Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2019

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

(Posted) RD: Marcel Berlins

 * Weak oppose a stub really as all of the lead is (or should be) expanded upon in the main body, I think 1000 characters total for both is insufficient. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about 4000? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Better, just the dead link to resolve. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No thanks. It needs replacing.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I fixed the dead link, looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support In other news, my brain is now tied in knots trying to parse "City, University of London" 159.53.78.143 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Is this legal aid thing on?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment two days of being good to go? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martín Arzola Ortega

 * Support high quality article. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Barrington Pheloung

 * Oppose discog and credits need referencing. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still unreferenced 3 days after. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - reqiures more source at the moment. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Hamza bin Laden

 * Weak support definitely now dead, definitely now in the news, article is packed with proseline which is a shame. Otherwise satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Including the 'military' infobox seems wrong. His allegiance(s) never controlled territory during his "service" and was never a recognized military or government. It was at best a paramilitary outfit or, at worst an outstandingly violent gang. Note that members of other paramilitary outfits, even if those outfits are associated with actual real and recognized states, are not tagged as 'military' (e.g. Thomas Begley or Velupillai Prabhakaran). Even worse, half the information in the infobox is speculative ("rumoured") or inexact ("2010s"), and problems with this have been present for some time, according to the talk page.130.233.2.171 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – From what I've seen his death hasn't been definitively confirmed by an independent source. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, given the situation, can we even expect independent sourcing to come about? --M asem (t) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, maybe never. But we still shouldn't promote unverified claims. Besides, this guy – purportedly killed "in the last two years" (BBC) – wasn't as significant as his father. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree that his death is not definitive enough to post yet (see my post below), his significance relative to his father is irrelevant. Anyone with an article is eligible for an RD post if their death is confirmed. See the boilerplate text in the nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RSBREAKING and reliance on anonymous sources. Even Trump has declined to confirm. Regardless of the person involved, WP:BLP says we should be conservative on this too.—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is more than citing facts - organization matters too. If I submitted this mess as a primary school report, I would fail the assignment. I am unable to discern why he is important enough to have a stand-alone article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing looks ok. Quality meets RD standards. Reliable sources are reporting his death.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Quality meets RD standards." There is no such thing as RD standards in re quality. RDs must meet the same quality standards of any ITN nom. The significance standard is the one that has been reduced.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is reasonably comprehensive and adequately sourced. Those are the standards I go by. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting as ineligible. There is too much uncertainty here to know for certain he has died. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is more fit for a blurb than RD, and would oppose an RD - support blurb when article improved. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if dead for real this time, there are too many holes and whispers in this tale to pass for a reasonably complete biography, in context. Certainly oppose blurb. Immediate ramifications, if any, have already flown under the mainstream radar. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fine for RD. But I agree this story is more apt for a blurb if the article is improved more. Davey2116 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hal Prince

 * Support Only 2 cn tags, otherwise well referenced.  Nixinova   T   C  20:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely improved from when I nominated. I'd also suggest that all books have at minimum their ISBN number for verification, but it's much closer now. --M asem (t) 20:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article can be brought up to speed, I'd consider supporting a blurb. This guy is being widely described as a legend in his field with 21(!) Tony Awards as supporting evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We would absolutely need some type of "legacy" or the like section in the article to support that. I mean, there's an impressive list of awards and plays he did, but its not clear from the current article how important he was. --M asem (t) 22:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, I removed the tag as at a quick glance I couldn't see anything too problematic, specific tags should be used if required. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Spot check of references gives some problems, probably arising from copy-pasting text without moving the associated reference. Nothing outright wrong however.130.233.2.171 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD for now. The article is in decent shape but will need expansion for a blurb per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I improved the opera section, - I mean, an opera without an article needs at least a composer mentioned ;) - Better lead, please. Just a number of awards is poor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. G. Siddhartha

 * Oppose references missing and prose needs a copyedit. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support much better. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment: Article needs formatting cleanup (section heading capitalisation, dash format) and also has big paragraphs only attributed to a single source. Also has some unimportant one sentence sections which should be merged into their parent sections.  Nixinova   T   C  06:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails MOS:OPENPARABIO. The lead does not give insight into how he became a billionaire e.g. what industry he plays a role.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Opening paragraph now expanded. Stirking "oppose". Consider me neutral for now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the constructive comments. I have done an extensive rework on the article to fix the issues pointed above. Please take a relook. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support article's now in decent shape. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional copy editing performed Captainllama (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Contributions section has no references. -- Jayron 32 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jayron32, I have removed the unsourced section.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Issues have been fixed; "Other businesses" section probably doesn't need that many subheadings but otherwise the article is now fine.  Nixinova   T   C  20:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable with that one-line, single source "controversy" section in BLP; Cf. WP:CSECTION. Is this a controversy about him or about his businesses? If it's the former, then the section should either be expanded with multiple sources or removed. If it's about the latter, then the section should be moved to the articles about the companies, if the companies don't have article, then the controversy is not notable. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The above may well have a role in his death, at least as speculated in local mediaCoffee czar VG Siddhartha's problems began with income tax and ED raids in 2017. I assume we'll know more soon, and at that time perhaps the section should be expanded and re-named. Worth noting that this was prominent news in financial press outside of India. Brief check of references gives some problems: there is no reference for net worth in the infobox, for example. Article is much improved from before and would support otherwise.130.233.2.171 (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I have addressed the over-sectioning issue and merged the CSECTION. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron 32 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Malcolm Nash

 * Oppose a couple of unreferenced claims, tone might need addressing (I already removed "unfortunate" but think "victim" could use rewording too, for example). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the sourcing issues. User:The Rambling Man do you have a better alternative? I feel victim is appropriate here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased, see what you think. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man thanks, I like your version. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is okay, what's there is referenced, just feels a little lightweight. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I have expanded the article some more. Hope it helps the article to reach the main page. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure what is stopping this from getting promoted. If there are more issues then please do let me know. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I've cited/removed the bits that were commented out, and it's a reasonable (if somewhat short) summary of his career now, so marking as ready to go. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Amakuru for your help here.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that unfortunately the last entries on the list are already deaths from 31 July, so technically this has dropped off. But maybe a kindly admin will agree to WP:IAR and post this anyway, since it has seemingly sat for three days without anyone attending to it?! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, indeed. Hoping that this gets its place at ITN-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Abdullah of Pahang

 * Oppose BLP sources tag is justified. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sources tag as mentioned above, and the article also needs major formatting cleanup.  Nixinova   T   C  06:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This story has been nominated twice before, when his predecessor abdicated and when he actually succeeded in January. The formal installation ceremony is a minor detail to that succession. Neither previous nomination was posted because the article wasn't up to scratch. Modest Genius talk 16:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article's also very different from what it was like in January. I actually wonder how this nomination would've turned out if I just deleted the orange tag before nominating it, but I'm not going to do that. Banedon (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure at least one reviewer would have noted that various whole paragraphs are without reference and that the page is (without any attention to notability) is completely unsuitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Grant Thompson

 * Oppose This is an article about a YouTube channel, not a biography of the person who ran it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While we are getting some bio on Thompson due to his death, I don't think he's really separately notable from the YouTube channel (since it was not solely his channel). --M asem (t) 00:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Titular character in the article about the show, but close enough isn't close enough for RD, just "Deaths in 2019" (for a month). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A mishmash of biography and Youtube channel. The article needs focus first. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose YouTube channels are not eligible for RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mathias J. DeVito

 * Support - Article is fully cited and ready. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Slightly wary that all the cited independent sources are solely from the Baltimore Sun, which WP:GNG counts all as one source (not the multiple sources GNG generally recommends) from the same publisher. I suppose the mentioned awards have write-ups offline. Otherwise, I am usually cautiuos of bios from non-independent sources—they are often whataver the subject (or their PR) write up.—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added 4 more sources from outside of Maryland. Also, the Baltimore Sun references currently used in the article span from 1972 to 2019.Thsmi002 (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, striking that previous concern. Consider me neutral for now.—Bagumba (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Prison riot in Altamira

 * Comment I've created the page; also, replaced TeleSur as source with BBC, since TeleSur is deprecated. And, support. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article is still a little sparse so far for me; I'd also like to see some additional sources besides just 1. The BBC is a high-quality source, but we should also include perspectives from other high-quality sources.  Some expansion would go a long way towards shifting my vote to support.  -- Jayron 32 12:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per expansion noted below. Meets every requirement: prominent news story, sufficient quality article.  -- Jayron 32 15:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded, getting in the BBC to start the article was, well, the start. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sketchy for such a large death toll. Also note that AP (added as source above) says 55 died in prison riots in the neighboring state of Amazonas two months ago. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to this comment (and reply for the !opposes below) that was 4 prisons total death toll. They just all happened to riot on the same day, and Amazonas as a state has much greater gang violence and drug feuds. Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was going to post this when I saw it, but then I read there was a similar riot only a few months back that had even a larger death toll, and most article say that these are commonplace in Brazil due to overcrowding. --M asem (t)
 * As above, there were 4 riots, just all within the same two days, across 4 prisons. None of them had a death toll higher than 25, and Amazonas state has much more gang/drug violence than Pará. In any case, this is in the mainstream news in the West, but the riots in May weren't. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on significance per Masem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Death-tolls as high as this one in Brazil are still rare. The fact that one happened a few months back doesn't take merit of this one. This highlights Brazil's growing gang problem inside prisons, as well as overcrowding. More should be added on what gangs participated, but this in itself is an extremely notable occurrence. 16 decapitated? This wasn't just another mass murder. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Event seems notable but article has only references the same 4 sources.  Nixinova   T   C  06:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and that's relevant for? Kingsif (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Four distinct sources seems pretty good for an article of this size. -- Jayron 32 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support articles about riots like this have gotten their blurb in the past.--MaoGo (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still sketchy. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support "Meets WP:MINIMUMDEATHS". I believe it is notable and it has been adequately covered. The article certainly has room for improvement but it is sufficient. Davey2116 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support we don't need the lurid decapitation details in the blurb but otherwise it's good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The number of deaths in a single event (57, more than 4 other events combined), and nature of them (decapitation, unique), the location (not Rio nor Paulo) and the extensiveness of coverage pushes it over. Suggest Post-or-Close before it gets stale.130.233.2.171 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Old Town Road

 * Support article is good enough, and it is a valid record, especially in light of the Avengers blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose That would make a DYK hook. I don't think it's significant news. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved this vote because it didn't make any sense on the RD. I am agnostic about whether this gets an in the news blurb. Rockphed (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I have no idea how my !vote got saved in the wrong section. Probably user error. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - High quality article, with only one tag. Given that we posted the movie record, this seems satisfactory. The lede could be shortened for my taste, but that is outside the purview of ITN. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and trimmed the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Globally such achievements are much less visible and popular than beating Avatar. I bet most readers don't care about Billboard Hot 100 or even don't know what it is. Brandmeistertalk  20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a strange thing to say considering how our coverage of popular songs is so unnaturally weighted towards hit singles, even when the lasting significance of some of those songs would make one question the use of the term "hit" to refer to them (except perhaps as shorthand for "hit-and-run", as in performing a hit-and-run job on the charts lasting a cup of coffee or two). You should emerge from this walled garden sometime and check out some of those articles and how they're exercises in chart worship, often at the expense of anything else which may help readers understand why the topic in question is notable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye. I haven't heard this song, nor any other "big" song since "Wild Dances", nor a big movie since Iron Man 2 (not counting snippets). But even I appreciate Billboard as one of "those things", like Taylor Swift or Brett Kavanaugh or Ramadan. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Entertainment trivia. No real significance. (and FTR I opposed the Avengers blurb for the same reason.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Avengers; media is news, other records (that get broken more often!) get posted. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really think we have to be careful with superlative records involving contemporary cultures as these are records that are meant to be broke. (In contrast, I do recall us posting art auction records, including an auction for Action Comics #1 (see ) but this are works of historic importance. Newer works like the Avengers and this song don't have the historical context to know if these records are important. Again, I think we really could use a DYK approach to these records, where it would be a much better fit. --M asem  (t) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sub-trivia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Trivia with no global significance.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Solid article and it's a 13-year-old record being broke. ITN can't be all doom, gloom and Eurovision.  Calidum   23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too regional - according to the Billboard Hot 100 article, it's only for the US. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support– longstanding record broken and notable within the music industry. Article is well-written and worth showcasing. This only relating to the US billboard is irrelevant: "please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia, and there's no need to perpetuate WP:BIAS by putting events of unknown relevance in the spotlight. This could maybe go at DYK. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – notable record among readers with a passing interest in entertainment, rarely broken à la Avengers: Endgame becoming the highest grossing film of all time, which was posted recently in ITN. If you set precedents, expect to have them followed. Can't just be one-offs for the sake of one-offs – that's how you destroy consistency and reliability. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was never a clear consensus to post Avengers and bad decisions should not be treated as precedent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No disrespect intended, but there *was* consensus to post Avengers as judged by the project's duly appointed arbiter. *You* opposed it (as did I), and *you* believe it failed to reach consensus. There are forums to discuss (and sanction) admins that behave poorly, but it is misleading and damaging to the project to characterize an admin's reasonable actions as a "bad decisions" just because you disagree with them. Separately but similarly, we should only reject precedent if it deemed inappropriate by consensus. The problem being that (as PTG notes above) we DID post the Avengers story, and to not post this would be conspicuously inconsistent, especially considering the racial factors involved (such as the treatment this act has received from Billboard and our esteemed colleague CaradhrasAiguo).   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to say that Ad O'd point here is that while Avengers had consensus to post, it didn't have the type of support to create a mandate that similar records, like this one, should be considered "important" for ITN posting. The fact this is still very much split reiterates that we don't have a clear mandate from the Avengers, and instead should consider this on the merits only of this one. --M asem (t) 19:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Avengers was a global record wasn't it? This is just one list, and according to the article there are quite a few more? Banedon (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Typical entertainment trivia. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support notable record being broken.  Nixinova   T   C  07:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Quality article. Significant cultural achievement (breaking a 23 year record), by an already influential, genre-blending song. If can post the netball world cup without discussion (something that no one has ever heard of), surely we can post this.  Rami  R  07:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unimportant.  Sandstein   10:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: included in BBC Radio 4 news this morning. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is merely one chart from one country. The Avengers blurb concerned a global record. Would we post something like this if/when a song breaks a record on the British charts? --Plasma Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 11:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was a metal or techno song, Europe would matter, but country and rap are run from America. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I came here because I saw the record in current events. As for whether other records for songs should be listed, let's see if/when that happens. 17 weeks is a long time to be at the top of the charts, more than 1/4 of the year. As for this being too US-biased, let me point out that the song was also a #1 in other countries around the world. I think it should be listed. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Being covered by the news in a prominent way, article is of sufficient quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Going by precedence, Avengers paved the way for this sort of blurb to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – on clear lack of significance. Given 50/50 split in votes, consensus seems out of the question. Suggest close . – Sca (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You know as well as anyone here that consensus is based on strength of arguments and not on a simple vote count.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , consensus is composed of several factors, among which opinion exhibited by the number of votes is arguably the most consequential. – Sca (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Essentially trivia.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – This record has remained in place since 1996. That is 23 years ago. That is not just trivia. This song has also been a hot subject of discussion in the media beyond the music industry. The record breaking is certainly in the news: The Guardian, The Independent, CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Slate, and even the ####### hateful Fox News. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm older than you but 23 years doesn't seem such a long time to me. Maybe if it had stood since the Beatles or something I might have been more impressed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Our readers come from a wide range of age groups. We should try our best to be inclusive in our subject matter to include things of interest to our readers, whether they are 12 years old or 93 years old. For the younger reader the record has stood for the entirety of the life. For the older reader, it has stood for a fourth of their life. That is good enough for me. Also remember this song appeals to two disparate genres of music: hip hop, and country. Everything about this article indicates it deserves main page exposure. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.instagram.com/p/ByDnqJxl_J7/ --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per Brandmeister and Ammarpad; no need to propel rap "music" that will never ever stand up posterity to ITN. Calidum's !vote is mistaken in equating this domestic chart with low name recognition to the multicultural, multinational Eurovision. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: FTR the above comment has been modified following various discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow. I don't think either Brandmeister or Ammarpad were calling the US degenerate or fascist.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ . That is offensive and unacceptable. I strongly advise you to strike or otherwise modify your comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments show your lack of awareness of the significance that the Billboard charts hold in the music industry and the video you linked is a weak attempt to discredit rap as an entire genre. Though I doubt you will, I suggest you strike your comment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as pointed out, it's not just trivia, it's not just music. It's been on the list for a very long time and broke a record that's been a record for a very long time. It's in the news for not just being a music record, but for the artists who are performing. RS are reporting on this. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I believe this is notable and sufficiently covered in RS. Davey2116 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Probably crap art relative to the hype, but all pop culture always been, and the hype seems realer than it has this millenium. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't believe trendy pop culture information belongs on in the news. Should we make a post every time a new song is released? Sure, breaking a record is significant, but only relatively. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  20:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And a new Pope being chosen is only important next to a Christian couple cranking another one out. We have to wait and see each time. But if that kid grows up to be a Pope, we wouldn't wait 17 extra weeks to be sure, so religion's still huger. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to pretend I have any idea what you're trying to say. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  21:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Hint: I think it's an analogy). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quit digging my hole, bro! Replace Pope with anyone destined for cultural greatness. All origins are humble. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Face palm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unlikely this one would make 17 weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Collar pull. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – This overlong (2,100 words) discussion has morphed into tomfoolery. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What he ^^^ said. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The real story here is not the plain number of weeks on the chart, but that fact that the sales run of the same song has been perpetuated by slightly different versions, even including different artists? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Essentially trivial.  Being top of a US pop chart, for whatever length of time, is not globally significant news.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Want to note that the Billboard Hot 100 is not a pop chart. It's the flagship music chart for the United States. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But only to Americans who don't care if it's rock, rap, Latin, jazz, funk or classical, so long as it's hot, cool and popular. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Global significance is a plus but it is not a prerequisite as clearly stated near the top of this page. The death of the President of Tunisia has very little global significance yet no reasonable editor opposes that being posted. A good closer should ignore all the !votes above that mention the "US" or "Global", and post this. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Vitthal Radadiya

 * Oppose – undue weight being given to "controversy" in the lead.  Nixinova   T   C  07:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy moved as suggested. User:Nixinova Please take a relook. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose still - the content is adequately sourced though there are 12 references to the same primary non-existent source.  Nixinova   T   C   19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Nixinova, the dead have been resurrected Please review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still the issue of 12 references to the same primary source.  Nixinova   T   C  05:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The link to BIO on Parliament official website is used only for undisputed and non controversial biographical facts. This is not an issue. Please point me to the valid policy that calls it an issue that can stop the article from going to the Mainpage.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Heavy reliance on the same sources may mean the subject isn't very notable. I have no major issues with the article, though, which is why my opposition is only weak.  Nixinova   T   C  06:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop refactoring my indents. A five time Member of legislative assembly and 2 times National Parliamentarian is notable since he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. As I noted above this is not a valid issue and you have still failed to point me to the policy that calls it an issue. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Wp:ITN there's no strict policies here. And notability for an article isn't necessarily the same as notability for the main page.  Nixinova   T   C   06:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the fine print in the nomination template above. If an article is notable to exist on Wikipedia, it is notable enough to goto main page. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll give you a Very weak support, final answer.  Nixinova   T   C  07:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose(Changed to support below) In addition to the above (which should probably be moved to "Career"), some terminology ("in the range", "surrendered to"), odd use of punctuation and perhaps missing articles creates some confusion. Perhaps some of these are common in India or elsewhere, but for the sake of clarity they should be explained or revised.130.233.2.171 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy moved as suggested. Other issues pointed above also fixed. Please take a relook. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support What's there is sourced I guess, but it's really not much more than a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we supposed to treat that dead link as if it is a valid citation?  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:GreatCaesarsGhost, the dead have been resurrected Please review again.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support as Prawnkingthree notes, what's there's ok, but it's just weak overall. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind feedback. The issues posted by oppose votes have been fixed. Article meets the criteria. With 3 W. S. I think this can now be posted. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Marking ready. It looks like every issue mentioned has been addressed. It will be up to the posting admin if the weak support justifies passing it over. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short article (1590 bytes of prose). More importantly missing any description of achievements or values as a politician, which should be a minimum for RD (as opposed to just DYK). Current size is buoyed by seemingly trivial gun "controversy" and WP:NOTDIARY-ish prose about marrying off his widowed daughter-in-law.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba it seems you also have some different standards of what can be in ITN RD, than what the community consensus shows. Please check the ITN RD once more. regarding his daughter in laws marriage, it was something that was a major news about the subject. Perhaps you would have been able to appreciate it more had you been more familiar with Indian customs and traditions. So I dont blame you for that. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD says the article should have sufficient quality to be posted on the main page I don't believe it does. Also, it would be less important whether a line or two was trivial or not if there was just more substance on his political views. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba 1. What you are calling Trivial (based on your personal opinion), is not trivial in India. 2. Article isn't stub class. Stub class cannot be promoted to main page. 3. I am sure this article has lot of room for improvement before it can reach GA status. but this is not a GA review, we are checking if the article is largely problem free. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a straw man argument, as I have not asked for GA status. I do appreciate the improvement that you have made to this page (and many others). Realize that I am only one !vote, and ultimately it's up to somone else to determine consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, my point is that the ITN RD does not require the bio to have complete info on every aspect of his life. The article does include useful info on his career. I do value every comment on my nominations and try to include every suggestion into the article. Thanks for reviewing the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article is much improved since last review. Language, references and style in-line with rest of en.wiki. It is not a long BLP, but passes the mark. As for the above, notability for RD is moot, and if you think an article is not warranted then AfD is open. The "padding" amounts to two sentences of text, both of which seem appropriate to me for such an article.130.233.2.171 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If your reference to "above" is alluding to me, I never said he was not notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the IP was alluding to Nixinova.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Loek van Mil

 * Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a few things that need citing, and commented out a paragraph which closely paraphrased its source, but once those are sorted out it should be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Some CN tags and a dead link. So, I can support it by now.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the issues pointed by Amakuru and SirEdimon.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - thanks for the updates, . Looks good to go now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Issues resolved.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Tour de France

 * Landslide support pending all the updates, of course.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently tagged for update required, and nowhere near the coverage of the race required for us to post. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is in generally good shape, but the 'race overview' section only gets as far as stage 5. Expand that (with references) to cover all the stages then I'll support. I don't think the winner's nationality is relevant, altblurb added (matching last year's phrasing). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also added a possible image. A crop of File:Egan Bernal TdR 2018.jpg would also work. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do some further work on that, though of course it would be helpful if somebody else helped. I have no qualms with the altblurb, though of course, my blurb is literally the title of the report on the race by the Guardian (reworded of course) - so probably worth mentioning (I have changed the source to link to that instead of the live commentary, if it poses no problem). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll get it done by today or tomorrow, as I usually do. Everything is good apart from the overview, which I started, but was too busy to carry on with. File:Egan bernal Reims 95451 (cropped).jpg should suffice. BaldBoris 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all done now. The first Colombian or Latin/South American? BaldBoris 03:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Egan Bernal becomes first Colombian to win the Tour de France" (title, Guardian); "With the race leader not challenged on the final stage, 22-year-old Bernal became the first Colombian winner." (2nd paragraph, BBC) - obviously WP:RS deem it to be worthy of mention. Of course, that does not mean we must, but it's indicative of whether we should. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Edit: sorry, I probably misunderstood what you meant with your question. Per the sources, should probably be "Colombian" (which is more precise than "South American"). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the fact that he's the first from the much larger area of Latin America is more of an achievement than the first from Colombia, much like in 1986 when Greg LeMond became the first non-European winner, rather than the first American. We could use "Colombian Egan Bernal (pictured) wins the 2019 Tour de France, becoming the first Latin American Colombian to do so." or "Colombian Egan Bernal (pictured) wins the 2019 Tour de France, becoming the first from Latin America Colombian to do so." New Guardian article BaldBoris 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first of these is better. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. That is an extremely detailed summary, good work. Marking ready, as all the opposition seems to have been addressed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, but will support when stuff like the Update tag gets taken care of. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The overview has been completed. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the race overview is done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted but have to wait on registering image protection to turn that over. --M asem (t) 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just found a more fitting photo from a very reliable Flickr user of Egan Bernal at the race wearing the race leader's yellow jersey: File:Tour de France 2019, Egan Bernal (48417058947) (cropped).jpg I can do a further crop if need be. BaldBoris 22:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe of the same-ish crop as the current one? If you can make that and then make sure it gets added to the image protection queue, then I can replace it when its done. --M asem (t) 22:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Tour de France 2019, Egan Bernal (48417058947) (cropped small).jpg? Any smaller and it looks odd. BaldBoris 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Tour de France 2019, Egan Bernal (48417058947) (cropped smaller).jpg Smaller. BaldBoris 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I used your second to last one. --M asem (t) 01:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment Are there no pictures of him available without sunglasses?

RD: Hwung Hwung-hweng

 * Oppose Fails MOS:OPENPARABIO. The lead does not explain why this person is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. Sketchy. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Samprada Singh

 * Oppose Currently 760 bytes of prose, which wouldn't even meet DYK standards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. Sketchy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose poorly referenced stub. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaipal Reddy

 * Oppose for now. Multiple CN tags. Article does not appear to have been updated to reflect his death. Needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * on it-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, I have fixed all these issues, please take a relook.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Much improved. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks filelakeshoe, can someone give the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Stephen-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carlos Cruz-Diez

 * Support, artist of international importance--MaoGo (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, majority is unreferenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, Article is blocked pending a copy-vio hit. Challenger l (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keith Lincoln

 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yup. Good as far as I can tell. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Andrew Golden

 * Oppose inadequate sourcing. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as more confusing than enlightening for a naïve reader. Presumably, the RD entry will read only "Andrew Golden", but the link will send a reader to a page named "Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden" (an oddity in itself that a BLP would feature more than one person), and what's more, that page is in actuality a re-direct for an article "Jonseboro massacre".  Indeed, it seems that this article _was_ the article for the event, and was re-named for the perpetrators.  This is all rather odd.  If the person (singular) is important enough to warrant an article, then that article should be named for (only) them.  It an event is important enough to warrant an article, then it should be named for the event itself.  All this for a WP:1E.  Split the article to into separate Johnson/Golden BLPs, re-establish an event article for Jonseboro Massacre, clean up referencing.130.233.2.171 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNRD "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.". This qualifies, though of course quality still needs to be there. --M asem (t) 13:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, when was it decided that "this qualifies", since these are decided on a case-by-case basis? The 1 sentence update is anachronistically placed into the "Background" section. The table for the victims has been deleted. At some points it's hard to keep track of whether Golden or Johnson is the subject. It's just a mess. It would be just easier to re-name the nominated article to "Jonseboro Massacre" and split off the details about Golden to an actual BLP.130.233.2.171 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your quality concerns are 100% valid, and should not be dismissed by closer. I'm just pointing out that asking for Golden to be split off to a separate article is not required for this to be nominated as RD. --M asem (t) 14:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Russi Taylor

 * Oppose for now. Multiple orange tags. Needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO, still no improvement. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino

 * Support no overt issues that I can see at a quick review. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bryan Magee

 * Support nothing stopping this one right now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Graham Freudenberg

 * Support satis. Short, but satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this article is still too sparse. Rockphed (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced brief article. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient coverage of the subject. The introduction says he's an author and served as a press secretary, but body of the article makes no mention of these roles besides a bulleted list of books by Feudenberg.  Spencer T• C 21:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cathy Inglese
Oppose, many unreferenced claims in the "collegiate coaching" section as well as the entire "honors" section. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on it.... Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Page has now been updated, with additional sourcing; please take another look, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Adequately referenced now.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Blurb: Beji Caid Essebsi

 * Support for alternative blurb. Diplomatic head of government deceased before elections, vastly important for Tunisia and the region.--MaoGo (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe a blurb that adds that he died in office would be important.--MaoGo (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Think the word "incumbent" suffices. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right.--MaoGo (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - awards on Essebsi's page need sourcing (plus one or two smaller paragraphs that should also be sourced). Support otherwise on significance, death of a sitting national leader is absolutely appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable death of a head of state. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The death is notable as he was a head of state-- BoothSift Talks  18:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb, and sourcing issues mentioned above appear to have been addressed now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb, death of a sitting president is clearly notable. Davey2116 (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb as more informative. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event. Nselmi (talk) 00:44, 26 July 26 2019 (UTC)
 * A few paragraphs and honours that lack a reference. Stephen 03:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Many/most of the sources for this subject are in Italian or French, suggest someone ping a known native bilingual for checking. It makes cross-checking details in (e.g.) Political Career slow-going.  Otherwise, clear candidate for blurb.130.233.2.171 (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was the one that updated the sources on the honours, reading from French Wikipedia. The rest of the awards are not available there. If anybody can find the rest of the sources it would be strongly appreciated.--MaoGo (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I commented three of the countries honneurs, I really tried hard to find a source. See more on the talk.--MaoGo (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is good enough for posting and overall quality is statis.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what about the picture?--MaoGo (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I think there were more support for alternative blurb.--MaoGo (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely its the succession that made this suitable for a blurb rather than an RD? Leaving that aspect out of the blurb is... odd. Update to the altblurb please. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MG. The death is an RD story. The head of government succession is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have updated the blurb to add that this was the death of a sitting leader. --M asem (t) 20:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it seems the new current living president might better have the bold link and photo, but I won't press it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Davey

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) European heat wave

 * Tentative support, with additions for the UK if/when the met Office makes the announcement. Sceptre (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on significance pending the updates noted in the nom.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been updated. Brandmeistertalk  16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There was a similar heat wave in the US, record temps even up in Alaska. At least 6 died. But that clearly wasn't going to pass ITN; just because record temperatures are reached does not make for good ITN.  Same deal here, particulaly since we posted about the June heat wave.  It's hot, there's climate change, these aren't surprising things anymore.  Would reconsider if there was significant deaths from it but that doesn't seem to be happening now. --M asem  (t) 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deaths have always been there. All-time national temperature records don't happen that often (particularly in several countries at once), even if modern climate change is considered. Brandmeistertalk  16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They happened last month. This is why we should be trying to avoid covering "weather records" in ITN as they change too quickly. --M asem (t) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to Masem's original comment: for the record, it is not correct to say that we posted about the June heat wave. We did not post the June heat wave.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 00:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically correct, but potentially misleading in context without specifying "Indo-Pakistani". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support ONGOING. Well referenced. Good enough to go... but ongoing. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for ongoing I'm not sure there's a great blurb to be had here; it's not really a single incident, but an ongoing problem. Support is weak because the article is only barely over the quality threshold; it could use some real expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The breaking of national temperature records in multiple major countries/cities is a big deal. The heat wave is about to be over, making it inappropriate for ongoing. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The record heat isn't in Europe, Paris, Germany and the rest, just a handful of stations. Misleadingly framed. Still pretty hot over a legitimate large area, but this is the middle of summer. Not weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in all of Germany, Belgium and Netherlands because those are the countries who's all time records were broken. UK was a few decicelsiuses from its record (101F). Paris reached 109, 4F higher than it's ever been, tying the hottest Tehran has ever been (43C) and exceeding Atlanta (nickname: Hotlanta) which is incrèibe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The weather doesn't recognize man-made borders, and neither should we so long as it remains a pure weather report. When governments take action, then arbitrary grouping matters. For now, the majority of Germans, Belgians, Dutch and French are roughly as warm as last month, next week or the other July. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Europe isn't one country. This has hit national records in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.  I'm sure if we hit an all-time high in the US, everyone would be going wild for it.  Instead, we have three national records.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The US record is the world record, along with the Kuwait record and the Iran record. So breaking it would be a world record unless another country beats it first. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh well that would make it just fine then, and renders these national records irrelevant of course. USA! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Size matters. A hot pocket will always cross more national lines in Europe. Draw a triangle between the record towns, paste it anywhere in the US, crank it to 42 and Death Valley still retains. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Germany is a world power and France is almost as capital-centric as Egypt. Even Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Australia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, maybe Italy and S. Korea aren't as most important city centered as France. Benegerm has 0.1 billion people (3 Canadas). I'm pretty sure this is the Germanophone record too, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, South Tyrol and the tiny autonomous region of Belgium for the | French | Dutch |>German<| speakers that everyone seems to not know of can't touch this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh in Scotland broke its all time high too, do you count that as expanding the polygon of towns? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, lass. It's hip to be square. How big does that make it? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 109F in Bordeaux on the cold Canary Current not that far from Spain and Sion in Switzerland and tens of stations reached their all time highs by the day before the hottest. The blog I follow hasn't updated the hottest day yet but it does say the heat wave will move to Scandinavia tomorrow and help melt sea ice after that so the polygon might expand later. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we still talking national records? Station highs don't count. Areawise, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened in Edinburgh stayed in Edinburgh, so screw that rhombus, retroactively. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, Cambridge Botanic Garden said hold my beer and broke the UK record just for you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. Weak because yes, it's in the news, and all over social media. Oppose because in times of global warming this is going to happen pretty much every summer. Definitely oppose a blurb stating that "national temperature records have been broken in Paris", considering Paris is not a nation. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply remove the Paris aspect. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It is notable, although we should also have posted the similar heat wave in the U.S. Davey2116 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support stupid hot, and even if the UK didn't join the party, I didn't enjoy today, 32 C as I type. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Significance? These W. Europe hot spells are becoming almost commonplace. (Forecast high in Berlin Friday is 89F/32C, Paris 86F/30C. Big wow.) – Sca (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Paris was 109 today, 4.0F hotter than it's ever been. That's not easy when you've got c.2 centuries of records. Also I find it amazing that Paris can get hotter than Tehran in the Iranian desert. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was one spot in Paris, for a moment or so, and now nothing has changed beyond cooling down. Same thing happens in Parisian kitchens and saunas every day, even all night. Except hotter than outdoor Iran. No human can tell 105 from 109, anyway, even if any were there at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Tehran weather station is one spot in Tehran too, for a moment or so. Saunas aren't weather, not even volcanos. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The important thing is they were both brief, very sparsely attended and left no mark on society or geology. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Highly important story with international reach, despite sour grapes. People, GET A CLUE. The planet is WARMING. WaltCip (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, we jut reported on it last month in the same area, so its not appropriate to post about it again a month later. --M asem (t) 22:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but: no we didn't. It was closed without being posted. We did, however, post the heat wave in India, but that's not the same area.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 00:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Global warming, which is undeniable, is a symptom of a deeper problem: overpopulation. The human population of Earth has more than tripled during my lifetime. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was in Northern France today and the thermometer in my car hit 42 at one point. Astounding enough, but I don't think this really qualifies for ITN status. We're not a news ticker and the precedent of not posting the US one means there's little reason to post this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A multinational severe weather event where all-time records are broken is notable. It is not normal for Germany to be hotter than Turkmenistan.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 109 near the North Netherlands thus breaking the German record by 4.2F, holy shit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's hotter than it's expected to get in Aleppo, Syria all week, and about as hot as Baghdad will be. I'm left speechless; central Europe is as hot as (and in some places hotter than) the heart of the Middle East. For all-time records to be broken in such a large region is notable enough, but putting it into perspective makes it even more exceptional.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are the kidneys of the Middle East. The heart is in Jerusalem. The brain is in a jar in Alexandria. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Love the humor, but while we're talking about Jerusalem and Alexandria, Europe's much hotter than either of them by a decent margin (and Alexandria is expected to have highs in the 90s F this week).     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 00:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant Alexandria, Virginia, for what it's worth. Turns out it still works. High of 94, isolated thunderstorms. In both versions, it's 26 C and partly cloudy right now. Really makes you think... InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support there's plenty of coverage on this and it affects everyone in the zone. Hard to see how this is not notable. Banedon (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It affects a huge amount of people, breaks several records, and raises awareness of Global warming. I took the liberty to change the to a in the blurb. The just reminds me of sensationalist news using it imply that readers should already know about the event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A multinational event with records being broken is significant enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The UK has a new provisional record of 38.7, so should possibly be in the blurb. Sceptre (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rutger Hauer

 * Support RD, support blurb I'd say blurb is a nice idea --5.44.170.9 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several unsourced para in career. Oppose blurb absolutely not a leading Hollywood figure. --M asem (t) 18:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that this article needs further editing. Rockphed (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Uncited role bits are covered by Wikilinks. I think he's up there with Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Broderick, but oppose the blurb anyway. Ordinary death. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Ladyhawke isn't a good movie. Just starred three bonafide stars. And three British thespians. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now given the uncited paragraphs, oppose blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Death of this actor is more know than the majority of the current former politicians shown on the present recent death list. Should be added. 74.12.175.97 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD Seems good enough now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Orange level tag needs to be resolved before I, or any other admin, can post this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, unless undone when you read this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The refimprove tag has been removed for the career section but the referencing is still very patchy, and it lacks information on some of his notable roles. I will work on it now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have significantly updated the article. It is still not flawless but I think it is time to post. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Fulton

 * Support - Seems ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support minor sourcing issues (2 uncited sentence-paragraphs) that I don't believe impact RD. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chaser

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Gotlieb

 * Weak Oppose Insufficient coverage of the subject. She's a politician, but outside of listing various positions she was in, the article has just 1 sentence about what she accomplished in her political roles.  Spencer T• C 01:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Concerns addressed, WO struck.  Spencer T• C 21:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved to describe her career and community impact further. Kiwichris (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support inadequate lead but the rest is alright. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this hasn't been posted yet while others in the queue have been? User:Stephen or User:Mjroots could you take look, TIA. MurielMary (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was working my way down the page and just got this posted now. Best,  Spencer T• C 21:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxim Dadashev

 * Support – Has coverage from major US news outlets (ESPN, CBS Sports, The New York Times) and Russian sites as well. (disclaimer; I have edited this article) Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – And good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a cn tg on the article. So, it's not good to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * SirEdimon now -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. It seems fine now. Support.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Twelve hours later...... The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting, can someone please give the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lois Wille

 * Weak oppose a couple of unreferenced facts, and those quotes should really be referenced explicitly. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Neil Armstrong died as result of medical errors

 * Oppose Sad, but basically trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dated. Happened nearly six years ago. Yes, the report is new, but it's a report on a minor thing. It's his death (tragically, but thus is the way of the world) that was notable. ——  SerialNumber  54129  04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia and not worth mentioning in ITN. -- BoothSift Talks  05:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Li Peng

 * Question.  Are you proposing this as a regular nomination with a blurb, or an RD nomination? 331dot (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a blurb. <b style="font-family:'Fira Mono', 'Noto Mono', 'Monaco', monospace; background-color: #5AF; color:#FFE">viztor</b> <b style="font-family:'Fira Sans'; color: #5AF">✦</b> 11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have converted this to a Recent Deaths nomination. This does not prevent posting as a blurb if there is sufficient support.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a few paragraphs lacking sources, but I will support a blurb when the article is fixed. Davey2116 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only. As far as I can tell, Li was not the ruler of China in that period. Instead Deng Xiaoping decided all the major reforms. As such, Li does not meet the Thatcher/Mandela test of a transformative world leader, so doesn't merit a blurb. RD is sufficient. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and paramount leader (often but not always the same person) have more political power than the premier. Our Premier of the People's Republic of China article states "the Premier is responsible for the technical details of implementing government policy while the General Secretary gathers the political support necessary for government policy" i.e. they implement policy, not decide it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only per Modest Genius. <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  12:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only as others have pointed out above. Johndavies837 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Deng died 22 years ago in 1997. Li Peng was the premier until 1998, Chairman of the congress till 2003. The argument above doesn't really work. Not to mention it's kind of absurd to assume someone who died of illness is the ruler in the last few years of his life albeit they may be influential. <b style="font-family:'Fira Mono', 'Noto Mono', 'Monaco', monospace; background-color: #5AF; color:#FFE">viztor</b> <b style="font-family:'Fira Sans'; color: #5AF">✦</b> 13:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The paramount leader was Jiang Zemin at that point. Li Peng was never the leader of China per se, because the core positions are General Secretary, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and more recently also President of China, of which Jiang had 3 of 3 when Deng died (Deng only ever held 1). Jiang took over in 1989–90, but was sort of in Deng's shadow for much of the 90s. Hope that clears things up a little. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Leaning toward RD only, given his age and 17-year absence from power. However, AP describes him as "a keen political infighter who spent two decades at the pinnacle of power" who "leaves behind a legacy of extended and broad-based economic growth." This might constitute blurbable significance. Undecided. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the RD - "Defender of state control" lacks sourcing, as well as some on the Chairman section but otherwise close. Support RD once fixed, oppose blurb per others - not the type of transformative world leader we reserve that for. --M asem (t) 14:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two orange tags and at least two paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there's a satisfactory resolution to the dispute tags. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been stable without warning tags for > 24 hours now. Two paragraphs are still unreferenced, though. zzz (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - RD. STSC (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Boris Johnson is Prime Minister

 * support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The is an obvious ITN story, but he won't become prime minister until later this week. The blurb needs work to reflect this. I haven't assessed the update to the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but wait til he actually becomes PM, which I believe will be tomorrow. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but, if others prefer, we can wait until they actually become the Prime Minister.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 11:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added alt blurb, as I had a nomination ready to go and got edit conflicted... :-) My nomination comment was "May be too early to put this up, as the intended sequence of events is that the result of the Tory leadership contest is announced today (Boris Johnson won this as expected), and the current prime minister (Theresa May) will tender her resignation to the Queen tomorrow afternoon (on Wednesday, after her last Prime Minister's Questions) followed by the Queen inviting Boris Johnson to form a government. Things could get tricky after that, but that should be what happens. Can either go up now (with this blurb), or we can wait until Wednesday (and work on alternative blurbs). I was going to suggest some alternatives, but there are quite a number of ways this could be presented, depending on the timing." Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until he takes office as Prime Minister. Right now he's just the leader of a party. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 11:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Premature as he is not actually PM yet. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until he actually becomes PM (probably tomorrow, 24 July), then support.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support by tomorrow - technically premature but it's a fairly safe assumption that by the time this is posted (like tomorrow) this will be definitive ITN. If something else happens it will probably be ITN-worthy anyway. Juxlos (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ETA: sorry, safe to say he's going to be PM, but tomorrow is fine --valereee (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you offer a reason for your support? 331dot (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And we are indeed already getting questions in weird places wondering why he isn't on the main page yet. --valereee (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support by tomorrow would wait till he is in office, tomorrow.LennBr (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for tomorrow - He's currently only the Leader of the Conservative Party, wait until he becomes PM officially tomorrow. Jayden (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support once official obviously an important moment, but wait until its official. Gnangarra 11:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now. Waiting until tomorrow is a bit superficial, there is no credible way the top job will yet elude him. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)0..
 * There is no likely way, but there are plenty of credible ways. What if a substantial number of Con MPs say, today, that they will not take the whip under him?  ....   etc.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would be interesting! This would presumably cause the Conservative Party to split, and Corbyn could end up PM, if he was able to secure the confidence of the Commons (perhaps the Lib Dems or SNP would be interested in playing kingmaker). (This is also why it's very unlikely, because the rebelling Tories would be giving up their own power, and endangering their jobs in the next election.) Her Majesty could also refuse to recognize him as her principal minister, triggering a constitutional crisis. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Has he been appointed prime minister? No. Has anyone elected him prime minister? No. This is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Tataral (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He has been elected Leader of the Conservative Party by its members. The Conservative Party has the largest number of Commons seats, and has a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP which gives it the confidence of the Commons, which by convention makes its leader Prime Minister. As others have noted, it is possible, albeit very unlikely, that he does not become PM. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Has any election taken place in the UK this year? No. Internal party proceedings in a party (essentially a private association) are of no interest to the main page. The seats in parliament you are referring to are held by other individuals in their individual capacity (the voters elected them), and it's by no means guaranteed that they will even support Johnson, with ministers from his own party resigning in protest against him. --Tataral (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now. Usually we posted election-related news right after the result is announced. Hddty. (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not in any way election-related. Who exactly elected him prime minister? The voters? No. Parliament? No. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The noteworthy thing really is less him becoming party leader, and more him becoming Prime Minister. Wait until he actually becomes PM before posting. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cripes! At least we'll have a laugh while the country goes down the pan. Crikey!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until he is actually appointed PM (by which time the collapse of the UK or his need to call an election may be bigger news) - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until he actually becomes PM, which is likely but not guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait as the Conservative parliamentary majority is so small that it is conceivable he would not be able to form a government.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait although "The Albatros has landed", he doesn't get his first "lunar walk" until tomorrow. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait till he becomes PM, as per reasons already listed above. He is not yet a PM. To add on I would remind everyone to refrain from WP:CRYSTAL first let the event happen and then write about it. Wikipedia should refrain from adding lines that use "... is expected to ..."-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid having "expected to" if the occurrence is notable and pretty certain. There are plenty of acceptable articles that use this or similar phrasings, e.g. Roentgenium which consists completely of scientific speculation. Regards So  Why  13:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that Roentgenium was In The News again. I'm sure we're all looking forward to Boris being equally strong and stable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for tomorrow afternoon or evening, when he takes office as prime minister. Johndavies837 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion borders on Boorish. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment From the vote and reason count, it seems quite obvious this is going to get posted tomorrow, so we can probably stop debating (especially since some of the comments effectively or literally say "being elected leader of a party doesn't mean he'll become PM" despite the fact this was already agreed upon/planned when May resigned - the leadership debates were called "Our Next PM"!). He wasn't elected to the role of PM, so we can't follow the procedure of posting election news beyond being elected Tory leader; which we shouldn't post because it isn't as significant as the PM appointment he gets tomorrow. Let's just wait for it to be posted. Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that being made PM is not automatic. It is probable he will be PM but no more than that. Every previous time the government has changed leader between elections there was no doubt the new leader would be the only one would command a majority in the Commons, but with Boris Johnson there is doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless they all walk out in the next, what, 2 hours? he'll be PM. Sure, a majority of the Commons don't like him, but they probably don't want to go through another general election (or strike) at the moment, either. Kingsif (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The article on this nutcase is B-class with many sources and no CN or orange tags. His designation as PM is easily citeable from multiple sources.  p  b  p  14:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but wait: Obvious ITN. Johnson's article is fine, but in the party article, the timeline needs to be sources throughout (probably can dup/reuse sources). However, its fine just to post with Johnson's article as the target since that covers the essentials. Agree with most others that tomorrow when he actually takes office is the right time to post, since it's not like several months down the road. --M asem (t) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post now (when ready) then update the text after he is officially PM  Calidum   14:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Premature nomination. Becoming head of a party isn't ITN/R. Wait until he's PM. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait the words "expected" is definitely crystal ball gazing - if (also crystal) the MPs who have said they might defect to lib dems (if Boris got the leadership of the conservative party) do so, then the conservative party would not have a sufficient majority in the house of parliament to form a government and theresa may might even remain in office! So until it's a change of leadership of a country (which is not yet confirmed) it might not even count as significant enough for front page. Obviously once he's PM (which is still more likely than not) that changes to support EdwardLane (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once he's actually appointed PM. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Crossin  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes!  14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, so many news stories about government and horror have put me off WPITN in a way, but this is a story about a man with a multitude of awful haircuts. Every morning Boris gets up and looks in the mirror, he says to himself the same thing he is saying to himself in the accompanying picture, above, are you serious? You cannot be serious, but indeed he is... ~ R.T.G 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose What happened to policy? Until it actually happens it doesn't warrant posting based on presumption. Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose on article quality. Support on principle once it happens. The article on the Tory succession battle has some gaps in referencing, especially in the timeline section. The BLP looks solid and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when it happens Boris has yet to actually become prime minister, let's wait until he does. -- BoothSift Talks  05:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support around early afternoon today when he actually becomes PM. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support after he has been appointed prime minister by the Queen this afternoon 24 July, 2019.  AbDaryaee (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment !voted for wait earlier, but dare I say it's evident further debate on this is unnecessary. We're quite close to a consensus for posting after he becomes PM or, at the very least, we certainly don't have a consensus to post earlier.  Let's mark this as ready...for the moment at least when he is appointed. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Meanwhile Boris Johnson has arrived at Buckingham Palace. 90.34.191.43 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's official. Kingsif (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hit the music! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This? :) --M asem (t) 14:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So close! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted, Can someone sort the image out please? Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. With due respect to Ricardo Rosselló, I think a Boris picture is more apt right now. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed (Though Rossello's expected to resign today, but I would say PM of UK >> Pres of US Territory in terms of picture need). --M asem (t) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher C. Kraft Jr.

 * Comment I was about to just post this on the basis of it being FA but when I took a look I saw that the very last section of the article is unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I always thought sourcing was optional for that section. I know this is just an essay, but WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers says the ref field "...is an optional field for sourcing that can to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm. Could be wrong though. I plan to work on the article tomorrow, little late for me tonight.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for ITN. The unsourced section is nothing close to the great work throughout the article. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Source added. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brigitte Kronauer

 * Support Looks ready to post Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Hamm

 * Support It seems fine to me. No reference issues (as I can see).--SirEdimon (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine to me also. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Hedison

 * Comment Some paragraphs and statements needing references.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * SirEdimon thanks for the review. Please take a relook, I have added the sources. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All issues resolved.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Art Neville

 * Support Nice little article, well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Puerto Rico protests over Telegramgate

 * Oppose would make a great hook. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as this does seem to be a large scale protest, per nom. There a few CN tags on the governor's article but the Telegramgate article looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb or ongoing. (Definitely blurb if Rosselló resigns.) This has been covered extensively in RS and is clearly notable. Davey2116 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is definitely notable enough for ITN inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support More than notable enough for ITN. Very good. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the above comments. No notability concerns & the quality of the articles is not too concerning.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per everyone else-- BoothSift Talks  23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually read the article and noted the multiple paragraphs without a reference? Stephen 23:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose on article quality. The article on the scandal is going to need a lot of work before it could be linked on the main page. In particular the referencing is dreadful. The governor's bio is not awful but there are some referencing gaps that need to be plugged. No issues on the merits of the nomination, but article quality, especially on the scandal page, is no where near acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To both Stephen and Ad O - I have fixed the section(s) that were bad, trimming those down to the core information with NYTimes and NBC News sourcing. --M asem (t) 01:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, Oppose blurb This (500k protesters, calls for resignation, etc.) doesn't sound any worse than the current Hong Kong protests. feminist (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind 500k is 1/7 the population of PR. This is a massive reaction. --M asem (t) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also remember that a huge chunk of crowds (in general) are just there because they live in or near the area. Some go along for the experience, some with friends or for money. Some counterprotest, some sell refreshments and flags, some play music. Some demand resignation, of course, but not half a million. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note  What is "social messaging" supposed to be? Some mixture of social media and instant messaging? --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's correct. Social messaging takes you to messaging apps, where the term is listed. Let me know if you need any more help with basic searching. Stephen 23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * an unsourced statement in a Wikipedia article is your source? Have a look at WP:CIRC if you have time. Long story short: please rephrase the ITN blurb with a term that actually has a meaning. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the lede of Telegramgate explains in a few sentences exactly that it was a social media chat application and its name, (so that it is in the popup), I see no issue with this term. "Social messaging" is a common term among the Internet, and one I think most readers can recognize. --M asem (t) 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong post-posting oppose local story, even CNN doesn't feature it on the main page at all. I checked all major european publications - they're completely silent on the issue. Also, the part about "hundreds of thousands protesters" is entirely unreferenced. All of this makes me wonder: in which Telegram chat was the publication of this story on the main page agreed on? --Dalran (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be front page news, it just have to have coverage. And CNN's updated article today asserts the 100,000s of protesters. --M asem (t) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a feature story about news, essentially designed to paint a free press as heroic and misogynism as profane. CNN has a dog in that fight, obviously. Best to trust straight news. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reports are that the Governor will resign today, if he does, we may want to update the blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Official announcement late this evening, I have updated the blurb appropriately. --M asem (t) 04:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) French submarine Minerve found

 * Support - Article is ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think a single sentence update is adequate. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Discoveries of old sub/shipwrecks may be interesting, but aren't necessarily significant. As the Ocean Infinity firm – which found the wreckage of the ARA San Juan last year – continues to locate wrecks they become less newsworthy. (Reuters gives this one basically three paragraphs, with no new info as to why La Minerve sank half a century ago.) – Sca (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It's not the SS Waratah, but I think it is an interesting news item that resolves a longstanding maritime mystery. However I am not wowed by the article's overall quality which, though adequate, could do with some expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Ad Orientem. Article is sufficient enough for this (I assume they have not yet investigated the wreck for bodies or the like, that will take a lot more time. But otherwise seems ITN. --M asem (t) 17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Ready to go. Good enough MSN12102001 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, satisfactory. Spengouli (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment one sentence is not considered a reasonable update. Please read WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: what more can be said to update this? I noted that the search and investigation will take a lot of time, and those results won't likely be ITN as much as the identification. If there was clearly more that could be added, I agree one sentence is not sufficient. But I'm not seeing how this can be furthered. --M asem (t) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing. It's trivial.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The update could be longer, but it is adequate for ITN now. Davey2116 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The peacetime loss of a (comparatively small) diesel submarine wasn't a major news story 51 years ago, and the remote-controlled detection of its wreckage isn't one now. – Sca (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on lack of significance. This wreck does not appear to have any particular importance, the submarine is notable only for its sinking, and the news is receiving very little attention. The brief update just illustrates how little there is to say about this event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added more sources to the template, and they now range from the US to India, the UK, France (obviously), Argentina, Russia, Australia, and Hong Kong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although this has received global coverage, I just don't see the overall significance of this. Interesting discovery, but nothing more. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article quality and global coverage. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with the caveat that this is my own nomination, but the article has been expanded. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Section now has an adequate update; while concerns about overall impact, consensus weighs more in favor of posting, especially now with a longer update.  Spencer T• C 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ann Moyal

 * Support Seems good enough to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't yet seem to be in the news. Stephen 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing any news coverage, let alone mainstream international notes. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The Australian Academy of the Humanities is claiming that she is dead. I don't think an Australian government organization would lie about a serious matter like this one.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the truest and most serious things to ever actually happen and become public knowledge don't make the news, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one mentioned anyone lying, no-one said it wasn't true, all that's been stated is that this isn't in the news, and this section of the main page is called .... "in the news", right? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But WP:ITNRD basically states that for have an entry in the recent deaths section the person must only have an article "not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion", "updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death." (which we supposedly have here) and "sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters" (which we normally discuss here). In any part is stated that the death must be "in the news", just that we must to confirm the death from a reliable source.--SirEdimon (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It still has to be "in the news" to be in the "in the news" section. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The advisory in the template is a lot clearer about this than its underlying guideline is; could be more consistent with that, perhaps less confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Chandrayaan-2 launched

 * Comment weak oppose on significance (being the 4th country to soft landing), but overcome by the quality of the article. I will support this upon successful landing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose may reconsider if landing is successful. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man MSN12102001 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ITNR lists "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations", not the launch. Re-nominate when it reaches the Moon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This wasn't nominated as an ITNR item.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see that. My point is it *will* qualify as ITNR soon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you say "soon", but it looks like a couple of months. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for launch. ITNR if and when it get to the moon. -- KTC (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose let's wait for the landing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – An unmanned lunar explorer doesn't seem particularly significant after dozens of such probes in the past, to say nothing of Apollo 11 in 1969. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - assuming it arrives at the moon, its successful -- or (hopefully not) unsuccessful landing will be ITNR. --M asem (t) 22:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuelan blackouts

 * Weak Oppose Venezuela is a political/economic basket case. I am pretty sure everybody who can place the country on a map is already aware of that. These sorts of events are not especially uncommon. My gut says that this latest event is insufficiently notable in its own right. And much as I despise that - government, I am concerned that if we post this, it might be seen as running afoul of WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The first blackouts as ITN were reasonable. The fact they keep happening is no longer ITN. --M asem (t) 03:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the NGO Comité Afectados por los Apagones, 13,140 electric outages have been reported in Venezuela in 2019. The nomination isn't because electrical failures are common in Venezuela, but because there was a major one that affected all states (the fourth one since March 2017), yet I don't think a blurb is appropriate. I would support having it only for a few days. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Netball World Cup

 * Support While minimal prose, the minimum of summarizing the semis and final are there, and other sourcing seems fine. --M asem (t) 01:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Mob attacks in Yuen Long, Hong Kong

 * Problem with this is that it's already in Ongoing. I'm inclined to support a blurb right now regardless, but would have to remove it from Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am OK with removing this from Ongoing while the blurb is up. feminist (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on the principle of temporarily removing the current ongoing while this is active in the template. I do see there's a separate article 2019 Yuen Long violence but its far shorter than the content in the main protest article (I argubly would flop content between them; summarize in the broad HK protest article). Sourcing seems to be there. --M asem (t) 04:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This type of turn in a larger story is exactly what Ongoing is meant for. Also oppose pulling from Ongoing for the mere purpose of getting a blurb up, and then putting it back into Ongoing once the blurb rolls off.  That's far too much weight for a single story.130.233.2.171 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, a single story that has been extensively covered internationally by news sources. An incident previously unheard of in Hong Kong, which we cover in a few well-sourced paragraphs. That's what ITN is for. feminist (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This attack seems notable; I'm fine with making this a blurb and then re-instating the protests as ongoing after the blurb rolls off. Davey2116 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. But REMOVE it from Ongoing MSN12102001 (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - blurb. remove from ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stick to ongoing. This violence would not be an ITN blurb on its own without the wider protests, so is better suited to an update in the article and continued listing in the ongoing section of ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as a significant and unprecedented event in the Hong Kong context that has been widely covered in international media. Citobun (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and keep ongoing. Part of a series of events that are churning out news updates every day and have no definite end. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just a mindless fighting between political gangs with bystanders got caught in the brawl. Not ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Harrison (racing)

 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go indeed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced. Very good. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Morgenthau

 * Oppose Needs a little more work. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few citations required, and no inclusion criteria for the "notable" cases etc, see famous. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just finished reffing all the CN tags. I'll leave template smashing to someone else.130.233.2.171 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks decent and referencing is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the "notable X" sections need criteria for inclusion. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the implicit criterion that they are the cases or colleagues who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that such is a horrible way of deciding which cases were important in Robert Morgenthau's career. Cases can be notable and yet be completely routine for some of the participants. Rockphed (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

‎(Posted) Avengers: Endgame becomes the highest-grossing film of all time

 * Support, article has been updated and is of good quality. This is a major achievement and has been reported in mainstream news sources. feminist (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Avatar became the top in 2009 - in other words, it's been c. 10 years since the top place shifted. Juxlos (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 93 of the 100 highest grossing films worldwide were made this century, and just 2 were made prior to 1993. Higher nominal grosses are a given when ticket prices increase with inflation. What's more, tracking methodology has changed overtime with the specific intent to goose the numbers to create sensational headlines like this . More than a dozen films have a higher domestic gross when inflation is accounted for, while no valid comparison can be made for international receipts. Nominal box office is simply not as important as this headline would suggest.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that out of the top 50 current highest-grossing movies, only 4 had been top of all time at some point: Jurassic Park (1993), Titanic (1997), Avatar (2009), and Avengers: Endgame. That's one movie every six years on average - about the same as heads of state and six times less often than the boat races. Juxlos (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose *John Oliver impersonation* Cool. This is a major achievement which has not been toppled since 2009, but I find it a bit hard as to seeing how this blurb could be global news worthy. No doubt this would make a great DYK hook. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this is to be posted, I feel like the bolded link should be to List of highest-grossing films, not to Avengers: Endgame. For one thing, the former is a WP:Featured list whereas the latter has no particular quality-related distinctions. For another, I believe we tend to bold the "competition" (for lack of a better word) rather than the winner in sports and politics (that is to say, we bold 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2019 Danish general election, not France national football team or Mette Frederiksen), and this should be done analogously. We also have the option of linking to the more specific List of box office records set by Avengers: Endgame, though I'm not sure that would add anything of value. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is "too fast" a record to track, and it is bound to be broken again. Nothing against the achievement, but this was also not unexpected. (Again, I feel we should have a talk with DYK to allow "Trivia in the news" qualify there too, since we often get ITNCs about superlative events that just don't fit the basis of ITN but still could be main page featured). --M asem  (t) 15:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support With move to streaming I wouldn't be so sure it'll be broken. It took 10 years for Avatar to be passed and that took 11 years to overtake Titanic, so it's not a regular occurrence. Quick search shows coverage across the globe. Bold link to List of Highest Grossing Films, rather than the film. 86.142.181.62 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above Abajurrujaba (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. This isn't really a record. Ok, it breaks the record on non-adjusted figures, but so what? It hasn't even broken the top ten yet on the adjusted chart nor is it likely to. It just isn't significant news. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I realize now that I'm looking at the domestic list, not the international. Regardless, even on the international it's still a billion dollars away from Gone With The Wind. Still not a record. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But at least it's more than enough to be on ITN. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hammersoft; no real records broken. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment  See Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation MSN12102001 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond inflation, one should consider increased population. GWTW is estimated to have sold over 6 tickets for every person in the U.S. Star Wars was around 1 ticket per person. Titanic, while a relative juggernaut, sold just 0.487. A movie shouldn't get bonus points for coming out later.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Just remember: almost 10 years!!! 87.196.73.139 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is a major achievement and has been reported in all mainstream news source. 95.93.184.195 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I.P.s have as much right to vote as anyone, but we would do well to considered the potential for commercial promotion here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Only the 11th film since 1915 to break the record: List of highest-grossing films. It's the second in Wikipedia's history and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=340098025&oldid=340089605 we posted the first]. Inflation exists but this is still a rare and very notable achievement. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not much news here. News sources describing this event are pretty brief. <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support On precedent that Avatar doing so was posted. If the same debate over population and popularity inflation and the comments carrying an implicit media-isn't-news vibe were resolved to post 10 years ago, do we need to go through them all again? It is an achievement, even more in an expanding media bubble, and one of the more notable non-award achievements within the world of film (and maybe, arts at large). Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support trivial or not, this is a big deal in film industry, it definitely deserves mentioning on the main page, not to mention the pervious One was posted a decade back. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:50F9:763E:22C2:C23C (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - suggestions that the record is broken frequently seem somewhat disingenuous, given that it took a decade and a cultural juggernaut to overtake the existing record, while the fact that it fails to top unadjusted box-office records is irrelevant in my view as someone who follows the box office. Gone with the Wind is unlikely to ever be surpassed in this regard, and that is a consequence of the way in which entertainment has changed. Gone with the Wind, and many of the other films in the top 10 unadjusted, remained in cinemas for years, as television, home video, and obviously the internet had not yet taken root, rather than films being in theatres for a few months as they are now. Arguments of inflation are also complicated with regards to Avatar by the massive influence of 3D and other premium formats it was shown in on its gross, adjustments that impossible to consider when adjusting. The simple fact is, a decade long record in a massive entertainment industry has been broken, it is in the news, and it |List_of_highest-grossing_films absolutely is of interest to the readership of Wikipedia. This should be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be very careful about trying to argue a point that something is of interest to WP's readership. If that were really the case, Wikipedia would become Wikia, a collect of fan sites.  While knowing that readers do appreciate certain topics over others is important, readership should be seen as a secondary goal over building an encyclopedia, and we should not create special allowances for "popular" topics. No comment on the other reasons beyond my previous !vote, but very against using "this is what the readers want!" popularity arguments for ITN. --M asem  (t) 16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I agree that this is notable enough for inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. 11x6 to Support. READY? MSN12102001 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Entertainment trivia. Adjusting for inflation this looks like a non-event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On lack of significance. – Sca (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Stormy clouds, although I'm uncomfortable the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Stormy clouds made a very strong case. I'm sold.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. A record that is inevitably broken on a regular basis as inflation raises the bar higher and higher. Not significant and not really in the news. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Stormy clouds. Not earth-shattering news, but there's not much else happening either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose really not significant as it does not adjust for inflation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - How did this get posted? Without adjusting for inflation, this is as meaningless a number as you'll find.--WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak post-posting oppose - This would be much more significant if it were adjusted for inflation- as it stands it is remarkable, but expected to be surpassed at some point in the near future because of the nature of inflation. As it stands, I don't think that this is significantly newsworthy.  Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the tide has truly turned on this nomination, there's no clear consensus for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Consensus seems rather dubious on this one, and posting may have been premature. However, I'd be very reluctant to endorse pulling the item. Bad form. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - This is a notable record that is being reported in the news. It also isn't a common occurrence, typically happening only once or twice a decade.  While it's true that some film was inevitably going to break the record at some point, that doesn't mean it isn't notable that this film just broke the record. Calathan (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the record is being called into question, just that it's not really encyclopedically notable, it's tabloid notable as it doesn't take inflation into account. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would invoke the Neymar principle - a truly spectacular box office would be worth reporting. But incrementally surpassing a number which would necessarily be surpassed by virtue of increased population and ticket prices is not. Put plainly, Avatar's performance was better, so trumpeting this is misleading.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. I agree with the main reasons given above. At the very least, the hook must contain a mention that the revenue was not adjusted for inflation because as it stands now, it sounds as if it was. Even then though I fail to see this as a real milestone. Due to inflation, a film being released later will automatically generate more revenue with the same amount of watchers, so noting milestones only makes sense if they are milestones even after adjustment for inflation. Regards So  Why  15:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then put in parentheses, after "highest-grossing film of all time": (without taking into account the inflationary adjustment). End of Discussion. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It makes it not a record really.  So not even worth putting on the main page, so not "end of discussion" by any means. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my God! This is the best discussion ever in the In the news/Candidates. Such a simple thing, it becomes so complicated MSN12102001 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But no, it isn't, clearly. It was voted in primarily because it "headlined" remarkable.  But when taking inflation into account, it's done fine, but nothing amazing.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This should really be pulled. It was probably posted a bit prematurely when there appeared to be a rather weak consensus. But that was short lived and there is clearly no consensus at present. And given the level of participation I am becoming doubtful that one will be achieved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the moment, 15x14 to Support MSN12102001 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus then. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Still voting. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm calm. The point is that the post has no consensus.  Sorry if you don't understand that means it should be removed until a consensus to re-post exists. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok... Thanks for the advice and good work! :) MSN12102001 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per PrimeHunter. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. The inflation issue is covered well in the article, and you'll never get a clear-cut moment when the inflation-adjusted record is broken because it depends on the assumptions used in the calculation. That aside, this is a high-profile record (whether that's justified or not) that isn't broken very often. Whilst I'm unimpressed that its held by a superhero film, that's really beside the point. One of the few ways we could ever feature blockbuster films, which rarely compete for Oscars, and once a decade isn't opening any floodgates. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Stormy clouds. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the moment, 18x14 to Support MSN12102001 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about counting votes. See WP:VOTE.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, most of the oppose votes can be condensed to the one with a misguided view that media isn't news. Charming view, but frankly untrue. Nothing against TRM or the other oppose votes, but I'm not sure you're stepping back from disaster-and-boat-race central to see that in the media world (which is no less valid than the fire/police/sport one, though people see it that way) this is more like the biggest news all year so far. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!!! once again, nothing to do with this. I stated that I objected due to  inflation being ignored.  Could you  now provide an explicit reason to bring up the Boat Race based on my oppose?  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. we like the boat race joke :) 2. My comment was much more general, but I thought since I was responding to you I'd at least apologize to not cause offense 3. again, from the media view, there are too many factors that can't be accounted for that not adjusting for inflation can be ignored (or do we question the super-run of Avatar, Titanic's re-release?), especially when acknowledging a film breaking the record as a product of its moment in time which, should be allowed to stand and celebrated as part of what made it a success. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with a blurb change that mentions it is not adjusted for inflation. Even that record on its own is fine. Spengouli (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree wholesale with the closure, there's no real consensus to post this right now.  And given it's only been open a day, there's plenty of scope for allowing more discussion before closing down the discussion which has been heavily leaning against posting.  Suggest this is allowed more time to develop before being halted summarily while consensus is clearly shifting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support this is a major and rare news item in the movie industry. I would in theory support a mention that it is the highest grossing movie when not adjusted for inflation, but no one has really proposed a blurb for that which works. I think the current blurb works fine, and anyone who reads the article is going to understand the issue anyway. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 19:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And actually, having just read Stormy Cloud's reasons I have to concur with him. It seems illogical to pull this because it isn't the highest grossing movie when adjusted for inflation. That record isn't going to be broken for a very very long time, if ever. Meanwhile, the film industry and media clearly considers the record the movie did break to be important in its own right. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 19:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The last films to hold this spot were in order Avatar (2009), Titanic (1997), Jurassic Park (1993), and E.T. (1982). This is rare, inflation or not. It's a significant success that demonstrates the cultural impact of the MCU, and places the film alongside those record-breaking contemporaries. We always post "best in show" winners at Cannes and other annual festivals, for films that are quickly forgotten. This industry news is more uncommon, more significant, and more "in the news". TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a rare event. If it happened more frequently, it wouldn't be so noteworthy.  Calidum   22:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. As per various people, this is not a common event even with inflation.  And I think the list of highest grossing films is a good article to link to.  Rockphed (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheila Dikshit

 * Oppose for now. A handful of cites needed but over all article quality is not dreadful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the article a little. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. She was the longest serving CM of Delhi and a notable politician from the Indian National Congress, but at the same time, she was accused of corruption in the Commonwealth Games scam. On article quality, I agree with Ad Orientem. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose still unreferenced material therein. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only saw a couple of cn tags so I took care of them. Not sure if anything in the infobox needs a citation, but the prose is cited. The grammar is not great and could use a copyedit. Tried to use old citations to avoid circular referencing.  Kees08  (Talk)   08:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support have tidied up the grammar, punctuation etc. With the referencing done by Kees08 it now looks ready for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support what a cool name Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Terry Isaac

 * Comment I'm a little worried that the second half of the article is nearly all sourced to primary works written by Isaac. Its not that we can't use primary source but about 1/3-1/2 the content is sources only to those, and that's a tad unconfortable. That said, the sourcing is otherwise there. --M asem (t) 00:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Article tagged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the "affiliated sources" issue is resolved. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marisa Merz

 * Comment: One unsourced sentence, and I'm not sure if the Recent Exhibitions section is appropriate for this article. feminist (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Removed unsourced sentence and added citation for another. Did not address recent exhibitions.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fine to me. I can't see missing references.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: César Pelli

 * Support The four books should have there ISSN number or a more complete reference, but otherwise looks good. --M asem (t) 19:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support agree with above - aside from some GAN-level issues the article is fine. Juxlos (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arswendo Atmowiloto

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. --M asem (t) 19:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Africa Cup of Nations

 * Wrong target article. 2019 Africa Cup of Nations Final should be the one in bold. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The final needs a prose summary of the game. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article needs a match summary in prose, updated tenses in the Background section, a Post-match section for some of those statistics, and something in the Route to the final section.  Sounder Bruce  00:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a prose update in the final article, because regardless of how people vote here, we need a decent update and that doesn't just mean tweaking the infobox. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: missing a prose summary of the match. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Argentina becomes first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah as "terrorists"

 * Support. Good quality of both articles and very interesting news. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A relatively minor development and not an independently notable event. No mention that I could find in the first blurb's article and only the most brief mention in the article on the bombing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's in part, because the pages are fully protected and I can't edit further :( --CoryGlee (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Argentina is only semi-protected while the bombing article is extended confirmed protected. Unfortunately both articles have been persistent targets of disruptive editing so this can't be helped. I suggest posting edit requests on their respective talk pages. However my oppose basically stands. This is no more than a blip in global political affairs and would not warrant its own article which is usually (though not always) a litmus test for ITN nominations. Thank you for your contributions and welcome to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose would be better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Important on paper but not yet sure how this will make an impact on the broader picture. --M asem (t) 16:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not significant enough to meet the threshold for ITN. El_C 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , et al., thanks for your welcoming me Sirs! I now understand how it works :) --CoryGlee (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Chris Froome declared winner of the 2011 Vuelta

 * Oppose Obviously a result of the original winner having been stripped of wins for doping, but this is more a technicality than an "win". Further, the Vuelta is not a normal ITNR-type race. If this had changed a previous Tour De France, maaaybe but still talking a technicality.  If anything, the story may be that of Juan José Cobo not challening the doping ruling, but even then, minor story. --M asem  (t) 05:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose would be better suited to another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per significance and relevance concerns. I am not really familiar with this sports things, but why are we resuscitating an 8-year old event? 2011? – Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's in the news that Froome was retrospectively awarded the title after Juan Jose Cobo was DQ'd. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But even then, it's not really in the news in the ITN sense, and where are the 2018 and 2019 winners? Have we ever posted any? In fact, FaceApp is more in the news than this trivia at this time. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well no, and that's why this nomination has 100% consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the event was the Tour de France or another ITN/R event I might consider it, but I don't think this is major enough news. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. A retrospective technicality. Sca (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kyoto Animation massacre

 * Oppose Still needs a lot of work right now. HawkAussie (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support After those edits, I think it would be good enough. For me I prefer the alt-blurb compared to the first blurb. HawkAussie (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article is barely above a stub and doesn't explain why the event is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf although I think it's quite plain why a fire in Kyoto killing more than a score is significant. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support just about enough now. This is global news right now,  seldom that Japan is subject to such murder on a mass scale. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As a major and unsual deliberate attack. I've added an alt-blurb clarifying that it was (according to police) deliberate arson. Smurrayinchester 11:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – The article is of solid quality right now, covers the important details, and this is certainly a major massacre on one of the most important animation studios. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Guardian says 33 deaths. Sca (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - It's now the worst mass-murder incident by an individual in post-war Japan... I've also added a second alt-blurb to highlight this - it's not a suspected arson attack anymore, it was a pre-meditated massacre. Now think arson attack is the best way to address this. Have edited the second alt blurb. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There's a few odd problems on the references, but I knock that up to the rates of editing on this, but it is otherwise sourced well. --M asem (t) 13:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt I, but drop the word "suspected". Article is well updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The word "massacre" in both the current article title, and altblurb II is questionable. There's a page move discussion at the target article, it is looking like this will end up at "arson attack" (reflecting news sources). --M asem (t) 14:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I see the first alternative as the best option at the moment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have edited the second blurb. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Malicious" is not a good addition... I suggest just "An arson attack at an animation studio in Kyoto kills at least 33 people." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt1 – Notable mortality. ("Malicious" in Alt2 seems inappropriate – arson, if proven, is by def. malicious.) – Sca (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved the article to the "arson attack" title per COMMONNAME and the talk page discussion. Blurb updated. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb now that the title has been changed. Spengouli (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ebola outbreak now an international health emergency

 * Support ONGOING MSN12102001 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The supposed target article is not linked anywhere in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for flagging. In my quick search, I didn't see the article specific to this outbreak. I've updated the link in the original blurb. Qono (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Provided altblurb. Article in good shape. Would NOT recomment ongoing because dealing with this is well beyond the scope of a few weeks (the intent of Ongoing), but WHO declaring this an emergency is definitely ITN worthy. --M asem (t) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a significant and uncommon event. Quality wise the article is solid, being both lengthy and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - significant. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 01:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Warren Cole

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Marking as "ready." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) El Chapo sentenced

 * Support - per sentence, quality of article and previous postings on progress of this case.BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We posted when he was found guilty (his conviction already carried a mandatory life in prison). See previous discussion for more details. El Chapo was already "scheduled" for life imprisonment when we posted in February 2019. Being found guilty was more important than this. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Previously posted the conviction with the likely life sentence back in Feb. --M asem (t) 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sentencing was proforma as it was mandated by law and understood as such when he was convicted, which we covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above Abajurrujaba (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was no chance the sentence was going to be anything else. We usually just post the conviction; in this case we also posted his capture as a fugitive. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to post this twice.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Andrea Camilleri

 * Oppose for now. Referencing leaves much to be desired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose. Referencing needs a lot of work with the bibliography having problems. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose - still some work that needs to be done.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Paul Stevens

 * Support (sadly). Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - not a bad article but there are several paragraphs with no references. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the paragraphs are quotes from Supreme Court decisions -- the referencing is in the text for those. The paragraph on "Bush v. Gore", for example, might need a source for "scathing dissent", but the blockquote is cited. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Some significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sourcing is poor. Too many sourcing missing in " Judicial philosophy" which absolutely needs to be sourced otherwise it is BLP/OR violations. --M asem (t) 02:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What's your rationale?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are literally whole paragraphs unreferenced in there. It's a BLP violation.  These kind of supports should be summarily ignored as it's clear that no attention to quality has been paid.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality is worth accounting for, but the supports show that these users support the blurb, rather than think it is not notable or ITN worthy. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? No blurb has been proposed, and neither supporter has mentioned a blurb.  And in any case, it's clearly not about the individual being "not notable or ITN worthy", just read the words in RD template being used here.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I got as much right to vote support as you do to vote oppose. It is not necessary that I conform to your rationale for voting.  Nor is it necessarily for you to continually badger and hound people who disagree with you, as you perennially do on this and other boards.  Finally, I think you throw around the term "BLP violation" too liberally.  And,, my rationale is, "I believe this is notable enough to be on the main page, regardless of the quality of the article".  p  b  p  22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can !vote whatever way you like, but this isn't the first time you've voted support for an RD whose quality is astonishingly poor and a BLP violation.  Your rational is irrelevant, all RDs are considered notable enough for inclusion in the RD section of the ITN template, all we consider for such nominations is the quality.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Shut up, TRM. I will not be badgered by you.  You may think you can bully others around on this project, but not me.   p  b  p  15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice personal attack. Please read the notes in the RD template which clearly state: the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article.  If you need any more assistance with this, I'm happy to help.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Orange tagged as requiring more citation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Clegg

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - much work needed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This has been pretty well cleaned up at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The discography remains entirely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I replaced most tags for recordings and commented one out. I see no more problems. Too tired to make the lead better. Anybody else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ursula von der Leyen elected President of the European Commission
Feel free to add the photo. --Tone 19:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I opposed the "nomination" of her for president, but because I only vote on real news. It's real now.  And article is almost pristine, bar one cn.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - she has been voted in now. Time to post.BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with the only nit being the description of the vote majority in the lede and the appropriate section - one suggested "narrow" the other suggested "large". But that's trivial fixing. Also the right time as the vote makes it as official as possible. (Also will argue this should be ITNR elsewhere). --M asem (t) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above MSN12102001 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – The No. 1 story today. A separate article on the EU Commission presidential election – with all its political maneuvering – might have been preferable, but the target article is decent. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we add that she is the first woman elected President of the European Commission? Thanks,
 * Post-posting comment (and I'll copy this to MP talk) The article for the EC President uses the term "appoint" throughout regarding the selection of a new president. Not "elect".  This is for good reason, as these are not "elections" in layman's terms, because they are not popular plebicites.  Please change "elected" to "appointed".130.233.3.189 (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, three of the sources above use "elected" and three use "confirmed"; none use "appointed". The relevant Art. 17.7 of the Treaty of the European Union says [..] the European Council [...] shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. [...] (emphasis added). So the term "elected" is actually correct based on the law that governs said process. Regards So  Why  07:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Müller (politician)

 * Comment –, are the '[de]' links to German Wiki articles permitted (or useful) on Eng.-lang. Wiki? – Sca (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both permitted and useful, - an invitation to write a translation, and a support of a certain notability, - readers with no knowledge of German can safely ignore them. We have the template ill for some reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. And since most educated Germans know at least some English, I guess we can assume that a good number of them also read the Eng.-lang. Wiki. Tschüß! – Sca (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In his case, however, they are still better off with the German version. I didn't copy all, because then a single unsourced fact may be in the way of appearing here. Read the speech by Horst Köhler if you can. Going to use it more in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks presentable. Sca (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Shiels

 * Support looks good to go --DannyS712 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted after moving an unsourced sentence to the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf, can someone please post the credits.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Pawnkingthree-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MaryEllen Elia resigns

 * Oppose sub-local politics. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled about the impetus for this nom., but since I've been vegetating all afternoon my little gray cells may be sluggish. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As an individual event, I would agree. However, seen as part of the larger controversy, I believe this event is notable enough. Check out this link to New York Education Yeshiva Education Controversy on Google. I'm not saying that everything that comes up is a reliable source, but this should give you an idea of the extent of the coverage. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 23:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to explain it to the rest of us? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being rhetorical, but here goes: An advocacy group called YAFFED filed a claim that private schools in New York, particularly Jewish Ultra Orthodox schools, were not teaching the "substantially equivalent education" that is required of private schools. In response, Elia issued a list of guidelines to address the issues. The guidelines were deemed inappropriate, and many community leaders called them unfair. A joint Jewish and Catholic effort resulted in the guidelines being suspended in State Court. And now, in response, MaryEllen Elia has resigned. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Apart from the lack of notability as an individual event, there is not even an article about the larger controversy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, but there is not the slightest chance of this gaining consensus to post. We don't do local politics at ITN. I would encourage the OP to withdraw the nomination before it starts snowing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Pernell Whitaker

 * Oppose whole paragraphs without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not even close.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Referencing has been improved a bit since the previous !votes but there are still multiple paragraphs without sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Cricket World Cup

 * Too short blurb. The runs were tied, and the super over was also tied. England won by default. That is too significant to ignore. Pretty sure it never occurred in any other World Cup final. 27.97.210.129 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about In cricket, England defeat New Zealand in the final of the 2019 Cricket World Cup, following an unprecedented "super over" tie-break. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "England won by default"? No, they won by having the greater number of boundaries across the entire game. It's a controversial rule. But yes, this has never occurred before. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb is fine and in line with house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, we avoid specifying scorelines in ITN blurbs. The tie-break process works the same way - it's a complex issue best left to the article to explain. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - With prose and cited - Sherenk1 (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but only once that dubious image being used under "fair use" is removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, looks ready to go. I would bold 2019 Cricket World Cup instead / as well as the article on the final, as it has a lot of excellent prose on the whole tournament. Alt blurb added. Unfortunately we don't have a good image of Kane Williamson (player of the tournament) to use. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are good pics of MOTM Ben Stokes though.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The only two that show Stokes' face are File:BEN STOKES (11704837023) (cropped).jpg (from 2014) and File:Ben Stokes, 2013 (cropped further).jpg (from 2013). Both are so old that he's barely recognisable as the same person. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but can it put the full name of team: the England & Wales cricket team. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What an excellent idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jimbo would like that, too. – Sca (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you told the ECB that? &#8209; Iridescent 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Naturally S4C were showing "Dechrau Canu Dechrau Canmol - Hanes y Diwygiad" instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN defers to the article, which is at England cricket team. That was the subject of a detailed move discussion in March 2019. An IP user added '& Wales' to the lead just this morning without discussion, so I've reverted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP editor with vision and foresight. But maybe next time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment it's been ready a while now.  What's delaying this?  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with Alt blurb if possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R and sufficient quality - let's go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support except with "England devastating New Zealand" rather than just plain ol' "defeating". ;-) --WaltCip (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooh yes. 26 boundaries compared to 17. Almost a whitewash.... well a blue wash, anyway Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Any of the blurbs.--SirEdimon (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would one expect unanimous support to lead to faster posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  in case they missed it. They are always around.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Bad referenced MSN12102001 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can it be rewritten as "England won the World Cup" instead of the current "England defeat New Zealand" which is technically incorrect as the match is considered to be a tie in record books? It's also worth mentioning the rule that gave England the title as that has been the talking point on news and social media for the past three days. 59.95.68.93 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, England defeated NZ on boundary count. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See List of tied matches and England-New Zealand ODI list. The Super Over article also correctly says that "A match which goes to a Super Over is officially declared a "tie"" 59.95.68.93 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You would be better raising this instead at Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup Final, not here. But your first link leads to this page which says: "Super over ended in a tie, England won the match on the boundary count back rule." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Wimbledon

 * Comment on images I think we could make a side-by-side of Halep and Djokovic from commons files for posting, (Can't recall if the ITN template can support separate images), as I don't see a way to distinguish between whether either should get image priority (both have won multiple times before, so its not like a first major win for either). --M asem (t) 00:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No real prose in either target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both bold articles have no prose outside the leads and require substantial expansion. If they do get improved, drop the 'longest final ever' bit from the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Winners of large sports championships are typically featured, especially international ones. mike_gigs (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sure it's significant, but both articles has very little prose at all. I may add some later on, but I'm not sure it'll be enough to have this event posted.  I Need Support  :V 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither article is postable as of my viewing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If the main link becomes the main article, i.e. 2019 Wimbledon Championships - the other two can be left in (if not bolded); in any case, such a major sporting event should not go unnoticed. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That article also has no prose outside the lead, and an orange-level referencing tag, so doesn't meet the criteria. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The is a borderline case - the lead is relatively well-referenced (fixed that for you); the rest of the article (i.e. results) can very easily be sourced to the official website (which is given as an external link). I personally don't think "there's little prose" is sufficient to exclude such a major sport event, more so now that I have fixed (?) the referencing issues. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We always, at barest minimum, expect a reasonably concise but complete recap of the final match. (all 5 sets in this case). Just a short lede and a bunch of tables amounts to WP:NOT. --M asem  (t) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support we have this discussion every time there's a similar nomination and my position hasn't changed. In articles like these, what matters are 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and as long as both are in the article it's good enough. Banedon (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And community consensus hasn't changed. A decent update doesn't just mean filling in the infobox.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems there's an entire new article for 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final, but not one for 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles final? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and ironically that article itself barely covers the longest men's single final in history and simply sums it up in about two sentences... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Article quality not good enough and not enough prose on the finals themselves. Its not difficult to do, see the excellently written annual articles on the Boat Race for how it could be done, usually written on the very day of the race. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * !!!!CANOE KLAXON!!!!! Shucks, I'd like to dedicate this to my cat, my therapist, my therapist's therapist, my theremin and my terrapin. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We need "TRM's Law" as a corollary to Godwin's Law, that an ITN discussion ends when The Boat Race is mentioned. --M asem (t) 17:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only once the superior quality of my canoe race nominations is mentioned. Then it's good to close it down. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't try to snooker us into that. – Sca (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No snookers required, my track record speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice legs. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Southeast Asia floods

 * Oppose at this point. This is monsoon season in SE Asia, and there's always loss of life. 60-some people at this point over that many countries is actually a small number. --M asem (t) 23:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak support and even may suggest this better as an ongoing. BBC has deaths at 130 and rising (67 in Nepal alone), and rain's still falling. Still a small number based on total population but I don't think we can call that ignoreable anymore. --M asem (t) 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support going to trust the expert. Banedon (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Significant mortality – AFP says at least 180 – but article is still too sketchy for Main Page promo at this point. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Hussain Muhammad Ershad

 * RD only – Ershad, 89, "died in hospital after being on life support for 10 days." – Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, the article still has some referencing and style issues. Support RD once they're fixed. Spengouli (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD on quality, miles away right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only. I don't feel he meets the typical criteria for a blurb; the death itself being an event(as noted by Sca, this is not) or the individual being a world transformative leader or otherwise at the tip-top of their field. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paolo Sardi

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Asasey Hotel attack

 * Support on significance, oppose on length at the moment. I will try to find the time to expand this later, if it hasn't already been worked on. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no lasting impact, sadly not an unusual event in this part of the world. 90.128.166.72 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — 90.128.166.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Incumbents and candidates died, will impact elections. Though I suppose political events are even less unusual over there. A celebrity English Wikipedia kind of knows died, which is a bit strange. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Signficant event, but the article is only a few lines.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've lengthened it. Could still be longer. Not too long, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt when up to snuff. "At least" is pessimistic, and Nalayeh wasn't technically a journalist. Gives a sense of regional political impact. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt pending expansion: Yes, this kind of event is expected in the country - but that usually means it doesn't hit the news cycle in the West, which this one has done. Anything that seems like a political kind of attack is well notable, you could say even more so in a country with little grip on politics. Article needs some expanding though. Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Routine bit of violence, sadly.  Sandstein   10:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Possibly significant enough even for such a strife-ridden place, but article at 140 words is basically a stub. Could be readily expanded with info from RS links added above. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've figured out how to copy on my gadget (some of the time), but pasting is still a pipe dream. Flipping between tabs is sometimes possible, but this onscreen keyboard is still ridiculously slow. Edit conflicting after such tedium as it might take would destroy me (it's happened twice before). So, anyone else interested, don't wait for me! I'm miserably semiretired. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I use laptop when editing, much less headache, despite being old-fashioned. Brandmeistertalk  07:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My laptop is getting older, with fan, battery and flicker problems (and two stripped screws in the metal case). During the summer, humidity, lightning and power fluctuations make me paranoid about it dying. Just need to remember to grab a USB keyboard for this newfangled doodad, which I don't think about in the real world, which is where I still shop (with physical cash, even). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Spektr-RG

 * Support Added refs to Science and NASA Space Flight regarding the instruments and construction. Cleaned up the English. Nice picture.130.233.3.189 (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A moderately high-profile space telescope working at wavelengths that haven't been explored since ROSAT in the 1990s. The article is at the bare minimum length, a lot more could be said, but does just about clear that threshold. Referencing is adequate. I added a couple of links to the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's generally a good thing to feature articles about science and technology. The article looks good, too. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 14:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems notable to me, and the article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Isaac Lesiba Maphotho

 * Support seems good to go to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Sadie Roberts-Joseph

 * Comment. New article. Currently around 200 words with the career bundled into the lead, which is a stub in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub.   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of improvements needed.BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Fernando J. Corbató

 * Oppose around a third of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hodan Nalayeh

 * Support - Seems ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * support. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support MurielMary (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Beatrice Arbour

 * Oppose. I'm not sure she have enough notability to be enlisted here. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:ITNRD - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a ludicrous suggestion. WP:NBASE requires one game played, which is precisely what she has (and one at bat for the career). Putting someone on the front page who barely qualifies for an article seems illogical, and I'd be !voting oppose on IAR grounds, but it's not worth the headache.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the lady is barely dead and we consider that fair use can be applied? Not on my shift. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the RFC. She has an article ✅ which is fully referenced ✅, is updated ✅ and she has died, thus qualifying for RD ✅. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And features an unfree image which was literally added the day she died. Not how it works.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then remove the bloody image. You've been here long enough to know how it works. Mjroots (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looks to have died on 10 June, not July. Is there any evidence that her death is in the news? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Espresso Addict. I don't see any "news" stories about this, and it is a month old. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Spengouli (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs more work.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obligatory Close An editor noted her death (with citation!) on 6/14. This is unquestionably stale.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freddie Jones

 * Support g2g. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Very much improved from how it looked yesterday. Well done to the nominator. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a minimum number of supports required? Is there any problem stopping this one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, just an admin who is capable of assessing consensus on article quality.  Marked as ready, but we need a European admin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'appen one from God's Own County. But I'm sure we'd even be happy with a Brexiteer at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Oldest human fossil outside of Africa

 * Oppose target article as far too broad. The specific article of the fossil would be better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Support new article seems decent enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please update your !vote. A more specific target article has been created. The previous target article was Homo sapiens. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keen to post this kind of story, but we can't assess it until a target article is suggested & updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article about the cave had been created & sufficiently updated. I switched the main article for the blurb from Homo Sapiens to it.
 * Support. Well referenced. Good quality. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now that there is a target article, which is good quality. This is definitely notable. Davey2116 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because more science stories are always a good thing. Added ALT. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know this is going nowhere but...a) 40 year old specimen they just decided to analyze now?! b) only 30,000 years older than Misliya, c) not that far from Africa, d) less than two years ago we thought the whole species was younger than this. Taken as a whole, there seems to be a lack of precision in the overall narrative that is slowly gaining clearer focus rather than any shock to the system. If you find a 180,000 YO skull in Israel, that doesn't mean that's as far as they got or exactly when they arrived. It shouldn't surprise you in the least they were farther north at an earlier time. A 300,000 YO specimen there, or the same specimen in Norway would be shocking.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No direct target article + plus above argument by . -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the Guardian article, some doubt is being expressed by other scientists over this conclusion. I don't think that's a reason not to post, but both the article and the blurb need to reflect that. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Expresso Addict’s observation. I won’t oppose but before I support, I would like to see some balance in the article and blurb to the effect that some voices in the scientific community are questioning the conclusion. No doubt about this being in the news, however. Jusdafax (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All novel research is doubted initially. The Guardian says "Experts contacted by the Guardian doubted whether the skull really belonged to a modern human, and had concerns about the dating procedure. Flaws in either could fatally undermine the scientists’ narrative." I don't know if that has any weight; sounds more like the complaints of curmudgeonly professors emeriti who are behind on modern research methods. We are comparing unnamed naysayers vs. the editors and reviewers at Nature, a very reliable journal who has its own high standard of review before publication. Scientist are always prudently sceptical. That does not mean there is serious doubt. Not my area of expertise. Just my reading of the situation. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have edited Altblurb to insert more doubt and caution. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely for ITN. and from what I can see good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - ...with the more realistic wording, I support posting. Jusdafax (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT.  Spencer T• C 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please, correct the blurb. It is Homo sapiens, not "homo sapien". An incredible confusion, most likely caused by the English language where -s means plural.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This mistake is completely baffling because the original nomination had it correct. Italicize Homo sapiens too. 2001:569:782B:7A00:74B0:E2C1:F5D2:7AEF (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ICC finds Bosco Ntanga guilty

 * Oppose for now so long as the important "He was charged with the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of fifteen and using them to participate actively in hostilities." remains uncited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a source that he was found guilty for those charges. In most cases, people get convicted for the things they have been charged for.LennBr (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to say "People get charged for the things they are convicted of." The other way around implies a lack of presumption of innocence, IMO. That said, I think the article is on its way but still has a few too many tags for my liking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This is the third conviction of the ICC in 17 years of its history, this is historic; also significant coverage and no issues with the articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rip Torn

 * Oppose, poor referencing at the moment. Spengouli (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb Legit 60-year film career, on the nose. Played an iconic wrench-tossing dodgeball coach. I replaced some unsourced speculation with proper italics, now looks fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm bad at reading sarcasm on the internet: does the italicized "me" indicate you're joking? If not, understand this article is miles away from being acceptable. There are huge swaths with zero references.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm, just meant I'm aware others might see the huge swaths as a dealbreaker. I think they could be better, but nothing particularly vile; a fair bit is verifiable by Wikilink and the personal life section seems solid. Since my mention of his four notable awards has been redacted, I'll note (not to you, just for the record) he won four notable awards (and fathered a daughter who won one). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose no RD, no blurb. Terribly referenced article, and a long career doesn't equate to a blurb.  Did I miss the  table of awards?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you happen to catch Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story? If you can grasp a wrench, you can appreciate his impact on the faded Tinseltown legends of today. True story. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessitates a blurb. Did he win any Academy Awards, anything of note? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, just transformative in his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did the scarecrow win a Nobel Prize? -- Because he was out-standing in his field. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The king of comedy is dead, long live the king! If this were 1956, you'd have a future in this town, kid. But we'd need to do something about that name. Seriously though, you're alright! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence for that anywhere, just a long career.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert found his iconic training methods so nice, he referenced them twice. Clearly transformed that $167 million movie into a three-star flick. Go see it, it's free now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've given you enough time to demonstrate this so-called transformative impact.  I see nothing.  Cheers for the insight though. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, don't leave! WNYT reports he did win an Emmy, after all. 1996, precisely two-thirds into his run. Calls him "distinguished" and "award-winning". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still no sign of the table, but I found three other potential honours in the lead. Can't decide if they count for much. You be the judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also transformed six-time world champ Geraldine Page into the mother of an award-winning actress. No joke prize, either, basically American Shakespeare. Not too shabby. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work. But one or two awards in sixty years really demonstrates a level of mediocrity which could hardly be called transformative.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then don't come crying to me about Vera Lynn when she's done getting her feet wet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't. Her article is also in an abysmal condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, now we're both happy. Who do you like? Among the living, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what who I like has to do with this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Has more to do with your opposition standards than the current nominee. Forget I asked for now if you must. But one of these days, Man, you're going to nominate someone you think matters. And if they haven't something shiny to show for each 15 years they toiled in their field, I'm going to call them mediocre and Bam! Straight to the moon! Good old-fashioned rhetorical justice, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've mistaken me for someone who cares about what you personally would say about anything I nominate. I think  that's called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  But be my guest, should the opportunity arise, to make said point, claim your "justice" and feel brilliant, it's water off a duck's back me old mucker. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not going to do it purely out of petty revenge and pride, or against the first big name I see. Only if I genuinely disagree they deserve a blurb. Business as usual on a meat and potatoes level, my dumb new sidequest is just gravy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Referencing is very poor. Also oppose blurb on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM and Ad Orientem: article is poor; not sufficiently weighty for a blurb - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suzanne Eaton

 * Comment. This is a posthumous article, but the subject clearly appears to meet WP:PROF in my opinion. Not yet checked in detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now checked; not found any major problems though most of the research/career (and one of the two awards) is cited to her institute. Unfortunately the news reports are focusing on her personal aspects not her scientific career. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article's quality is passable. I think this should be under 8 July though, if that is when the body was found. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Philip Freelon

 * Oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while inline external links and raw URLs are all over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel

 * Oppose Unless some new protests have actually happened (the source article only suggests there may be potential), then this is a stale event. It is good that the article quality is improved so that if new riots break out, then this article can be a starting point for that. --M asem (t) 16:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Full disclosure, I was unaware of the previous nomination to ITN and the the article creator's nomination of it to DYK a short while ago (under July 3). Havradim (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ross Perot

 * Oppose tagged and under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but not that far off - outside that tagged section I see maybe 5-6 missing cites. Today's obits should help flesh that out. --M asem (t) 14:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Also, I resolved a CN tag p  b  p  15:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per quality. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI notability is not at issue for an RD nomination. Just article quality. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, I was fixing that. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added sources were I could find them, and removed the remaining unsourced / failed verification material. Can you take a look now? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've added one more cn tag. If you could have a look at that, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work, will support once the cn tag is taken care of. (I would also support a blurb if consensus headed in that direction.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The CN tag was fixed in Special:Diff/905711353 by - should be ready to go. (Side note: I've added myself as the updater, if there are any objections please let me know) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, I support now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose now struck. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment full of unreferenced claims, not even updated tense-wise, clearly completely unsatisfactory, as a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb --5.44.170.9 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for a deceased failed presidential candidate to merit a blurb? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting case to be made for a blurb on USAipedia, but it's a non-starter here. I would urge others to shelve this quixotic talk until the quality issues are addressed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two orange tagged sections. That's not good quality. Granted, one is likely easily sourced to the pages on the past elections, but the other about post-political stuff absolutely needs sourcing and I don't see that coming magically from any other en.wiki page. --M asem (t) 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, one is "Later activities", which has four "cn" tags. The other is "Electoral history" which is just a list of results in the two elections. (that one now sourced) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All now sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

--Tone 11:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, still needs a fair amount of work. Spengouli (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Too many unsupported statements – and a few dead links too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From a quality standpoint, a few dead links aren't a problem as long as they look like they are recoverable/meet minimum WP:V for recovery. Now, if it was 50% deadlinks, yeeeeah... --M asem (t) 20:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Some have argued that Ross Perot's candidacy impacted the results of the election(s) he was in. US discussion on the merits of third parties often discusses him. I'll let others decide if you think the article is ready yet. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose Quite important (and would likely warrant its own blurb IMO), but the article is not main-page quality with orange-level tags. Support per improvements. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, seems to be fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much better than when I first looked; definitely ready now, good work. I would also support blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I think we need some perspective on this. Whilst his 19% showing in 1992 was certainly noteworthy by American standards, he still lost.  I highly doubt we'd even be having a conversation about someone whose highest claim to fame was a third-place finish in a presidential election, if that election was in any other country.  Let's be real about this.  Support RD, but oppose blurb. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb or RD. Article quality for RD, as noted above, is sufficient for posting. I’d also support a blurb given his significant historical impact. Either way, this item is ready for immediate posting. Jusdafax (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I credit myself for updating it? DannyS712 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Arthur Ryan

 * Oppose: article tagged for insufficient citations. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 12:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above MSN12102001 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fernando de la Rúa

 * Support - well written article, and has good article status. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   12:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Captain Medusa. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 12:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article is ready for main page --DannyS712 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Greece elections

 * Last paragraph needs cited.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  – Prefer Alt2. – Sca (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Though all the blurbs seem overly descriptive. We should have something more concise. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II.BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2. The article looks in decent enough shape for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Which article are we bolding? The election article does not seem to have the required paragraph or so of update on the results and its lead isn't fully updated; Alt 2 doesn't even link it. Alt 2 is far too long. I've not checked Kyriakos Mitsotakis thoroughly (has anyone?); it has some requested sources and a bare unclickable link supporting some of the personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)?
 * Support new alt that frames the announcement of the event as the main event, rather than the actual event. Consistent with Iranian treatment. But also fine with keeping it simpler and direct. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Though all the blurbs seem overly descriptive. I simply recommend this blurb: "Kyriakos Mitsotakis sworn in as Greece's new prime minister" AbDaryaee (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added alt3 which is the standard wording for election items. The election article is lacking prose in the results section, some reaction or aftermath part would also be appreciated. --Tone 10:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Mitsotakis's new cabinet was sworn in Tuesday. Mitsotakis is the PM, period, as Alt2 indicates. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Gaps in referencing remain. Event is ITNR, so please keep your !votes to quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? I'd have though it was a "I know, right?" But then you yourself blindly supported the article without bothering to review it, so...sigh, right?  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This user does not respond to users who don't exist. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been marked 'ready' for days. What are we waiting for? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tone. This article could use more descriptive prose. And there's still a few red-linked sections.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Old news. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither old nor stale. This item is still newer than any of the current items on the ITN ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the real world in which we live it's stale. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not getting attention because no one's interested anymore. – Sca (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on quality (per WaltCip) and removing "attention needed". Not ready at this point.  Spencer T• C 18:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Artur Brauner

 * Award section needs citation. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Brauner&oldid=905454212#Awards Currently] 12 awards, zero sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sourcing needs improvements, not just awards but the filmography. Some expansion would be useful too and a fuller lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I've cited most of the awards and cn tags added afterwards. All the films in filmography section are notable films and duly linked, some redlinks linked to dewiki, that suffices I think. More detailed lede would be good but that should not hold RD listing. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The filmography section is unsourced. I've added a cn tag for another unsupported statement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SchroCat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tried to fix all the article issues, but the filmography is still hard to fix as he produced hundreds of movies. I hope some of the editors who already commented here could give it another look.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Wright buildings as UNESCO World Heritage Sites

 * Oppose in situations like these I'd prefer to highlight the eight buildings, not the architect who designed them. Besides, there're now more than 1,000 World Heritage Sites. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There definitely is no shortage of World Heritage sites, its not like this is a wholly unique recognizition, but here they are specifically recognizing Wright's design, not so much any individual building. --M asem (t) 04:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Query: "[T]he first modern architecture in the United States to be added" implies that there are other modern buildings that have been listed; how common is it, do you know? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is was CNN has said. I would read that to mean that probably in Europe and Asia there are modern architectures that have been added (maybe even Canada and Mexico). --M asem (t) 05:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just as another interesting factoid that might help: because the US pulled out of the Paris agreement, the country is unable to suggest places to be UNESCO sites. A group dedicated to Wright pushed for its candidancy to the UNESCO groups. --M asem (t) 05:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm prepared to support this on significance, because I think it's rare for modern architecture to be singled out in this way; the most recent I'm aware of in the UK, for example, is 1890. However, the article needs a fuller update to explain its significance. There seems nothing to stop other inscriptions from being nominated, if they are in the news. ETA, though I note Jodrell Bank Observatory has just been listed in the same 7 July batch! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I wrote below, the site near me made it into my news. This one didn't. How do we choose? Do you really want me nominating the one near me as well (we do have an updated article on it - Budj Bim), and then other people nominating the ones they've heard about? HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage outside the country? As well as the local Jodrell Bank, the BBC is highlighting Babylon, and some others here. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This addition to UNESCO World Heritage listings appears to be one of around twenty so far at the current meeting of the World Heritage Committee. See . To single out this one would seem to be an example of perhaps accidental US centrism, or just a centrism for the nominator's own country, which happens to be the USA. I was aware of another site declared in my country.  The news media I saw didn't tell me about this one. News media is like that.  Unless we report on them all, it seems wrong to report on just this one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per above. I'm not seeing how this is sufficiently unique to justify an ITN blurb. I do acknowledge that Wright was a highly influential figure in his field (though I am personally not a fan) but this seems rather arbitrary when the other sites are also considered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose would be better suited to another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agree with other comments. About 29 sites have now been added to the World Heritage List this year. Wright is not even the first modern architect whose buildings have been named as World Heritage Sites: The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier was added three years ago. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose especially since this is not singled out by Unesco. As observed above, it's just among many which are also listed, I don't see any compelling reason why we should single this out and make it more important than the rest. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) African Continental Free Trade Agreement

 * Support more than just an international treaty, since it involves so many countries. Banedon (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Something news worthy, not US or Europe oriented and w/o a body count. Article looks to be in good shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is significant and the article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Comment: Needs to be removed from ongoing. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Added an ALT2 blurb based on the one used for the 2018 men's World Cup, which omits the scoreline. Working on a match summary.  Sounder Bruce  16:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to WP:ITN/R, "winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event." Given the quality of the team articles, they should be targeted. I would also support including the player of the match. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be Alt2, per standard practice. Rapinoe can be mentioned as an image caption. --Tone 17:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , could we at least target the USWNT? StudiesWorld (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the common practice is to only link the final. Also, when posting, WWC should be removed from ongoing. --Tone 17:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted blurb2 for the moment - however please continue discussing the most appropriate blurb here and update as appropriate. (There is no question that this event should be in ITNC, just the wording). — xaosflux  Talk 17:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Err, as pointed out above, the final article is not ready for front page posted - needs a game summary before it should be up. --M asem (t) 17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , this was not a good move. Please avoid drive-by posting. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait but support Alt 2 with bolding on the final match once a summary of the match is added. Oppose bolding the FIFA Women's World Cup article as none of the group stages have a summary and the article is "charticle" (coined it?). --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb should be pulled until a match summary is added, pursuant to ITN rules. I'm working on it right now, but it will take a while.  Sounder Bruce  17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with that this shouldn't have been posted yet on quality, but I don't think that it should be pulled. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any admin that thinks this should be pulled, please just do so. — xaosflux  Talk 17:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please at least unbold the FIFA Women's World Cup article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull. Awful posts like this one fuel the #OMGUSBIAZ replies. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled temporarily, per consensus. Will be happy to repost once the finals article is fixed. --Tone 17:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The match summary is now complete and the article should be good to go. Will make a few more changes as we go.  Sounder Bruce  18:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work, reposted. --Tone 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you post the image? Also, great job, updaters, on getting this ready so fast! StudiesWorld (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, and add image p  b  p  19:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone interested in getting 2019 Copa América Final ready? It's ITNR, but the article is short...the final is being played right now, and the 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final is a few hours later, so it would be nice to have a double-event hook.  Sounder Bruce  19:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting both of those here would be great, but the image should be focused on the WWC. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should the text read "Golden Ball winner Megan Rapinoe pictured", as the more prestigious of the two awards? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Iran nuclear breach
-- Seems significant. If I recall it correctly Bolton said this will result in war. Oh well, it's been a few years since world powers began to prepare for an eventual world war anyway 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Congratulations, Mr Trump, for almost single-handedly engineerng this. Looking forward to many more victoriously gloating tweets. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Iran indicated 60 days ago it was going to do this, unless sanctions were loosened. Sanctions were not, and therefore they're going ahead with it. Unless some significant response to this is made to this, this is just national posturing. --M asem (t) 17:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is definitely in the news and is clearly significant; that this was expected for 60 days is immaterial as we did not post anything about this 60 days ago. There should be a more extensive update to the article, however. Davey2116 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support what they indicated 60 days ago is irrelevant, this is the news. Incredibly well-sourced article, and definitely in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The news is really all over mainstream media and the JCPOA article is detailed and well-sourced. This is the time to post this. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not surprising. What's the immediate tangible effect? Sounds like more rhetoric to me. – Sca (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Crossing the agreed 3.67% limit on enrichment means the country can potentially build a nuclear bomb (although confirmation by the IAEA is pending). Brandmeistertalk  21:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A uranium-235 bomb requires highly enriched uranium. It's already been enriched by an order of magnitude, but needs to be enriched by as much again, to 20-95%, depending on the bomb configuration.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume you mean a fission bomb. The notion that Iran would plunge into war with a comparatively small-yield A-bomb of the sort used 75 years ago, risking retaliatory thermonuclear obliteration, seems distinctly improbable to me. (Not that I harbor any admiration for the Iranian regime.) More likely, it's saber-rattling for the oppressed home market. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If Iran wanted to attack another country, it already commands enough petroleum-based firepower to destroy far more than a single nuke could. Peaceful clean energy is where this increase matters, but even that could be spun into "Iran conserving oil to produce regular death to America". At the end of the day, winning the Gulf War at any cost is still about having more natural resources than the Axis does both during and after the Third World War. You can't warm dead rats' innards over a WMD, even when they do exist, and neither side of humanity is prepared to subsist on raw meat anymore (thanks a lot, Darwin). But yeah, the potential to build a nuke is still there, just not the ability or desire. Big whoop, as the Dutch might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about using the bomb, but more about having it as a nuclear deterrent, just like other openly nuclear states. And that is still significant, as no one really expects the usage of nukes in modern times. 3.67% is reportedly enough for civil usage, but not enough for the military. And Iran announced it would enrich further. Brandmeistertalk  07:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Bushehr reactor needs 5% enriched. So further than 3.67% or 4.5%. A power plant is not a deterrent, and Iran has repeatedly denied seeking to build a bomb or enriching to near where that would even be remotely possible. Its existing tremendous military capacity has been a perfectly functional deterrent for 40 years now, during which time its archenemy has thousands of nukes (and its secondary enemies dozens). Why fix what isn't broken, especially if it would clearly provoke a nuclear superenemy? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And not to beat a long-dead horse or put too fine a point on it, but especially when that nuclear superpower happens to be the one which openly gloats about how extensively and effectively it fooled everyone during the (alleged) Manhattan Project, before reverse Pearl Harbouring (or "deterring") the Japanese so hard, they had to invent a new fictional monster just to express how much scarier this new world of terror was than a stop-motion ape dancing a Depression-era jig on a tower that doesn't even collapse. The actor who had to wear that suit to warn us all died. Granted, the first few times were urban legends and the last time was only a year back, but still. It's history worth remembering, as The History Guy might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support this is in the news and looks like it'll be in the news for quitex a while. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Pull Completely expected, deal's already essentially broken, no apparent punishment beyond already increasing sanctions, nowhere near bomb production levels (by weight or enrichment). More a US election story than anything, and those turn over like weather reports. Waters down relatively important soccer report and would literally sooner have us forget actual atrocity and present danger in Libya. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "First, and most obviously (though it’s surprising how few news stories mention this up high, if at all), Iran was not the first country to breach the deal’s terms. In May 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, for no good reason other than he didn’t like it, despite the fact that international inspectors had repeatedly attested that the Iranians were in compliance with its terms. Then Trump not only re-imposed economic sanctions, which had been lifted with the signing of the deal, but also imposed “secondary sanctions” on any country that did business with Iran—even the five powers (Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, along with the European Union) that had co-signed it."


 * "Second, even in its (quite delayed) response to Trump’s withdrawal, Iran did not violate the accord. Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA states that if one signatory of the pact believes that some others “were not meeting their commitments” under the deal, then, after certain meetings and consultations, it would have “grounds to cease performing its commitments.”"


 * "Third, Trump was in violation of the deal well before he withdrew from it. As far back as July 2017, at his first G-20 summit, Trump pressured allied leaders to stop doing business with Iran. This pressure was a direct violation of Paragraph 29 of the accord, which states that the U.S. and the other signatories:"will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran inconsistent with the commitments not to undermine the successful implementation of the JCPOA.""


 * "Fourth, leveling secondary sanctions against other countries doing business with Iran is a violation of the spirit, and possibly the letter, of international law. It is permissible and even proper to punish countries or companies that violate sanctions imposed by, say, a U.N. Security Council resolution. But the JCPOA is a Security Council resolution—No. 2231—enshrined as international law in July 2015, around the same time the U.S. and the other five countries signed it as a multinational deal with Iran." Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simpsons called it twice already, literally and the other way. Some leaders just aren't elected to read. But quotin' ain't votin', as the old story goes, so what's it all add up to, Count? Is this news we can use? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cameron Boyce

 *  Neutral : While I support in theory, we may need a few people to buff it up first. I took care of a needed citation, if it helps. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, filmography needs referencing. Otherwise good. Spengouli (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, filmography is now fully referenced. Nsk92 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – sufficiently referenced now, and of interest to readership. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One minor role is unreferenced, can be stricken if needed. It's clearly legit (you can watch it on youtube), but no RS mentions it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to Support per upgrades. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Jeffrey Epstein arrested

 * Oppose. The person is not widely known even in the US, let alone globally. And it's only an arrest, not a conviction.  Sandstein   07:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't often post arrests, usually only convictions, and I'm not even sure that would be done in this case. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Try if an actual world leader is arrested for this. Juxlos (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sutopo Purwo Nugroho

 * Support. AGFing on the Indonesian-language sources, this is looking in adequate shape. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Espresso Addict. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good article, includes death. Known & respected across ESEAP region.(add apparently in UK US as well) Gnangarra 10:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: João Gilberto

 * Support. Well referenced. Good quality. A very important musician. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not sure which article the above comment refers to, but this one barely has any sources at all. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: And sadly a big chunk of it turned out to be copyvio. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose shoddily rerefenced. Terrible quality.  Importance irrelevant.  Nowhere near good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article still does not live up to the great career and life of Joao Gilberto, but I believe that I have fixed the refs issues and that the article is good enough for the main page. Note I: pinging and  in case they want to give the article a new look. Note 2: Big thanks to Espresso Addict who removed huge pieces of copyvio that could be potentially problematic.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's there yet, . It misses out the key bit, his role in developing bossa nova, and it's a bit choppy with the poor-quality material remaining from the original. Will try to do some work on it but my knowledge of all forms of popular music is as lacking as my Portuguese. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'll try to help out as well. Pinging , , and to see if any of you are interested in helping the article. ETA: pinging  and  as well. Erick (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to have been improved. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created a section "Role on Bossa Nova" according to the suggestions given here. I mostly translated it from pt.WP. All four sources are in Portuguese. I call other editor willing to fix any mistakes I made when I wrote this section. Pinging and  who may be willing to help.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John McCririck

 * Oppose - clarification is requested in the lead and the "Other media appearances" section is orange tagged for references. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Lead is too short, and too much uncited material at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead now expanded, but many cn tags remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  Comment. There's a lot of material here that badly needs strong sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many hands make light work, as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing formal oppose, as the sourcing is substantially improved; however a lot of the text still depends on a single interview or poor-quality primary sources. Sections also could do with copy editing and some pruning, especially his post-racing career. There was something about flies & honey, too. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means point out the problematic single interviews or poor-quality primary sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * here (what is this?), here (maybe acceptable but it does not contain the information on "long discussion", OR), and here (BLP violation: citing court documents as source). Also SELFPUB not ABOUTSELF can be found here. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very thorough appraisal. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Now fully sourced. Further copy edits and general improvements still very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2019‎
 * Support Fully sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems much improved. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support Comment: Don't see anything that prevents posting. Other editors are welcome to seek better sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support adequate (although waiting for 24 hours for an admin is not adequate). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post posting note: another notable who unfortunately died on a Friday? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Eva Mozes Kor

 * Comment. The article's very under-referenced, unfortunately. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose dreadful condition, full of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Her story explored in the documentary Forgiving Dr. Mengele, and detailed in those six books, so all claims should he sourcable in theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes

 * Oppose No deaths, run of the mill event. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Having no deaths does not make it a run-of-the-mill event. Master of Time   ( talk ) 04:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not clear yet whether the article will meet notability guidelines per WP:EVENT. It seems like there won't be any significant lasting effects because the area affected is so sparsely populated. And being the biggest earthquake in a region in an arbitrary time period does not automatically confer notability. --Surachit (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing really significant about it. I may have to issue a merge request if no deaths has occurred.  I Need Support  :V 21:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do that, I will oppose that proposal. p  b  p  22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the updates I see, I will not be requesting a merge since it has some historical significance.  I Need Support  :V 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A 6.4 magnitude quake isn't really "run of the mill," but it was centered out in the desert 100 miles east of Bakersfield and no casualties were reported. – Sca (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A bit startling to have my apartment shaking this morning but barring this setting off a larger event, it's a relatively minor despite being the largest in two decades. Better suited for WP:DYK at this time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is the largest earthquake in California in decades. Multiple news sources have released articles about this event and various scientists have commented on it. Casualties do not need to be recorded in order to be notable. The extent of the coverage speaks for itself. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 21:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding to my previous post; The President has been briefed on the situation and has tweeted about it. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Retracting comment. I didn't realize mentioning Trump's tweet would undermine my point, and I don't want it to detract from my support !vote. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 21:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump tweets about anything. Not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A DT tweet almost reduces it to trivia. – Sca (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about the tweet. The point is that this is significant enough to brief the President about this on Independence Day. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 21:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Is it more difficult to brief the president send a tweet out on 4 July?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose let's wait for the big one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the L.A. Times just says residents were "shaken," but that's hardly news – especially when we have scores dying in various hotspots around the world. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Guardian says "no serious damage or injuries reported." – Sca (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM and Sca. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support People are acting like a 6.4 is nothing. This is the most massive earthquake this millennium in quake-riddled California.  p  b  p  22:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A millennium sounds huge until you realize we're only 19 years into it. WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not even in the top 20 globally for this year so far... Is it so notable because it happened in America I wonder?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – A very interesting quake with an unusually, albeit not unprecedentedly, high number of aftershocks. A very well written article. A rarely high magnitude for the region. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose What's likely "news" here is that we had a rather heavy quake with nearly no impact, which is amazing, but its really not ITN-type news. --M asem (t) 01:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. As earthquakes go, this one was (happily) not a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving to neutral pending details on the latest shake, reportedly a 7.1. Obviously this one is much stronger than the one from a couple days ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral / Comment Passes on quality, but there's an open question on notability. It's certainly nothing to scoff at that it had a magnitude of 6.4, peaked at tier VIII (severe) on the Modified Mercalli intensity scale, could be felt by more than 20 million people, and affected people as north as Sacramento, as east as Nevada, and as south as Baja California. That said, the meteorological notability is largely balanced (if not nullified) by the fact that it was, fortunately, relatively insignificant for those it affected. The worst of the earthquake happened in a desert, the injuries associated with it are limited, and there were no casualties. The resulting structural damage, fires, and power outages weren't insignificant, but they also weren't as major as the disasters we'd normally post. I see convincing and good-faith arguments for both supporting and opposing, but none of the facts have stood out enough for me to feel strongly either way. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mainly opposed putting the event to ITN because it didn't really meet WP:NEVENT at that time, especially at WP:EFFECT. However, I do see that it did cause a change—which is an app is lowering the sensitivity of their earthquake detection. Still, there are no deaths so far.  I Need Support  :V 03:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support While it may not have been deadly, it's still a pretty major earthquake by US standards, and the news lately has been pretty slow. The article is also in good shape. Alex of Canada (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait for the Big One to flush it all away.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A precedent for major California earthquakes on ITN was set about five years ago. The last major earthquake in California, a 6.0 magnitude earthquake in Napa in 2014, was . That was also a tier VIII (severe) on the Modified Mercalli intensity scale, at least US$362 million in damage, and had one fatality and 200 injured -- more than this Ridgecrest one. Like then as it is now, if there are no significant levels of casualties than it is not worth it to put these types of California earthquakes on ITN. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the criteria for earthquakes appearing on ITN is the significance of the impact, not the location or intensity. This was not a trivial event, but when there are no deaths, and the greatest structural damage seems to be that half a house burned down and all the other damage confined to a small, predominantly rural area it does not come close to ITN level imo. If this turns out to be a foreshock for something bigger and more significant then we can post that event on its own merits. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No casualties, minor damage. There have been at least a dozen stronger earthquakes than this in the last 6 months (see List of earthquakes in 2019). None merited an ITN posting and some don't even have articles. Happening in California does not make a non-event significant enough for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don’t post disasters unless they caused a significant number of deaths, of which this falls to meet. 203.87.124.182 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true - causing a significant number of deaths is one way that a disaster might meet the ITN threshold, but it is not the only way. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I make it 14-5 (about 3:1) against. Suggest CLOSE. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are many similar earthquakes with minor casualties in other highly seismic regions on a weekly basis that we don't regularly post. It might have garnered larger support had it been qualified as the "deadliest" or the "most disastrous" but the "largest earthquake in Southern California since 1999" is just a trivial record.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Neutral OK, it happened on a major national holiday and it's the largest in a heavily-populated earthquake-prone region in 20 years. But ... no one was killed and, since the epicenter was way the hell out in the desert, not much property damage was done. So, better as a DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral with news of the stronger aftershock. We'll see how it goes with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

7.1 aftershock
 * Comment: There was another major aftershock a minute ago. p  b  p  03:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Preliminary magnitude 7.1, felt substantially stronger than yesterday in LA. Will need a new nomination if desired. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest the blurb "Southern California is hit by earthquakes of magnitude 6.4 and 7.1". Will the 7.1 get its own article, or should we link to this article?  p  b  p  03:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Should stay a single article due to rapid succession. They're all part of a singular event but the new one will be the primary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I might tentatively support a renomination depending on how our picture of the event looks in a little while (and by the way, since this earthquake was larger, it is therefore the mainshock, and the 6.4 earthquake was a foreshock). The main USGS webpage for the event still refuses to load, so maybe wait for that first.  Master of Time   ( talk ) 04:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh boy the big one may come soon!  I Need Support  :V 04:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yay, my city will be obliterated! Big whoop!  p  b  p  15:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above. I believe this is notable, especially with the many aftershocks. The article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A 6.4 and a 7.1 in Southern California is big news. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment again, no deaths, practically no damage. Why is is this notable, because it’s in the US? There have been plenty of bigger and deadlier quakes this year in other places. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not true, or in other words fake news. So far, this year, only one earthquake has been "bigger" - [2019_Peru_earthquake]. All nice to quickly post opinions and guesses, but fact checking doesnt take a lot of time. And at least on an encyclopedia we should stick to facts. 41.215.181.120 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a) I agree with 41 that if you're going to claim there have been "plenty" of magnitude 7.1 earthquakes that you need to provide evidence, and b) Would it be too much to ask to suspend your anti-American bias? p  b  p  15:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop casting aspersions.--WaltCip (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still opposed because there still no significant impact. As I said above, impact is what matters for earthquakes not just being the largest in an arbitrary area in an arbitrary length of time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The 6.4 has been followed by a 7.2 in the same area. Again, no fatalities or serious injuries, but scattered structure fires. Perhaps we should consider Ongoing? – Sca (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I still hold on to my previous reasoning that the impact is minor compared to many other earthquakes across the world. Whether it's 6.4 or 7.1 is just trivial.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. While there were no deaths, there was significant damage and many injuries, and 7+ magnitude earthquakes are certainly not a common thing in California. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support of a blurb of both major quakes. Nothing may (hopefully) happen, but with two major strikes, its hard to ignore as news. (Plus, we are in a drought of actual blurbs, and this at least would be something in the realm of what we'd normally post). --M asem (t) 14:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still opposing - I know there are a lot of people who think that Los Angeles and Southern California are the cradle of modern civilization, and thus anything that happens near that location is exponentially more noteworthy as a result, but let's be truly honest; these earthquakes have had no major impact beyond the magnitudes that they recorded.--WaltCip (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems notable enough. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close Barring some dramatic development, consensus to post this is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's sort of in the news, but other than being in California, I really don't see why; it doesn't seem terribly significant in terms of human impact or magnitude even just among earthquakes in 2019 or in California, which is, moreover, prime earthquake territory. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – On Friday when the tally was 14-5 against, I suggested closing this topic but ran into opposition. Since then, each side has gained four votes or so. It seems pretty obvious that no consensus to post will emerge unless the Earth moves violently enough to cause fatalities and significant damage, which I guess is always a possibility. But given present circumstances, and the length of this discussion (2,300 words), I agree it's time to close it. – Sca (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Cline

 * Support - Good to go as far as I can tell.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and mark as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jared Lorenzen

 * Support Article looks good to me.  I Need Support  :V 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. I've explicitly marked where citations are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The citations have been dealt with, but there is a lot of proseline so the article is far from great. I'm withdrawing my opposition but I'm not going as far as to support. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready. I've fixed up the citations marked by, and I think this one is good to go now. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Arte Johnson

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only one reference has been added to the article since the nomination, which is nowhere near enough to bring this up to standard. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Guillermo Mordillo

 * Comment - The article has several refs issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose very poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - it needs to be edited in terms of adding more sections and sorces. -- M h hossein   talk 10:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Tripoli migrant center airstrike

 * Support No question on notability (devastatingly high death and injury tolls), and it's not very often that we post about the ongoing crisis in Libya. The article is well-sourced, doesn't seem to need any copyediting, and isn't a stub. It could benefit from an expansion, but it's not in bad shape. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I saw enough international coverage on this to support. Banedon (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support High civilian death toll. zzz (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support notable and high number of fatalities. --MaoGo (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose' It's notable and what is there is good quality, but the article omits any mention of who carried out the airstrike and why they were carrying out airstrikes in the area. Without this information the article is not complete enough for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, the article clearly notes that the Libyan National Army was doing the strikes as part an offensive against rebels. I did add the Libyan National Army to the lede though. --M asem (t) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Libyan National Army is fighting against forces supporting the UN-recognised transitional government, so it would not be accurate to describe the pro-government militias as rebels. It might be helpful if someone familiar with the conflict explained what is going on. Abrostople (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above MSN12102001 (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – "Hifter’s forces said they were targeting a nearby military site, not the detention center." -- AP source in the article. And this source is used to say something similar. That sounds to me like an admission of responsibility if not guilt. I believe that addresses concern. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel

 * Support Article looks good to me, considering that it's rated as a B-Class.  I Need Support  :V 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will oppose the blurb though. It's just part of the whole protest. Perhaps ITNR would be better suited for it.  I Need Support  :V 00:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested some new blurbs. Forest90 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose awful blurb, half-decent article, but not something (at the moment) that I'd expect to be considered encyclopedically newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suggested new blurb and I'm trying to improve them. It's my first nomination for this section and I will try more. Thank you.Forest90 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose on both notability and on quality. I'm mostly neutral on this. We'd need a better blurb before anything else, but to my understanding, the story is as follows: the protests were ignited by a homicide committed by the police, but the protests themselves didn't cause many injuries, and - thankfully - the clashes did not result in any casualties. Crucial details are missing: how many protesters were there? A peaceful protest with no casualties is perfectly notable if the protests were large in scale, but the article doesn't tell us that. The article only says how many people got stuck in traffic as a result of the protests, which isn't exactly a useful metric. The article, while not lacking in references, badly needs copyediting. A lot of the sentences (such as "The Ethiopian community has complained about racism in Israel for a long time and most of them have felt like if they are second-class citizens in the country." for example) aren't wrong, but could really benefit from being rewritten. The article's details don't sufficiently demonstrate notability, and the article's quality should be improved. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's my first nomination and I had tried to do my best. I solved some issue that you mention in your comment including improving the Article grammar and its copy edit and its copyright problems. Also I suggested 4 new blurbs.Forest90 (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, .Forest90 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support blurb IV, but I would replace "The" with "A" since they are other rallies before.  I Need Support  :V 21:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article is much better now thanks to the recent copyedits. The case is still on the news and I suggest having it on the main page with Alternative blurb IV after User:INeedSupport's suggested edit is done. -- M h hossein   talk 12:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: New wave of protests are on way, Ethiopian-Israeli community organizers announced. -- M h hossein   talk 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the work Forest90 and others have done to improve the article. I also believe that Altblurb IV (if "the" is changed to "a" like others have suggested) would be the best option. I've struck my original position.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Solar eclipse

 * Support - ITN/R and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – although South Pacific and South America shouldn't be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Thank Lord Science! Yes! Image also appears legit. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was too excited. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's not legit? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only meant to strike thru my !vote. The photo is fine. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So do you have any reservations? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Whilst the story is reasonable and ITNR, the article has almost no content and very little information beyond what's in the blurb. There's just a list of places it was visible from and tables of related eclipses. Compare to the previous solar eclipse we posted, Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017. I don't expect this one to have quite that level of content, but at least a few paragraphs of meaningful prose should be required. There must be a ton of coverage in the region's newspapers. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support setting aside the fact that a lot of the material is generic, what's there is referenced, and it's certainly a newsworthy event of the year, this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on article quality. Not a whole lot of prose is dedicated to describing the immediate effects of the eclipse, e.g. on tourism/travel, traffic, if there were many events...the 2017 eclipse in North America had a slew of things listed on its page at the time of its ITN run.  Sounder Bruce  22:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lee Iacocca

 * Comment. Needs sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nearly all of the information in the article are not sourced. Needs substantial work.  I Need Support  :V 01:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The #18 Best American CEOs of All Time. Good article. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is heavily under-referenced by consensus of multiple experienced editors and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Iacocca&diff=793110259&oldid=793107678 this two-year tag], I will urge you to strike your comment. Maybe you reviewed the wrong article. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Refimprove tag is justified. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Referencing needs a lot of work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unsourced, far from ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  20:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you support it?  I Need Support  :V 20:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I believe his death should be mentioned on the main page because he was an important man of commerce? p  b  p  21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although notability of the subject is considered here, the article's quality is also considered. Due to the numerous unsourced information the article has—which I was not able to find any sources that supports the unsourced information—I have to give the oppose vote.  I Need Support  :V 22:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, notability is not "considered" here, per the text in the template which has been there for probably two years or longer, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article, and any votes which attempt to circumvent that RFC-based approach are wasteful and pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still say support, though. p  b  p  23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, in the face of one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Multiple unsourced paragraphs, let alone sentences. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP violations aplenty. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there some rule I missed where The Rambling Man is so much of a God on ITNC that he gets to vote twice? p  b  p  23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He simply forgets he opposed, probably because of the two weird support votes for BLP violation to be featured on mainpage. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, struck. Voting to support a BLP violation to be on the main page is indeed truly weird. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose in the current state. Ping me when resolved which at present seems unlikely to happen in time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian submarine Losharik

 * Oppose for now. Not enough material for a blurb. One paragraph of six sentences does not meet our customary standards for ITN. The incident does sound like a serious accident. But we generally require extensive coverage and prefer that events being nominated be independently notable with their own article. I am open to revisiting the nomination if there is enough expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the update is a bit short at present, hopefully more information will become available soon to allow expansion. Worth noting that the guidelines at In the news state: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient". If this is out of line with the "customary standards" then it needs to be replaced so as not to mislead newcomers - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I think that part of the guideline needs clarification. I can't remember an event that did not have its own article and had only a single paragraph worth of coverage getting consensus for posting here, with the occasional exception of enormously important persons whose deaths are judged to warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This one's very different to ARA San Juan (S-42), for example, perhaps because it's a Russian secret and because it didn't disappear. I'm surprised we have even got this amount of information. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not convinced of significance of this accident. It's not comparable to the Kursk disaster, in which 118 died. (The Kursk was about eight times the size of the Losharik.) Tragic for those affected, but of negligible wider import. – Sca (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar opinion - we generally do not report deaths of enlisted soldiers while on duty, unless it is on a massive scale like K-141. --M asem (t) 21:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that it makes much difference but the crew of this spy submarine are not enlisted; they are all officers - the dead included seven captains and two heroes of the Russian Federation. The significance of this story is that it happened on a vessel used for some very secret work at great depth (it is capable of tapping underwater communications cables for example) - Dumelow (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support this was on my radio today, twice, so it's clearly in the news, and the article appears to be just about adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Sufficiently expanded, appears fully cited, and in the news internationally. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as we posted K-152 Nerpa at ITN. Submarine fires with loss of life are rare and newsworthy, especially on such a unique vessel. Jehochman Talk 22:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – BBC (added above) says fire in nuclear-powered submersible research vessel broke out in battery compartment. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sca. Article updated. Don't think this affects the existing blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. I note that the blurb listed here is not the one that appears on Main page. Have suggested another possibility.

(Closed) Ursula von der Leyen as European Commission President

 * Oppose Would likely support, conditional on article quality, if actually elected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until she have been confirmed by the European Parliament. ― Heb the best (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until she is actually confirmed. 82.21.211.103 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - This will be appropriate once she is confirmed. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per previous three. Would much prefer a separate article on these changes – which involve other notables, not just von der Leyen. (Four RS sources added.) – Sca (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until she is actually confirmed. - AbDaryaee (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose badly written blurb, and nominations are meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For something that's meaningless it's getting a lot of prominent RS coverage. But as said, wait. – Sca (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose at least until the confirmation (these are not "elections" in layman's terms). Article is very good though, almost manicured.  I sigh a little at the real paucity of leadership in the EU, though.  I guess suffering the worst electoral defeat in 70 years won't stop you from becoming President so long as you're in the right clique and have the right idpol intersectionalities.91.153.84.73 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) July 2019 Kabul attack

 * Support. Well referenced. Good quality. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per MSN12102001 Cwilson97 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose war zone, expected event, appalling blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I accept your oppose but not your disrespect for my English. Regards. --LLcentury (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per TRM. Sadly, such events aren't unusual in Vietnamistan. – Sca (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per article quality and number of deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Fourty is quite the body count, even in that part of the world. Good article to boot. jack chango   talk  00:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is clearly notable and sufficiently in the news. Davey2116 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with Comment There was more than one attack and the blurb should cover more aspects of the issue .-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Norman Geisler

 * Support as nom. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:2C57:36BA:16CA:A0FD (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid support as your support is already assumed by the fact that you nominated it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of possible OR, external links in body, and almost complete reliance on primary sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It needs a severe prune and possibly a trip to AfD . Espresso Addict (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Having taken a look at the obituaries, Geisler seems notable, however that was not clear from the article. If someone is prepared to rewrite completely based wholly on obituaries and other independent coverage it could be reconsidered. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Espresso Addict. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a complete re-write.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tyler Skaggs

 * Okay, I think the sourcing looks generally good now. Should be ready, unless I'm not seeing the forest for the trees Nohomersryan (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Very sad news. Article is (gasp!) in decent shape. Not seeing any major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. We should possibly consider giving it a blurb depending on the cause of death, given his age. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. A few sources still needed. Oppose blurb without further evidence of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How can someone dying at the age of 27 not qualify for a blurb? Those are extremely highly unusual circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think we need to wait to see the cause. Almost any health-related reason would be very unlikely, especially given that he was a professional baseball player. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He was a professional baseball player who spent a good portion of his career sitting out with multiple injuries and surgeries. When he did pitch, he lost more games than he won. When he died, he joined the quite common and evergrowing 27 Club. None of this indicates good health, excellence in his field or freakishness. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted as RD. Blurb discussion can continue if desired, although I think consensus is unlikely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)