional Spanish weather this winter, you don't hear us alerting the globe, turnabout's fair play. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per, er, WP:SNOW...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that it's also going to be extremely cold there: "Spaniards in large parts of the country have been warned to take care in the coming days as temperatures could fall to -12C (10F) in some areas until Thursday." Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Sriwijaya Air Flight 182

 * Comment I have an edit conflict while trying to nominate this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Major incident that's all the more significant given the very low number of flights that are operated during the pandemic. Count Iblis (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looking increasing likely there will be no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of the pandemic, we would always post such a disaster. Looks pretty conclusive, may be tempted to wait for official confirmation rather than a fisherman's report, but the blurb as it stands seems perfectly accurate.  Article is in decent nick. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant aviation incident, probably the first major in 2021. Meets WP:ITNCRIT and is notable internationally, covered by Jerusalem Post, DW, and The Telegram.  Gerald WL  12:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is significant. All the paragraphs are sourced well.Hanamanteo (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Headline item on BBC radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should add the exact location of the crash. North sounds too vague. How about adding the Thousand Islands or the Laki Islands in the blurb? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please post any requests at WP:ERRORS thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright sir. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Are we sure this has been confirmed? Several RS sites still made it seem slightly iffy around 16:00.   – Sca (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aviation Herald has a ship's captain who witnessed the crash of the aircraft near Lancaing Island. Seems pretty conclusive to me. (Mjroots (talk))
 * Article currently also has an eyewitness claim for Laki Island? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Who's me? – Sca (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ME! Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A card-carrying member of the Me Generation, I spoze. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Late Baby Boomer / Early Generation X, depending on who's definition you go by. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes you a really idol round here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, a cuddly Blond yeti is nearer the mark. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you people missed it, an airplane crashed. (No, not that Airplane.)--WaltCip- (talk)  00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the Slick one! - Sca (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) La Vega raid

 * Support I can guarantee if this had happened in the US or Europe or Asia or Australasia then it would be posted immediately. Incredible scenes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Considerable coverage in other countries' media. I'm very sorry that I haven't seen this earlier.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support high death toll. Just shows the tyranny of an authoritarian government. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support short article, but definitely important enough for ITN. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for the moment. The lead especially, and some of the body, is written in English that makes very little sense. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be a problem, but the language is confusing enough that it doesn't accurately reflect English meaning. I was unable to determine some essential details about the event by reading the lead. The article needs to be copy-edited by someone who can read the Spanish sources and can ensure that they are accurately reflected. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the lead. How does it look? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 14:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Better—but what does "declared about the events" mean? Does it mean "mentioned" or "announced" or … ? This seems like a key fact that needs to be stated clearly. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading the source, they denied to speak about the events. I think this article was directly translated from Spanish to English, and thus some of the grammar was awkward. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've just taken a crack at rewriting that sentence myself. Still a little concerned given the importance of the statement. The Spanish sentence says: "Para el 11 de enero, ningún funcionario de la administración de Nicolás Maduro se había pronunciado sobre los sucesos ni ofrecido un balance con la cifra de fallecidos." My limited Spanish reads this as "By 11 January, no member of the Maduro administration had made a statement about the events or announced a death toll". Does that sound OK? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't doubt the postability of this but I'd like to see better sourcing, there is definitely more out there: BBC Mundo (translater works), Reuters, as well as expansion around the problems with the gov't before to explain why human rights groups are all over that. --M asem (t) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have further translated content from the Spanish article and added the suggested sources, any proofreading would be appreciated. Please let me know if I can help further with the article! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll Support its current state, but I'd recommend just establishing pre-this event the human rights concerns that made the rights watchdog groups take extreme notice about it. This info is not required for posting to Main Page but would help in general. --M asem (t) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 01:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deborah Rhode

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail but on a quick glance appears rather brief for someone of her stature. For example of the three books highlighted in the lead, only one appears to be discussed in the text. Did she remain at Stanford her whole career? What positions did she hold there? When did she retire, if at all? In fact dates are rather lacking throughout. Why the three articles in the Selected publications? They don't seem to be her highest cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these good questions, very helpful. Let me see how many I can address in the entry, will come back with an update— Innisfree987 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I feel like the entry is solid now. Thank you for your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jonas Neubauer

 * Comment. Currently a stub. I note in the edit history, it was redirected in Dec 2019 with comment that the subject was not notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article at the 2018 state lacked (pre-2020) sources that now are used to establish notability prior to death - Rolling Stone and Vice articles, as well as from various gaming sources that are on WP:VG/S. The death is adding more, but there was enough before to have an article. --M asem (t) 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's a proto-stub really featuring about four Tetris facts and his death, what's there is fine but it's nothing to write home about. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Well sourced despite the length. Gex4pls (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose At ~1000B readable prose doesnt even meet DYK WP:STUBDEF. I'd suggest suggest expanding it a bit more, and can still reach WP:DYK nom deadline.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Xu Qinxian

 * Support Seems fine to me. Gex4pls (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Source needed for year of birth. The Apple Daily account does not explicitly state the date of death -- is this clear in the Chinese sources? Especially as Apple Daily is listed as possibly unreliable. Has someone spot-checked the remainder of the text in Chinese-language sources? Is any further info available about his later life? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've sourced the year. The date of death is explicit in the Chinese language sources. The Apple Daily reporting seems backed up/taken at face value by more reliable sources, so it should be okay, though it did seem the most unreliable of the sources in the article. The rest of the sources check out, with the caveat of the Tiananmen Papers, which I don't readily have a searchable copy of. The claims cited to it are backed up by the other sources though. There's probably not much information about his later life, considering he was thought dead/disappeared for twenty years and then confined for the past decade for doing an unauthorized interview. Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is ready now. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katharine Whitehorn

 * Support - Good enough to me.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Just a pretty good article. Gex4pls (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sound article, well sourced and updated with details of her death. MurielMary (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Apted

 *  Support All better! Gex4pls (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when the CNs had been fixed, filmography already sourced . Michael Apted is a well known and innovative British director. Ready to post Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article and referencing much improved over the course of this morning thanks to and, last remaining CNs dealt with. Requesting  and  to re-assess if they have time or mind to do so  JW 1961   Talk  14:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – well referenced now; looks good to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the reliability of Film Affinity and there are two inline tags still there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad – missed that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * a discussion in RS considers FilmAffinity a reliable source, see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_229. But I agree that maybe is needed a RfC to determine if it is Ok to add it to perennial RS. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, all FilmAffinity citations have been replaced (with the help from User:Yorkshiresky) and no inline tags left. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to me!  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump permanently banned from Twitter

 * Support never thought someone getting banned from Twitter would be ITN worthy. But this? Notable, in the news and a potential target article Donald Trump on social media is in good shape. A better blurb is needed though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C9BC:2062:D3CE:2CC8 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just fallout from the story that's already been posted on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's already enough Trump news (and U.S. political news) there now. Compared to the rest, this is rather small potatoes. BD2412  T 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is just a fallout even from the story already on ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN worthy, not going to support a substantive update to Donald Trump. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --M asem (t) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's going to be back. Eventually. By the way, there is Parler. He didn't even incite more violence! Abuse of power. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 00:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Lasorda

 * Oppose on quality of sourcing (multiple sections). I'd be hesitant to say this may be a blurb as his name was "household" I think but I don't know if he would necessarily be considered top of the profession, but we can't do that in the first place until the article is vastly improved. --M asem (t) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would consider him among the best manager of all time, but I don't think it's worthy of a blurb, not by my standards, which seem more exclusionist than the majority. It definitely needs work, is getting it, and I'll ping you when it's ready. Probably not for hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, he's not quite blurb territory, hence trying to stave off that discussion now. Efforts should focus on getting quality up to post the RD. --M asem (t) 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hopefully it's ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now Support as all early concerns are resolved. --M asem (t) 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks satisfactory to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Biserka Cvejić

 * Comment. Short but reasonably well developed now. Not finding much in the way of English-language sources. Is there any more information available about her personal life (any children?). The lead could use a little further expansion, perhaps her most notable roles or recordings. There appears to be a conflict over her place of birth. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until missing citations are added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, ; I put a citation needed to indicate the place of birth conflict (the other is sourced), and a clarification needed over the word "machinist", which I think is a mistranslation. I can't verify the early life story but the rest all appears properly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Espresso Addict. Grimes2 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted, nice work! --Tone 18:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Elon Musk becomes richest person in the world

 * Oppose Since part of this is tied to the current skyrocketing TLSA stock price. That will correct, and this may subsequently change in the near future. --M asem (t) 02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't cover the stock market like this. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This happens all the time, and we don't cover much financial stuff, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Marion Ramsey

 * Oppose unsourced filmography. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It's a stub, with important parts of the lead material not mentioned in the body and very limited information on her life. As well as the filmography there's an unsourced section (of one line). Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilberforce Kisamba Mugerwa

 * Support Seems fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Career and political career sections could be merged and potentially use some expansion, but what is there meets minimum standards for detail. Weak support.  Spencer T• C 22:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Fine. This should be ready for posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Apolinário

 * Oppose Barely past a stub. Gex4pls (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support References are sufficient for RD standards. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stub, apart from discussion of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support a very young person so naturally the biography is not going to be huge. Low-level Portguese football too.  I'd prefer to see more in there, but what is there looks ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems unfair to call it a stub and it is difficult to know what else could be added. Reasonable for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Posted Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump

 * Obvious oppose --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Impeachment of Donald Trump

 * Oppose unless it happens Right now, it's all talk. Will Pelosi bring the House into session for impeachment? I doubt it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom but demands are not going to be posted, only if one or the other actually happens. P-K3 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it happens. --M asem (t) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Sheehan

 * Support This gentleman was highly accomplished (Pulitzer prize) and was highly respected for his insight into the Vietnam War. Additionally, his involvement with the Pentagon Papers deserves note, as they had a large impact on public sentament of the time. RandomPerson144 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Three CN tags. Gex4pls (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * all three cn tags addressed now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still Oppose, per below. Two other books aren't even addressed in the main body. Gex4pls (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I've only looked at this briefly but I've had to remove a piece of possibly BLP-violating text. I've requested a citation for his period of activity -- there's very little between him finishing the book in 1986 and his death -- that's a long time, and the books section has 2 further books that aren't discussed at all. Could do with dates for his marriage; was it his only one? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal from Ongoing: Tigray Conflict

 * Probably time to remove. And I wonder what is the situation with India farmer's protests. Time to check that one as well. --Tone 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Its not in the news. A separate nom has to be made for India farmers protest, although that one is still very much in the news given that even sympathy protests are still happening across the world (or at least in Canada). Albertaont (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – There was this today, FWIW. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Slow, but it's had substantial updates in the last 3 days so leave for now Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, those substantial updates were from events reported Dec 17, not due to events that occurred recently.  Spencer T• C 22:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Still developing, though slowly. Apparently Eritrean troops have likely become involved, which could lead to further conflict. Gex4pls (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Removal Article is orange tagged for NPOV and, judging by the long and thoughtful discussion in Talk, it is warranted. I did not have a chance to look over the edit history, but if the updates are as meagre and tangential as suggested above, or if the "conflict" is over and the remaining is politicking, then I don't see how that justifies keeping a tagged article on the Main Page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. No longer in the mainstream news and is NPOV tagged. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. The tag for neutrality has been on since December without being cleared, and recent edits have been sporadic. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-removal comment – Not so sure about this move. FYI, Friday's coverage includes Reuters quoting UN on 2.3 million needing food, and AP quoting UN on pandemic threat. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good move since the NPOV tag hasn't been addressed for some time. If that gets sorted out then perhaps we can re-consider if it's still ITN.  In the meantime it's not of sufficient quality either way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The tag for PoV was placed on 19 December. If it's fixed, then remove it and potentially it can go back up. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Saturday — Tigray hospitals hit by artillery. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pag-asa (eagle)

 * Support Neat little article, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Short but suitable for the subject.  Spencer T• C 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gord Renwick

 * Support Nice looking article. Teemu08 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article the best I can for now. I will revisit when more information is available. I have added my name as an updater since I wrote 99% of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Washington protests

 * Support bluntly once there is an article.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support per above. Buffaboy  talk 20:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - As I mentioned in the section on the senate election below: "Looks like things are getting chaotic at the US Capitol Building. January 2021 Donald Trump rally, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and 2020–2021 United States election protests are all being edited at the moment, as I'm sure are several others." ... Stability of these articles needs to be kept in mind when considering them for main page inclusion. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious support. This is fascism. CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutral alt-blurb. Yes, I would probably agree ideologically with the original blurb, but we're still an encyclopedia and have to be neutral. --M asem (t) 20:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support big news, unprecedented. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E9A8:3181:7FC4:8EDC (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - No further comment is really necessary. So depressing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict three times) Strong Support once there is a proper article. Honestly has there ever been a coup attempt like this in English speaking countries? Ocelot Creeper  ( ta lk ) 20:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Natl legislature breaching has become common and represents major flashpoints. Agree with 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E9A8:3181:7FC4:8EDC as well.MSG17 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-blurb 1 the article is updated enough for the current situation, and will continue to be rapidly updated. Alt-blurb1 is fine, the original (blurb doesn't need "far-right", needs "Trump") and alt2 (1 death isn't the lede here) are not. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb 1 per Masem. Jesus f*ck, I can't believe this is happening. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All these blurbs suck. Please stop suggesting unless you have some experience writing blurbs. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb 1 per Power~enwiki. –Fredddie™ 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose first blurb - No need to explain. May as well change it completely. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Article is still highly unstable as lots of information is unknown. Even news reports are conflicting and incomplete at this time.  Wait for a few hours until we have a stable article to promote to the main page.  This is too soon to push out now, but once things have calmed down and the basic facts have coalesced into a coherent narrative, we can post.  Also, per Coffeeandcrumbs, a better blurb is needed as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think an admin may need to full-protect this page.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is unprecedented. This reminds me of the Soviet Coup attempt of 1991. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1 per Masem. I don't like using profanity on Wikipedia, but this is fucking insane. As a minor suggestion: if sources state that one of the motivating factors was the apparent loss of the Republicans in the Senate, then we can merge the other blurb proposal into this one after the second race is called. <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> 💙 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single person thinks the riots and the Georgia elections are linked, other than "because Trump". power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The news is saying that it has certainly at least escalated it all, because Trump. Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are loosely linked, not because Trump, but because power. If the Senate had stayed Republican, both the House and Biden would be sharply constrained in what Democrats could do. As it is, the electoral vote and the inauguration are all that stands between the current situation and what half of the U.S. sees as the results of a stolen election. However, the U.S. is also so polarized that what is obvious to one side is completely unseeable by the other. Incidentally, the Senate would be wise to push the electoral vote through tonight, during the hours of curfew. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Is this really a coup or just a bunch of stupid deluded rednecks who can't handle the truth?  Genuine question... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not both? CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gun-toting idiots with no clue, that's my guess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Be glad that some 95% of the protesters had no real idea what to do next once they were inside, and ended up turning it into a selfie moment. Some of them were quite prepared -- witness the extreme ID-masking -- but ended up spread too thinly to be effective. It is currently unclear how many of those escaped arrest. Be equally glad that DC's gun laws ensured that there was no visible weaponry, which kept the greater part of the crowd from bringing weapons altogether. However, Georgia and West Virginia are not all that far away. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support In about 6 hours when there's facts and stability. And please combine with the Georgia Senate election blurb, if it's still considered to have been prompted by that. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * now you've posted can you fix all the redirects please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And bold the target please. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And MOS says to avoid "s'" instead using "s's" or rewording if that's inappropriately awkward. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which redirects? 331dot (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Capitol Building is still a redirect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Electoral College was too. Both have been fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably why I missed it. Thanks for the eyes on it. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting as people will be looking for this and I think any issues will be quickly addressed.(ec's prevented my comment) 331dot (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a bit quick for such a, er, breaking story. It didn't really start until an hour ago... Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially as Trump probably orchestrated the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't inciting a riot illegal over there? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is when it is the President doing the inciting. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but please bold the key article in each of the proposed blurbs. I also think that the storming merits a separate article on its own.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely 2021 United States Capitol protests can cover the storming.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - Wording is terrible. Suggest: "Demonstrators storm the United States Capitol Building, disrupting certification of the 2020 presidential election by Congress." -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better. I thought about leaving "votes" in, but... indeed, it's unnecessary. --  tariq abjotu  20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count be wikilinked for the word "certification" or "certification of the 2020 presidential election"? I think that would be a relevant wikilink given that the certification was disrupted. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Wording is quite bad, but definitely should be included. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we adjust the wikilinks in the blurb so that we have fewer unnecessary links? If people don't know about the US Capitol building, they'll learn about it at the bolded article. I'd suggest something like  — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Big, developing news. I'm not surprised though still worthy enough to post. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Unprecedented insurrection. Davey2116 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and put the 2020 election protests into ongoing. One of many protests. Dan the Animator 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't call them "demonstrators" call them "rioters" or "terrorists". -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * comment for once I would like to say "screw what RS/the media call them"^^ --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. We are a neutral encyclopedia, not a partisan media outlet. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't you seen them? It's the bloody Village People on speed.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support No doubt one of the biggest events of this year. Neverbuffed (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do we have a picture to go with this? CoatCheck (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Either the Village People or the United States Capitol would work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I believe. I think the photographers will start uploading their photos when the protests are largely under control. Flickr is usually useful for finding CC photos (it was really helpful during the George Floyd protests, at least). Ahmadtalk 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support An insurrection in the US is obviously a major event. Now is a good point in the the coup attempt timeline to post this. We can probably use stronger wording in the blurb, as a lot of media are calling it an insurrection by extremists. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: Was there a discussion to change the wording to a mob of rioters? We should verify that sources are using that wording before making that sort of a change. Spengouli (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Post-posting comment – Premature. These intellectually disabled rabble-rousers are destined for the dustbin of history. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Nevertheless, "mob" is decidedly POV = unencyclopedic. – Sca (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:MastCell made that change, without any consensus to do so. P-K3 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have undo some of that. Rioters is supported by news sources but that's as far as I would go with it at this point. --M asem (t) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even that should be reverted. These changes are being made unilaterally and the wording is weasely. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Every change to ITN has been "unilateral", but MastCell's change to wording supported by multiple reliable sources is somehow worse? How about:
 * BBC (US and Canada edition): "Violent pro-Trump mob"
 * BBC (non-US version): "Congress in turmoil as rioters breach building
 * NYT: "Mob Storms Capitol, Inflamed by Angry Trump Speech"
 * LATimes: "Pro-Trump mob"
 * WaPo: "Pro-Trump mob"
 * Also, I note that the original blurb said "pro-Trump", but that was unilaterally changed without discussion. I think some people here do not understand NPOV.  It doesn't mean we don't call a mob a mob. And removing "pro-Trump" ... when that is their entire defining characteristic is especially egregious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't use headlines as reliable sources. If its in the body, that's fine, but headlines are written to capture attention and thus aren't written with the same journalist oversight. "Rioters" I've seen more than enough, and "Pro-Trump" is one, though this starts verging on editorial speak to a degree. We rarely identify who the protestors ally with in any other type of blurb on ITN, it shouldn't be a difference here. --M asem (t) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Originally this was defined by some as an attempted coup (!!) which seems have turned into some petty looting while police stand by and wave.  Utter storm in a teacup.  The reaction of the police is far more interesting that the Village People who went looking for free stuff. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put "Pro-Trump" back; this story is as much, if not more, about him than it is about what actually happened at the Capitol. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the start of wheel-warring, best avoided, not going to end well. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, editing through full protection is an admin action so it's best we not revert a revert. For my part, I agree with Floq per WP:Call a spade a spade. There are (first-hand) reports that EICs are issuing guidance against publications using protestors and this is reflected in the most recent sources. The storming is significant, but the stated goal is to install Trump as the next president by disrupting a constitutionally mandated joint session of Congress. IMO that's significant enough to name the affiliation even if we don't normally. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pro-Trump" was in the blurb that was voted on and posted, and was then unilaterally removed without a discussion. I don't think restoring it is an issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While "Pro-Trump" can certainly be used, the problem is that we have never editorialized like that at ITNC for any other blurb about political protests. Yes, I'm watching the same events and worried about the end result, but at the same time, this situation doesn't create a special situation that WP or ITN can ignore past principles on how we write blurbs. We wouldn't do that for, say, the Hong Kong protests or Venezuelan ones. We have a standard way we write protest blurbs, and there's no reason to change from that for this situation. --M asem (t) 23:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no editorialising happening. That's what the protestors are being described as by news sources all over the world.  We follow the RS; I'm sure we've posted stuff like "anti-Government protestors ..." many times. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, WP:CCC, but more importantly as Floq points out reliable sources are no longer referring to it simply as a protest, and they are making a point to identify the affiliation. Unlike the Hong Kong protests, it's not simply a protest regarding political philosophy, it is a protest to install a specific person as leader of the United States (or, at the very least, to prevent the installation of the democratically elected leader of a nuclear armed state). How many examples of that do we have? Regardless of the coup(s) in Venezuela, their protest goals did not affect control of nuclear megatonnage sufficient to end earthly life. In my mind, that makes the affiliation of the protestors somewhat more consequential, and this seems to be the case from the pointed affiliation-naming in reliable sources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think some people here do not understand NPOV. It doesn't mean we don't call a mob a mob. And removing "pro-Trump" ... when that is their entire defining characteristic is especially egregious. Since you're going to just make up a rationale to shoot down, I don't see a point in engaging further. --  tariq abjotu  23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why ping me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To make it clear who I was responding to? JFC, seems you just want to create conflict where there is none, including with your unnecessary edit summary. --  tariq abjotu  23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pro Trump" is a given, although I'm sure we can word things better than some sensationalist tabloid. "Rioters" and "mob" reek of tabloid sensationalism outright and completely at this point. As much as I'd love it to say "A bunch of gun-totin' rednecks made asses of themselves and the nation briefly", I'd rather see as neutral an approach as possible. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not permitted. What if someone doesn't know who might be protesting the certification of Trump's opponent's win after two months of Trump doing that himself? What do you expect them to do? Read the article?!? --  tariq abjotu  23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Alt-blurb 1 - there was involvement by more than just far right people. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pro-Trump rioters storm the US Capitol Building....
 * Should be U.S., as that is U.S.-English style.
 * "Storm" is hyped. Suggest "invade."
 * – Sca (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know which is really US English, but at the time of posting the TFA alongside had "US", without periods. But then I see SA goes with "U.S.", so, I guess there's no consistency regardless. --  tariq abjotu  23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the current wording as of 23:30:00 is fine with me; (1) it includes pro-Trump, which is a crazy thing to remove, and was in the blurb that was first posted; (2) it doesn't use whitewashing milquetoast words like "protesters" or "demonstrators", and (3) I don't care about "flee" vs "evacuate". I think MOS doesn't care about U.S. vs US, does it? Isn't it optional? And I don't see "invade" as better than "storm"; if anything, "invade" sounds weird when you're talking about a building. I think Black Kite has successfully threaded the needle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * U.S. vs US is one of Sca's hills to die on, he's always bringing it up. P-K3 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is very true. I have pointed out many times that MOS:USA is not on his side on this issue, but it seems to be a bit of a bone of contention that won't go away and occasionally it strikes gold and an admin actually makes the change. At least it's more benign than claiming repeatedly that an entire election is fraudulent though, I guess! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021


 * Comment: Not trying to be that guy, but shouldn't it say "President Donald Trump" or "U.S. President Donald Trump"? Not a supporter of his, but world leaders are usually addressed by their titles. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Roux

 * Weak support career section is brief on detail for one with such an esteemed and notable history, but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems well sourced enough, though the career section could use a bit of rewording and bulking up, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eric Jerome Dickey

 * Comment. Lots of work needed on sourcing and flow. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyvio. Earwig looks pretty bad. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like that site copied Wikipedia, not the other way round, It was written in August 2012, at which time the text flagged already existed on Wikipedia . <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Earwig always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt until historical versions are compared, there are SO many mirrors of Wikipedia, even down to RS like the BBC and The Times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. The most substantive section is on his literary career, and it is mostly unsourced. <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> 💙 07:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too little sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 United States Senate election

 * Weak support on notability solely for the reason that this concludes the general election. Had the outcome of the general election not been determined by these runoff elections, then they would of course not be notable enough on their own merits. This is a rare circumstance where these runoffs are both a couple of by-elections (which wouldn't be ITN/R) and the decisive factor of the general election (which is ITN/R). No matter the final result, this beings an end to the general election, and it'll be the last time we'd post about it until inauguration day. That said, I also wouldn't mind too much if we don't post them, because if we don't post the results of these elections as they're announced, then on January 20th we could instead mention that a Democratic Senate is sworn in alongside Biden, Harris, and a Democratic House. <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> 💙 07:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to forestall an argument which will probably kick off in two weeks' time, but what makes you think we will post anything on "inauguration day"? As before, it will be certainly covered in the international papers ad nauseam, but I wouldn't expect us to post it, as it's just the outcome of the election that we posted back in November. Note that we didn't post anything about Trump's inauguration in 2017, until later in the day when the resulting protests became violent, which was a separate news story in itself. The same should apply this year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. With the Democrats set to take over control of the Senate, this will allow the Biden Administration to pursue the agenda on which it was elected. If the GOP keeps control of the Senate then the way the Biden Administration can govern is much more akin to how a coalition government with Biden and Trump would look like in a parliamentary democracy. Count Iblis (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics, we already posted the POTUS, we wouldn't do this for any other country on earth beside the US so I don't see why we should at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your use of the term local politics <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> 💙 08:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His opinion is that this special Senate election is no more important than those for a few seats for the Landtag of Liechtenstein. Count Iblis (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth Iblis. This may be of interest locally to Americans, but it's pure systemic bias to give it priority when we literally never post this sub-head election for any other country on planet earth. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the stakes of control of the Senate and the role the Senate plays in the US political system, this is analogous to the formation of a coalition government in a parliamentary democracy after the elections are held. We do post here about the details of the new government in, say, Germany. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this, the President can't change laws without more yeas than nays in the House and then again in the Senate, 49% of the Senate is a lot different than 50% plus a vice president tiebreaker, it's the difference between no real law changes for at least 2 more years leaving Trump's laws in place or the Democrats ending the filibuster so they can change the law to be slightly left of center (the West Virginia senator wants to keep his seat). This isn't even a dog bites man story as the chance of this was slightly under half (slightly over half for each of the two plus correlation effects). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is effectively no different than the results of a parliamentary election reflecting a coalition shift.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But because it's America, it's a "hugely deal, much more hugely than Europe or Chiiina".  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument would have hugely merit if we didn't have examples of us posting coalition shifts on ITN in previous years.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - It is a pretty big deal, but this is pretty much just the internal politics of one particular country. The rest of the world doesn't want to see how our sausage is made. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTALL and also on notability. I don't know why this nomination is still open when the final outcome is undetermined. Wikipedia doesn't work with likeliness. Also, the preceding comments of those supporting this clearly indicate that its importance is justified because the Democratic Party taking control of the Senate would make it easier for Biden to pursue his presidential agenda. This is nothing but POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle People might not like it, but this is getting front-page coverage on the international news pubs. Reliable sources don't treat this as "any other country". Wait until the election is called by multiple reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This may be in the papers but, for the thousandth time, we are not a news ticker and the international media always gorge themselves on US politics as a routine matter - perhaps just for the macabre entertainment of it all with the current goings on! The bottom line is that we have a well defined list of elections that we post at WP:ITN/R, and byelections in individual constituencies are not among them. I can sort of see a case that maybe this is actually a long-awaited result of the general election in November, but then we did post about that at the time with the announcement of Biden's victory, so it's a bit of a grey area whether a separate line item for the Senate is warranted. We didn't post one when the House of Representative results became known, as far as I'm aware. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once the major networks have called for Ossoff. It is a marker of the extreme dysfunctionality of this project that astrological phenomena, minor sports events, and natural disasters with a death toll of seven routinely sail through, while major political events like this encounter opposition. Call me America-centric all you want, but I find it utterly mind-boggling that people could think e.g. the 2020 Gjerdrum landslide is an event with more global impact than a major shift in political power in the world's sole superpower nation. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 11:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At least 17% of the angles from 0 to 360 degrees is literally a major astrological phenomena, that's not why it was posted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose One blurb per election is more than enough. Pavlor (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please show where we posted about the US Senate elections, which are separate from the House and POTUS elections. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In (sort of) original blurb about the US elections (blurb was later shortened with only POTUS election remaining). Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It said "control of the Senate will be determined in a run off election" briefly. This is that runoff election, and as noted at WP:ITNR "If an election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted."  That refers to head of government/state, but the spirit of that would suggest it goes for control of a chamber, too. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, all other senators were elected, only seats in Georgia were for runoff election. Pavlor (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we posting a French legislative election after runoffs if 2% of the seats were won in the second round and 98% were also decided beforehand? (I don't think that happened before but neither does this.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. If control had not changed, this would not merit posting, but a Democratic Senate means soon-to-be President Biden will be able to do much different things than had the GOP retained control. This has great impacts not only for the US, but for everyone.  This is in essence the second round of an election, and we post after the final round. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Inquiry If this were to be included (the merits are a separate question to which I'm open to), should we mention anything about how the US House is in Democratic hands as well? Obviously this wasn't a House election and the House not flipping is not blurb worthy; however we would not be talking about the significance of this had the House not been Democratic already. Unless this is already common knowledge. The *trifecta* of House, Senate, and Presidency is what makes this significant. Granted this assumes that Ossoff also wins which at the time of this comment has not happened yet though it seems likely. Any thoughts on this? -TenorTwelve (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my earlier comment that I removed, didn't read carefully enough. The House remaining Democratic is common knowledge and hasn't really been discussed since the election. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd judge it by the WP:WEIGHT of how sources frame it. Since the election is not called yet, let's wait and see.—Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * However, based on the below observation that this is the culmination of the 2020(–21) general election, there is merit to considering bundling the House and presidential results too. I don't think the House result was mentioned in the Nov blurb for Biden.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Although the President putatively runs the country, House and Senate control more than anything else determines the direction that public policy in the US can take, both domestically and abroad. Therefore, we must assume this is a sui generis case of a single election in a state greatly affecting federal politics.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support We seem to be violating the spirit of the "general election" ITNR entry by even debating this. The results of an election in a G7 country that change the party in power are clearly very significant.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A balance shift in a major world power, seems important enough. Gex4pls (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A "local" election with international implications. Let's not be willfully myopic here.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as the conclusion of the general election and a major power shift.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It removes the last obstacles for Biden and the Democratic party platform. Albertaont (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  WAIT  – Not yet, they haven't, according to multiple RS coverage: AP, BBC, Guardian, WX Post, NYT. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CRYSTALBALL per . ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A recount has never overturned a margin as large as the two elections have in US history. They are both getting in. We posted Biden before the results were official(which will be today or tomorrow). 331dot (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It won't be long before that crystal ball becomes a mirror.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppsoe per The Rambling Man. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per Sca. One race is definitely over but the other is still in the air though very likely towards the democratic candidate. But this is however important to the broad world picture since this gives the full control of Congress to the party of the incoming President, which after the last four years, means a lot of change is going to be coming that will affect world politics. --M asem (t) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged as ITNR. This is the final round of a national legislative election. We've also not posted the result of this cycle's U.S. Senate election. I'd suggest waiting on Ostoff's election result to be called as we usually don't call special/by-elections; the regular election was part of the general election, not the special election where Warnock won. (You can argue if 2020 United States Senate elections only refers to the "general election", the special elections shouldn't be discussed on that article except as "See also" links. You can also argue that the title should be "2020–21 United States Senate elections", as the 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia is already named that way.) Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and wait - Though one could say it is national news, this still has an impact on the rest of the world. But wait until Ossoff is officially the winner.BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Warnock's done it, Ossoff's call is a formality. Major news as the Democrats will have unified control. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - "local politics"? LOL. Levivich harass/hound 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and wait until the result is confirmed of course, but whatever the result is, it should be posted. Levivich harass/hound 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I was initially opposed to this, but upon reflection this result represents the conclusion of the 2020 US General Election, which would be ITN/R; and it wasn't until this point that we had a winner of the US Senate election, so I believe this passes ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose One post per election is sufficient. Chrisclear (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR. Presidential elections are different from legislative elections (and elections on separate chambers are different elections still). We have historically posted French presidential and legislative elections independently of each other. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * American law only changes when a majority of 2 houses and president agree, so there's more than one real national election. That's 3 different thingies elected at 3 different even-numbered years for 2, 4 or 6 year terms from 3 different tranche sets of land (and not even all single round first past the post) and all 3 have to agree. Also 2 to 1 in each chamber can override the president but that party distribution hasn't happened in eons. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose even if the Republicans retained the Senate, this would still have been posted pending updates since this is ITNR (we post both presidential and legislative elections irrespective the form of government). We can't do anything with the House since it's stale for two months now and you guys didn't include it with the presidential election blurb. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No House is fine, too late now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This election decided who controls the legislature so it is pretty significant. Swordman97  talk to me  19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support when confirmed. I wouldn't usually support this ("local politics" indeed), but if the Dems get the Senate the whole political landscape of the US changes, and like it or not that has implications for a lot more of the world than America. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Affirming that this runoff is part of the 2020 US general election: It has stretched a few days into 2021, but the 2020 general election cycle is finally drawing to a close. BBC.com—Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltChip and Gex4pls Belugsump (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when confirmed the Ossoff race hasn't been called so we can't post this yet, but the situation is extraordinary enough that the standard rule against not posting this type of thing should be ignored. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now confirmed; everyone in the US is distracted by a more prominent story right now, though. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really related, but if someone wants to nominate it, the chaos in Washington right now is probably more significant. I'm sure there is/will be an article. It's insane. (No slight on this nomination intended). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Considered 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count, but there's no update about the protests there, and most online sources are just at the "shit is going down" level of coverage. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose no coup (attempted or successful), no blurb? LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if confirmed - Big international news per Times of India, The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald. Opposers' reasoning has little merit, in my view. "In the News" indeed. Jusdafax (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (when confirmed) and I would also support double blurb with the D.C. protests if they remain significant. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when confirmed only. Major international significance. Neutralitytalk 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - Looks like things are getting chaotic at the US Capitol Building. January 2021 Donald Trump rally, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and 2020–2021 United States election protests are all being edited at the moment, as I'm sure are several others. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a separate discussion above. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The AP has called the race for Ossoff, so there should be no need to wait now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AP, CNN and NYTimes have called it for Ossoff, thus making this basically official. --M asem (t) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I used the alt blurb. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you remove "US state of" as redundant? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. I was disappointed to see the November blurb only refer to the presidency, and not the equally important congressional races. But now that those races are finally over, it is good that we posted the results. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – The No. 1 spot news story today, POV rhetoric notwithstanding: AP, BBC, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Russia responsible for Solar Winds hack

 * Oppose That's not what the agencies are saying. That the attack likely originated in Russia. They have not pointed a finger to the Russian gov't. So this is blatently wrong, and thus not yet a postable story. --M asem (t) 23:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong To quote: >"A group of U.S. intelligence agencies on Tuesday formally accused Russia of being linked to the recently discovered hack of IT group SolarWinds that compromised much of the federal government. The FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) attributed the effort to Russia.
 * And >"“This work indicates that an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actor, likely Russian in origin, is responsible for most or all of the recently discovered, ongoing cyber compromises of both government and non-governmental networks,” the agencies said in a joint statement around their investigation into the cyber incident."
 * These are literally the first 3 sentences of the first linked article from The Hill; Advanced Persistent Threats are by definition state owned/sponsored groups.
 * CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the Hill writers wrote, the direct quote they use from the agencies is very different, stating that the attack was "likely Russia in origin". The full statement only mentions Russia once there. They do not say anything about the Russian gov't at all. --M asem  (t) 00:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We also can't jump to the conclusion that a Russian APT is necessarily being sponsored by the Russian gov't. Yes, its most likely, but not the only possible means. The statement is worded carefully not to blame Russia directly for the attack, so we can't say they are. --M asem (t) 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Big deal. I've never had a doubt that Russia can do even better than that. If sanctions are imposed against Russia as a result, please come back and re-nominate the updated story. Until then, this piece of information is not impactful at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The President doesn't seem to think so, thus nothing will come from this. WaltCip- (talk)  01:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which president? Agree with Kiril. Once America decides to respond in meaningful way, please come back and re-nom with more substance. Albertaont (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose bit too late for this now . If we were going to post it, it should've been done weeks ago, before this relatively minor development. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose hang on, Russia hacked the Americans? And there's no way the Americans haven't hacked the Russians, no way at all.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The hack was a while ago, this is just the obvious next step. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colin Bell
{{ITN candidate
 * article      = Colin Bell
 * recent deaths = yes
 * sources      = BBC News; Associated Press
 * updated      = yes
 * nominator    = Melly42
 * updaters     = Bloom6132
 * nom cmt      = English football player who made 492 394 appearances for Manchester City.
 * sign         =  &mdash; Melly42 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment where are the statistics and some of the honours referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is state in the BBC article. According to the WP article he had 394 appearances. --Melly42 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox always refers to League appearances only. 492 will be his appearances in all competitions. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|The Rambling Man}} all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support all good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've requested a couple of sources; the tables of appearances/goals at the end appear completely unsourced and the honours spottily sourced. Also many of the book sources appear to be lacking any page numbers. Otherwise not looking in too bad shape. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Espresso Addict}} all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still no obvious page numbers -- all the book sources require pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Espresso Addict}} {{tq|"all the book sources require pages"}} – actually, that's not the case (at least not how it was like last year when I successfully nominated 136 ITNs). Take ref 113 for example: no page number can be provided because the book is not numbered, but because I've provided the URL to the exact page, that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, a link to a page in an online book is ok, if the book is unpaginated; if it is paginated, you should always give the page as well to facilitate finding it if for example the Google Books preview is taken down, or someone wanted to look in a print copy. However, Ref 3 and several others I looked at are just offline books without page numbers. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Espresso Addict}} all done now. All offline books have either had URLs added or been replaced by other reliable sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, spot checks look ok now. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support All sourced, looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tanya Roberts

 * Given the circumstances, the paragraph about how her death was reported prematurely could be substantially shortened. --Tone 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)}}
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is one source reporting anew, and it's TMZ. Roberts is not confirmed dead, this seems almost like death-wishing. Maybe she is, but it would be respectful to wait for it to actually be announced. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should wait until more reliable sources are reporting her death. There is no rush.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Fox News now independently reporting death on evening of Jan 4th. Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until more reliable sources confirm. I also agree with Tone that there's no need to make a big deal of the mix-up over her earlier death announcement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources like The New York Times are now covering and confirming her death. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support death confirmed by some decent sources now (NYT), and article is in good shape, and clarifies the false news succinctly as well. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost ready Still lacks cites in Television section of the Filmography. Support Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be done now. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait at least for AP, which had to retract their erroneous Mon report.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as her death is now reported in the New York Times and the article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support NYT confirms. Article looks ready. P-K3 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. It seems to have enough legs in reliable sources now, and support here. If it later turns out that she's still alive (again), then that's on the reliable sources, not on us. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1.9 million views. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pungky Purnomo Wibowo

 * Comment – Rather stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Created five hours after his death. The longer the time between his death and current time, the more source would pour in. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is he even notable? The "Head of the Payment System Operation Department" at a bank?  I mean, if this is equivalent to Chief Cashier of the Bank of England, then possibly - though I note the latest holder of that doesn't even have an article either.  I'm not going to AfD it (yet) because it's unclear what notability he holds. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Surely the multiple obits cited in the article establish WP:BASIC, even if his office doesn't pass WP:NPOL? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I said I'm not sure about it. The article doesn't say why he's notable, though ... and he can't pass NPOL anyway, as he wasn't a politician.  He didn't have an article until today, and the creating editor's userpage says "ZIS user only MAKES articel when AN indonesian dies."  It'd be interesting to get some feedback from someone who can read Indonesian. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article almost certainly does need to add more detail on what his significance is etc, but as AleatoryPonderings says, WP:GNG seems to be fairly clearly satisfied by the number of obituaries that have been generated. He appears to have been the subject of some sort of corruption investigation too, which was covered by CNN Indonesia last year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me put this into a Western perspective (UK/US). If we consider the current law (Law No. 9 of 2010 on State Protocol) as a way to view how the government considers the notability of its officials, the Governor of Bank Indonesia (thereafter GBI) is considered higher than a minister. I'll be conservative and say that the GBI is a minister's office. Currently, Wibowo held the office as head of ... department, which, according to their hierarchy diagram, is a level under the GBI, thus making the office equal to an undersecretary. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Fairly stub like at present. Probably worth waiting on this until more obituaries come in. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you might check again now. I have added more materials on the subject.
 * Somewhat expanded, thanks,, and the notability is now clearer. Article still could do with information on his personal life (spouse, children) to avoid needing a subhead just for his death. Does the reference for the death cover the place (in the infobox)? Also need to update whether he was actually buried on 6 Jan. PS, Jeromi Mikhael: note that pings don't go through unless they are signed (in the same edit). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to look at this comment? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Article still could do with information on his personal life — can't find one
 * Does the reference for the death cover the place (in the infobox) — yes, will add
 * Also need to update whether he was actually buried on 6 Jan — can't find, all the sources still say "will", can't find sources dated on or after 6 Jan
 * note that pings don't go through unless they are signed — thank you
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support Light but seems to have appropriate depth of coverage for his career.  Spencer T• C 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article light but workable. For non-Indonesians, best comparison would be someone like Randal Quarles - not the highest ranked banker, but not unimportant either. Juxlos (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per MOS:INTRO, lead could use at least a sentence if not two more on his notable accomplishments. —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Brett

 * Comment - I have finished working on expanding and referencing this article, so I think it may be more or less ready to go now. Any comments welcome! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, nice work Stephen 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post posting edit conflicted comment. Not checked in detail but looks fairly well fleshed out. Some queries with the sources... Ref 6 needs full details. Some of the sources look a little marginal; are we still allowing the Daily Mirror? Three cites to red-linked local paper, two of which carry significant weight. His own foundation is ok for its existence, but probably not for "The Foundation supports financially and socially disadvantaged youth in Australia". Is InsideTheGames.biz reliable? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Daily Mirror has not been depreciated (unlike the Daily Mail and the Sun), Inside the Games is generally reliable as it's well written news content (even if their website is ugly). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed - InsideTheGames is a publication with proper editorial control, and I think I've seen it used before. Similarly, I've never heard of any rule prohibiting local papers or the Daily Mirror. Per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, there is no consensus to deprecate. That said, I have added a couple of extra refs to a couple of the statements supported by those sources, just to add extra verifiability to them. It turns out I made an error with one of them, a cite to the 1988 Sandwell Evening Mail was supposed to be to the 1991 Irish Independent, which I've fixed. Thanks for the updates and reviews everyone. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra sources, . I don't mind local papers but if there's no article it's hard to assess how reliable they are. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. R. Schunker

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon "Butch" Stewart

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Ullrich

 * Comment. Couple of sources for minor things needed, or details could just be removed. Otherwise looking decent. There might be more-detailed obituaries in other Scottish newspapers in a wee while, as they say up here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support with the caution along the lines of Espresso Addict's concerns. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I cannot find a source for the one unsourced statement, but otherwise the article looks good. Gex4pls (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weakish Oppose - that unsourced statement covers quite a long period of her life, and more detail would be advisable there. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - uncited statement tidied up and referenced, some more details added. Looks ready for final review and posting? BTW, there's no confirmed death date in any of the obits - does this prevent the article from being posted? Date of death is in the article as "January 2021". MurielMary (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I've hidden some of the details that still seem unsourced. I think this is as ready as it's going to be in the short term. I don't think the lack of a precise date of death needs to hold it up. Pinging to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support uncited details have now been removed. Although she has died - on 4 January or the day before, I haven't seen and exact date given and part of this is I still havent seen an obituary published online- the articles published so far have been tributes. I do expect newspapers to carry her obituary soon- as indicated above, if these contain further details then these can be added later. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - thanks for sorting this out,, it looks fine now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Shelley

 * Support Story checks out, just missing a hyphen, but not for long. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked thoroughly but I did a spot check on the sources, and didn't find they supported all the material in the paragraph where they were cited (noted in article). Also, and not restricted to this one, I don't think we should be giving all this information on cause of death. If it is later widely attributed to coronavirus in reliable sources, we can say the subject died of coronavirus on [date] at [place], but the blow-by-blow accounts are not encyclopedic, imo, except for the very well known or perhaps the much younger than average. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still not checked thoroughly but another problem I noticed was the birth date; it's uncited and the BFI gives a completely different date. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which parts are "blow-by-blow accounts"? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check Espresso Addict; a couple of claims have now been removed as they weren't supported in the sources. InedibleHulk, I also just edited the paragraph on her death as there was quite a bit of detail in there that I agree was unnecessary. MurielMary (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it heavily implies COVID killed her by burying what her agent, who presumably knew her well, publicized to the contrary. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to go with the version of the paragraph on her death that's there now (edits by InedibleHulk and The Rambling Man). MurielMary (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, me too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the material further, though I do think it could go down much more. The detail I particularly lacked was her appearance in Blake's 7 "Stardrive", which is what I personally recognise her from, but didn't look to be in the three given sources. I'll take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My vote is only conditional on both infections being acknowledged as sickening, in any words.InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the question mark over her deate of birth should be ironed out &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The BFI lists it as 15 August 1933 and all other sources list it as 13 February 1932. I've edited the lead to "1932 or 1933" however the obits state she was 88 when she died so I've left that in the article. Any other thoughts on how to handle this? MurielMary (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , The way you've done it seems quite all right to me. Maybe cite the relevant sources in the lede or in the first graf of the biography section? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support- the article is well sourced. Only one citation tag needed, but the bulk of the info is cited. TJMSmith (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sandra Hutchens

 * Weak support one citation (at least) required. The rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Filling in the ref for the CN tag you added DannyS712 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are the years of her ranks (infobox) sourced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems a little unbalanced; did she do anything in her role as Sheriff that wasn't considered controversial? If so, should be added to the article.  Spencer T• C 02:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Central African general election

 * Comment. Generally we wait for finalised results, or nearly so, and require at least a few paragraphs of reactions/comments on integrity of the election &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article is titled confusingly... Central Africa refers to a region, and it is quite confusing to title it thus. Would prefer "Central African Republic general election" to be clear. This matches reliable sources such as . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that does sound better, but the naming comes from Template:Central African elections. Is there a way to rename the group? Joofjoof (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well that depends whether it would be seen as a controversial change or not. If it isn't controversial or likely to be challenged, then we can just go through and rename them one by one. If not, then it would be a case of starting a formal WP:RM discussion to run for seven days. I guess this isn't really an issue for the ITN entry anyway, but would be good to get it changed if possible. If nothing else, it would make it match the usage in other articles such as Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present) (not "Central African Civil War (2012–present)"). I'll put a note on the talk page and see if anyone thinks it's a problem. Cheers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasonably good quality articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you take another look at this? It would be a shame for it to go stale simply because so few users have engaged with the nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more reaction and aftermath, so I have no issues with posting this. My only question is whether we should post this "provisional" result or await the final proclamation by the court, per 's point above. Reliable sources are already announcing that Touadéra "won" the election, so perhaps it's a bit like the Biden situation prior to Trump's court cases, and I wouldn't object to posting it now. Also don't mind if we wait though.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I note the table footnote is still saying "2,560 of 5,448 polling stations declared", so these are actually fairly early results -- is there a timeframe for the remainder to be collated? As for going stale, imo if the finalised results are published that would still be ITN/R and could (should) be renominated as such. If it is posted now, I think the blurb should state explicitly that the results are provisional. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , according to this French source the court has until January 19 to certify the results. Pinging  will the counting be completed earlier? Joofjoof (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The low number of polling station declared doesn't seem to mean the results are early. The election just didn't took place in a large part of the country. For reference, the legislative election that happened on the same day only took place in 82 constituencies out of 140. As far as I know, there won't be different result until the constitutional court declare them.--Aréat (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Saudi Arabia–Qatar relations

 * Comment – Below the radar, as far as current crises are concerned. – Sca (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is huge. Unironically bigger than any of the Israeli-Muslim deals of the past 2 years, at least in the short and medium terms. CoronaOneLove (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Two cn tags, as well as multiple untagged missing citations. Ill try my best. Gex4pls (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though it might be worth waiting a day for them to sign the promised agreement at the GCC summit. Significant development in a major dispute, the article looks good and there's a decent update. I've slightly simplified the wording of the blurb above. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. CNs addressed; reworded Alt blurb as not just land borders were reopened.  Spencer T• C 02:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a grammatical error in the posted blurb. It should be something like "Saudi Arabia reopens its border with Qatar, ending a three-year diplomatic crisis." Reschultzed&#124;&#124;&#124;Talk&#124;&#124;&#124;Contributions 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for noticing; in future main-page errors is usually the best forum for these kinds of minor errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Closer to four years than three years, June 5, 2017 - January 5, 2021 is 3 years and 7 months. 1779Days (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Extradition of Julian Assange to the USA Denied

 * Oppose just another tiny step in the saga. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Although I do question why this is ITN, CNN, BBC, CBC all seem to think it should be. Albertaont (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not newsworthy enough for the main page. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing changes but we should keep an eye on the story. I'll support if he gets extradited or is allowed to be granted political asylum in Mexico.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mexico granted asylum. (Bloomberg) Albertaont (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. Now let's wait for the UK to let him go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – That which does not happen is generally not big news. – Sca (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good news (though what would be better news is if Trump pardoned him, Snowden, and Ulbricht), but seems inconsequential since it's only due to his mental state and I'm not sure whether he's free. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another step in a developing story. Gex4pls (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - this is a developing story, let's see if there's a big spike in reader interest, and if so, help them find what they're looking for by posting this at ITN. For 1/3/21, there's a modest (relatively, +5k) bump, but it's too soon to tell if that's a passing blip or if there will be 100k views today. Also, with Mexico granting asylum, that may keep this story in the cycle, and reader interest may grow. Or it may all be a blip by tomorrow. We'll see. Levivich harass/hound 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yet another step in a long-running legal process. Even if he was extradited, I don't think ITN should post developments in this story unless/until Assange is convicted of a major crime. Continued arguing about if/where/when he should stand trial isn't significant enough for me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM and others.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

RD:Alexi Laiho

 * Support. . Count Iblis (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously on quality, tagged etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And how does one make it not so obvious? Constructive criticism, please. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon? It's got a maintenance tag right at the top of the page which immediately disqualifies it and renders any support a waste of time.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the tag suggests, this needs a major re-write to be suitable for the Main Page. All the tedious OR stuff about guitar endorsements and equipment needs to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots of problems. The guitar endorsements, the unsourced (well, implicitly sourced) quotes from their Facebook page, etc. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Children of Bodom's ungodly suffering isn't supposed to be acknowledged by mainstream media, buddy's sister asked for "privacy and understanding", not a pitiful (and pathetically brief) carousel ride. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump-Raffensperger Scandal

 * Support An immense amount of news organizations have reported on the ongoing issue of a scandalous taped call by the US president to Georgia Secretary of state involving questionable acts. The report has become news internationally and among varying news sources from all specters and has become a piece of important conversation in international politics. Carl Bernstein has referred to it as "worse than Watergate" and many are talking about it. It made various headlines in The Washington Post and political commentators and even various senators are on the story. In the leaked call-tape Trump has said that he just needed "11,780" votes, and it has been widely reported on every news channel today and has been an ongoing issue. The evidence of the importance of this event is overwhelming. So for that I support nominating that article to the "ongoing list". — Preceding unsigned comment added by marcosoldfox (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose: I mean, Carl Bernstein thinks a clogged toilet is "worse than Watergate." UncomfortablySmug (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless actual charges are identified and placed on the President (it would have to be by GA), this would be more antics in his post-election loss, which we have avoided covering at this point. The significance of this is not lost, but it far too premature form an ITN to be posting anything. --M asem (t) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump does Trump things, film at 11. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another example of why Trump lost the election. There have been dozens of these throughout his time as President. All appalling, but this one is no worse than many others. Let's just hope that in three weeks time all this nonsense will be fading away never to be seen again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - echoing Masem's comment above. No official charges (as of yet). TJMSmith (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Reposted) RD: Tanya Roberts

 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not dead.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose contested status. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Something strange going on here: https://abc7.com/entertainment/tanya-roberts-still-alive-after-mistaken-belief-she-had-died-rep-says/9354423/ KConWiki (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WTH? I improved this article and satisfied the tags. And now you've closed it?  It just got posted in the morning.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , take a look at the link KConWiki posted above. She's not dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good for her. But I feel like I got all dressed up and have no place to go.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why we wait for the article to be updated and, in particular, well-sourced before posting.--WaltCip- (talk)  02:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, many mainstream sources were corroborating it for many hours e.g. BBC. Probably unavoidable here unless we apply WP:RSBREAKING for all RDs and say wait a day. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See here <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reposted by Amakuru after death confirmed.  Spencer T• C 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Rosa Giannetta

 * Comment. Thanks for nominating, think it could benefit from some more fleshing out. As she worked as an academic, it needs a list of positions held, preferably with dates. Presumably also she got a PhD? For the newspapers and magazines I assume she was freelance, but if she worked at one/more, that would also need including. The historical fiction writing could also do with a touch more detail; which books won the awards, and what year? The bibliography probably needs them splitting somehow by series. Paragraph 2 of the Biography section needs wikilinks. Going offline now, will try to help out with this later. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support lead too short and article about her life is brief but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As long as it's well referenced it should be good. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. For example, journalism career is a two-sentence list of publications she wrote for without any description of what she wrote about.  Spencer T• C 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elena Santiago

 * Oppose much more worried about the awards than the works, but both need work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just referenced all works and awards sections. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added two citation needed tags but otherwise the article looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support all statements and awards now referenced, looks ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lead is very short. Does anyone have any idea how notable some of these awards are? Only one has a blue link, and that is regional, though many may have articles on the Spanish wiki. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Referencing improved; meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Taher

 * Comment The Indonesian Wikipedia provides additional info about his career that can be used to expand this article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Some of the materials in WBI would be inappropriate to be entered in here per our Manual of Style and guidelines (e.g. the irrelevant net worth in his political career). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Urquhart

 * Support Well referenced and no yellow tags. A neat article for a centenarian. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support I see the article links to Sir Brian Urquhart Award but no mention of this is made in the prose. That would be nice. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a mention in the article body. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments: his position as "Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations for Special Political Affairs" is mentioned in the lead, the infobox and a succession box but not in the main text (apart from one sentence which mentions some things he achieved in the role without specifying its title or start/end dates). His KCMG and MBE are not mentioned in the main text or cited - Dumelow (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted, I've left Subiakto Tjakrawerdaya as it has only had 17 hours on the main page. I am happy if another admin disagrees with this and wants to remove it - Dumelow (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just remove it. This is coming from the nominator and creator. BTW does RD has a certain time limit for inclusion?Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The time limit is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news. Hanif Al Husaini}} (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I mean here is how long an article could be displayed in the RD section of the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 PDC World Darts Championship

 * Support in principle, oppose on quality de facto ITNR at this point (I'm surprised we waited this long to post it, it's usually the first story of the new year), but the first paragraph of "Background and qualification" is uncited. Other than that it seems ready to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article needs more sourcing, and a proper copyedit for tense fixes (current and future tenses still being used in most of the article). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerry Marsden

 * Comment Needs a good lot of work on references, will revisit JW 1961   Talk  21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some citations. Now, it is all well sourced except for the discography section (seems coming from Discogs). Maybe an "Awards and honours" section could be added to the article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Awards and honours" section added. Discography all sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support well sourced now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article fully sourced, although still a bit brief. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Subiakto Tjakrawerdaya

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hank Adams

 * Oppose a few citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now well referenced. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mike Reese

 * Weak Support Well sourced and well written, just pretty short and lacking detail. Gex4pls (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose barely above stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stub (less than the DYK threshold) lacking education, personal life; hardly anything on most of his 12-year career in politics. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Asmasoebrata

 * Comment I have added a citation needed tag. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Was too hurried to RD nom the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as citation issues have been fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support lead too short but otherwise satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierantonio Costa

 * Support. Seems reasonable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article says "He was also the Italian Honorary consul in Kigali, Rwanda, from 1998 to 2003" but then says "it was during his time as the Consul, that the Rwandan genocide would break out from April 6 to July 21, 1994". This doesn't seem right, as 1994 is not in the period 1998 to 2003. Also, as a lesser point, please edit to remove these "would" statements. The above should say "the Rwandan genocide broke out", not "the Rwandan genocide would break out". Although I have some knowledge of Rwandan topics, I haven't heard of this guy specifically, so can't comment on completeness... but the article looks OK to me apart from these points. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the "would" stuff is very USEngVar. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a typo, changed 1998 to 1988. Changed 'would break out' to 'broke out'. is right, I hadn't even noticed that one. Thanks all. Ktin (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Thanks for sorting the issues, Ktin. With the support above, seemed good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Admins, please can you consider restoring this article on the homepage / RD carousel. This article spent ~9 hours on the homepage before being replaced. Greatly appreciate your consideration. There is sufficient whitespace on row #2 of the homepage for this restoration. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are newer RDs that have to push this off, as the new system means that older ones are no longer stale if they get improved. There is no consensus for minimum duration or increasing the RD count, so the community will have to find other solutions if this volume is to be sustained. Stephen 21:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have raised a comment about this sort of issue over at WT:ITN. I am not sure if another RFC is needed, but technically is correct that our current rules specify hard figures of six RDs and seven days for nominations, while not specifying any minimum time for them to be live. Hence they can roll off after just 9 hours. It may be that our preference is to actually have compromise on one of the other variables, rather than the duration one, but we need to iron that out. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I had a response to your original comment there, which I think is reasonable. Link here. An article falling off the carousel in 9 hours comes across as harsh on multiple fronts, including on the editors who have expended significant effort on the articles. Speaking of this article, Pierantonio Costa, I personally spent ~4 hours last evening in getting this article ready for homepage, including going to multiple sources and rebuilding almost from scratch. It just seems very harsh that we can not afford 24 hours on the homepage to these articles. At the end of the day, it is a queue management problem and we can definitely do that. Ktin (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some articles get days, some get minutes, and some (more so under the old system) get improved too late and have no time at all. Editors spend a lot of time improving article for DYK, and they only get 12 hours per set.  As I said above, there is no current consensus for a minimum time.  If a more recent article is of sufficient quality why should it be delayed at the risk that it then doesn’t get it’s time in the spotlight because more comes along to push it off.  This discussion should probably be moved over to talk and seek wider input.  Stephen 21:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Westphal

 * Comment "Greatest game ever played" aside, there seems to be too much intricate detail on that game, most of which is best left for 1976 NBA Finals instead. The bullet list is a hideous presentation too. —Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose agree with above, overly detailed on one game, plus a couple of refs needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I've removed that detail. I think all citations needed are provided now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the re-factoring. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I added a tiny bit of context on the "greatest game", otherwise there was no mention on what he did in it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are better at the basketball bios than I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Gjerdrum landslide

 * Oppose – This has been a topic for some time, and it's tragic for those directly affected. However, general significance is lacking. – Sca (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thankfully low death count, even factoring in missing. Gex4pls (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Five people have now been confirmed dead, and at least another five are still missing and presumed dead. This is a disaster even bigger than the Croatia earthquake with 7 deaths, that has been posted. 51.175.236.163 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support agree that this is on a par (at least) with the events we quickly posted in Croatia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Highly unusual and remarkable disaster. WaltCip- (talk)  15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Tragically growing death toll. ArionEstar (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is significantly less significant than the 2020 Petrinja earthquake. Even if the death tolls are similar, the number of injuries & severely damaged buildings is nowhere near that suffered in Croatia. Had this landslide happened in Africa or South America, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have nominated it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sixth body found. That still doesn't push it into the box, given the big picture, IMO. (And this user is of half Norwegian descent.) – Sca (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — page views suggest reader interest is on par with the earthquake article. Quality is sufficient. (Someone please point me to which part of WP:ITN says body count is relevant.) Levivich harass/hound 06:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * History is rife with examples of why the magnitude of deaths associated with any event is important. We don't need a rule book to tell us that. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let the readers tell you what they're interested in instead of guessing for yourself. Levivich harass/hound 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Remember the Maine!" – Sca (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. A source is needed for the assertions that the area was known to be high risk. I don't think the event is on par with the earthquake, which reportedly caused much more widespread damage, though that isn't an argument against posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Toll seven. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment added alt blurb for seven deaths. Anyone know when the last natural disaster in Norway killed at least seven people?  I'll guess first: 1934?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now natural disaster with 7 deaths. If it were a tropical cyclone, this would be snow closed. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 13:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because tropical cyclones happen many times every single year. When was the last natural disaster in Norway that killed at least seven people?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For now. Let's see how things progress as the search continues. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient, reliable sources are covering the story. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On Monday, aid workers said they still had hope of finding survivors. – Sca (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: We could do without the word "massive," a journalism cliché. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It strangely only received passing mention in the news when it happened, a little more when the first bodies were found, and is now a lead story with hope of survivors. Maybe broadcasters in 2021 really do want the feel-good story. The suddenness, size, and location (a suburb of the capital) add to the notability here, too, as well as death count and newsiness. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, and unusual enough with lots of coverage, so appropriate for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – It's the drama factor at work.  – Sca (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC) — Flag of Norway.svg

RD: Buta Singh

 * Comment. Needs a thorough copy-edit, and Buta_Singh fails WP:NOTRESUME and is largely unsourced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Earwig is also potentially problematic. Looks like the resume section was copied directly from the first link, although that might be useful as a source if the content is restored in prose. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elmira Minita Gordon

 * Updater commentShe was also the first female governor-general of a Commonwealth realm. Joofjoof (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd missed this. Fairly short but over my personal threshold. Spotcheck on sources ok (not done complete check). I've requested one source; might also need a source for double damehood being rare, but I'm willing to take that on trust as I'm not aware of another example. Not sure how authoritative Greer is for the first woman, particularly in a tongue-in-cheek column that recommends the appointment of first a robot and then Dame Edna Everage? There is little on her personal life (any spouse, children) and nothing on what she did after retiring as Governor-General in 1993. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; good catch on first woman; our entry on Hilda Bynoe says she was the first (in Grenada) in 1968. I’ll remove (still remarkable achievements even so!) and see what else I can address. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added some more about her family and what little I could find about her life in retirement. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support sourcing is good. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this is ready to go, but unfortunately may be too late- oldest death in ITN RD at the moment is 4 January, and this person died on 1 January. So this nomination may be stale- will let someone with more knowledge decide. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m new here but if I gather correctly, the current policy is any death within seven days, and currently posted in order of appearance on Main Page, not date of death (which prevents cases like this from falling off if it’s older than what’s currently posted.) Would def like to know if I’m mistaken tho! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. If I'm understanding the 7-day rolling window on WP:ITNRD correctly, it's still eligible for posting.  Spencer T• C 17:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paige Rense

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for RD. Marked as ready. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Floyd Little

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Tribistovo poisoning

 * Oppose Domestic accident, similar to a house fire. The type of thing we don't cover at ITN nor have standalone articles for. --M asem (t) 17:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support International coverage, national day of mourning declared and well referenced non-stub article. ArionEstar (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, a tragic event no doubt but domestic accident with practically no encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - an accident with a single-figure death toll that was confined to a rural cottage. It's highly unlikely that we would consider posting a transport accident or accidental house fire with a similar death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) African Continental Free Trade Area

 * Support if the article is updated. This is an ITN story. --Tone 09:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was already posted when the AfCFTA became operational, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=905287877&oldid=905263081. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D071:8A57:9D92:CE97 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Absent from primary RS sites. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - page views and article quality sufficient to meet ITN criteria. Levivich harass/hound 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Sandy Grant Gordon

 * Comment. Sadly I don't think this counts. Just per sources in the article, his death was announced in Scotland on at least 23 December and UK nationally the following day. DYK should take it, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yup. consistent with what has been noted in my comments. Anyways, thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mark Eden

 * Comment I don't have the time right now, but this should fill in most of the filmography . PotentPotables (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately recent edits which removed the unreliable sources also cut and pasted in from The Guardian obituary, which I had to remove. Should be possible to rewrite. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlos do Carmo

 * Comment. Is there a better source for the discography than Apple Music? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but why would a better source be needed? The discography doesn't contain critical commentary, and I wouldn't think it needs to do more than confirm the existence of the albums. Something which the Apple Music does. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WorldCat also lists albums, so oclc could be used to link to the records for those instead. I'm on record saying that I think citations for discographies/bibliographies are overkill in any event, so it's no big deal in my view anyway. As far as quality goes otherwise, there are a few cns left (some of which I added myself), so I'm a weak oppose for the moment. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the issues you mentioned, please could you see if there are any other problems. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , On a second look, it seems to me that the lede (especially the third paragraph) doesn't accurately summarize the body. The reference to jazz, for instance, is ultimately supported by this from NPR, which mentions jazz once, offhand. I also have a hard time believing that the three songs cited in the lede are definitely his "most famous"—by what criterion? A quick prune to the lede should get this over the top. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had another go at it! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. My concerns now addressed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Adobe Flash retired

 * Oppose on article quality only. It's good to see the back of this "technology", but a lot of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Flash had accompanied the youth of so many people, but the article has some serious works to do. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on notability. Flash was obviously a major deal back in the day, when it was one of the only ways to get multimedia and interactivity on to web pages. But it's kind of been falling out of use for many years now, such that today's news doesn't really look that significant or have much impact on anyone. For example, Steve Jobs announced its retirement on Apple devices in 2010, more than a decade ago... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending quality improvements Nice to see something different. Impact is inarguably huge, and the topic had been widely reported in MSM, even in non-tech sections, for the past month. CoronaOneLove (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Amakuru. No longer significant. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of interest primarily to software geeks. WaltCip- (talk)  20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider for RD? Support in principle, pending article quality improvements.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality Flash might be old news but it was at one point it was known worldwide, and the closure of flash has been getting significant coverage. It's also rare to post a technology headline in ITN, and this is as close to a significant one as we're going to get.  However, the article quality is not sufficient yet. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not really that important in today's world. Schierbecker (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was actually considering this, but it's "death" was well planned already (for at least 6 months if not more), and its far less a critical technology today compared to 10 years ago. --M asem (t) 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flash has been on its way out since at least the time Apple stopped supporting it c. 2006, so for at least a decade if not a decade and a half. How it is to be replicated in those viewing Internet Archives is interesting, but by no means in the scope of ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)