Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Martin Perscheid

 * Support Perscheid was one of Germany's most famous cartoonists. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This stub has less than 200 words of prose. Any more materials to add? This death in July was reported on August 5th. Should this nom be listed in the August 5th section on WP:ITN/C?--PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a rule that articles need to be of a certain length. Not sure what more to add, he was a pretty private person and I cannot find any real biographical sources... As for the date, the instructions say to list it on the day of the event, not the day of the reporting so I listed it here. Regards So  Why  12:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page. I usually expect 1500 characters of readable prose like in DYK.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That quote is from the "blurb" section (WP:ITN). I expanded it over the 1500-mark now though. Regards So  Why  19:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the expansion. It's still quite slim, but it's long enough. --PFHLai (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerzy Matuszkiewicz

 * Support - Made a new assessment, as Start. As far as I can see this article is RD ready. Thanks to the improvements made.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Connor

 * Support Article appears to be sufficiently referenced. rawmustard (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Terry Cooper (footballer, born 1944)

 * Oppose No improvement yet - multiple unsourced paragraphs. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Better now? Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine now, thanks. Support. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support All sourced now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Women's 100m Olympic record

 * Support in principle. This record is more prestigious and followed more than the triple jump record that we posted.  If we are going to have more than one record posted, though, we'll have to figure out what to do here. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misread this. Agree with . 331dot (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's an Olympic record, not a World record. The Olympics are only held every four years and always have many Olympic records, 8 in 2016 in List of Olympic records in athletics. This one was old in a high-profile event but not ITN material during two weeks full of Olympic news. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct it is officially an Olympic record. I will note that 100m is arguably the most prestigious event in the entire Olympics. Wqwt (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not even a world record. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the oldest Olympic athletics record besides long jump if anyone cares. The IOC probably still has a policy of never having summer at altitude again so the Olympic long jump record might be unbeatable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Including women (which this was), there are three older records at List of Olympic records in athletics, and seven other from 1988. The men's long jump World record was set at low altitude in 1991. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I must've misremembered the headcanon version where the two 1980 Moscow records are fake cause steroids. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is effectively a world record as it is widely accepted now that Flo-Jo's 10.49 was strongly wind-assisted and only added to the record books due to a faulty wind gauge. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * She ran 10.61 the next day so it would be a tied record. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10.61 but with 4mph easier wind. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter what you feel, the IAAF lists Florence Griffith as the world record holder, so this 2021 time wasn’t a world record.Tvx1 10:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a world record, only an Olympic record at the level of thousandths of a second. Thompson's good, so it'll be even sweeter to post when she does get the world record. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Khaliq Sambhali

 * Support - Owais Talk 19:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Rather stubby at 269 words. – Sca (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have always followed the DYK standard, the article is 1696 characters, much more than 1500! ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People read words, not individual characters. – Sca (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added few more stuff in the article, and the addition of more content is only possible at the availability of offline resources. I've asked for a book, and would definitely continue expanding the article. BUT in my opinion, the article in its current condition is fine for inclusion on the ITN. I do not agree this being a stub, but a start-class article and has everything sourced. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Up to 360 words and looking quite a bit better. OK for RD. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. A little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Vanhoye

 * It's a longer article now, and it uses a better range/mix of sources. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Do we need footnotes in the "Selected works" section, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I added refs to their WorldCat entries, will also look for and add ISBN's if they exist JW 1961 Talk 18:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ISBN's also added where they exist, hope that's all ok now JW 1961 Talk 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for adding the new footnotes so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Thomas Joseph

 * Oppose Could use greater depth of coverage: at present, mostly a resume in prose format. Only has 2 paragraphs of prose in the body when traditionally 3 is considered the minimum.  Spencer T• C 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is very close to being ready. please can you have a look at 's feedback and have the comments addressed? Should be ready for homepage once that is done. Unfortunately, I do not have cycles, else would have lent a hand. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Lindbergh

 * Posted Stephen 23:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaime Chamorro Cardenal

 * Support Looks good for RD, pretty well referenced everywhere JW 1961 Talk 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in great shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Gulf of Oman incident

 * Weak Support Notable enough, but article is lacking.38.39.134.247 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At 225 words quite stubby. Larger significance doubtful. – Sca (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral A British citizen was killed and Boris Johnson has only just responded. Now he's not great at dealing with Iran, but that suggests to me that it is pretty significant (deaths, political reaction), but not enough to top the news. May become more significant later, at which point a different nom can be discussed. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Toshihide Maskawa

 * Oppose References lacking; resume-style position list should ideally be integrated into the prose section about his career with additional details.  Spencer T• C 03:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. It's striking that, being a Nobel laureate, he has so little information about his career. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. - following up on this one. Would you be able to address the above comments? This article goes stale and will fall out of eligibility very soon. Ktin (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hal Wootten

 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage for most of his career, such as the University of NSW Faculty of Law and Supreme Court of New South Wales sections; resume in prose format.  Spencer T• C 13:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Spencer. Hopefully, wikieditors from Australia with access to more materials on Dean Wootten can help beef up his wikibio soon. --PFHLai (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Following up on this note to see if you were able to update this article. It goes stale and out of eligibility very soon. Ktin (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janice Mirikitani

 * Weak support Would prefer a little more depth of coverage (e.g. what causes was she an activist for? Article says "activism for Glide Memorial United Methodist Church" but it's unclear what this means), but what's there meets minimum standards. Referenced.  Spencer T• C 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to go now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Levin

 * Oppose The article isn't terrible, but it's not main page ready yet IMO. A few of his stances are completely unsourced, and there are huge disorganized swathes of text that probably amount to undue weight. Granted, the latter is probably not a barrier to main page posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent enough shape to merit posting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ready to re-review. I've added citations and commented out some bits I can't find sources for, but are not essential info for the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we have some refs for "Committee assignments", please? Just bullet-points with no prose? Not really sure when he did what there. --PFHLai (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , cited. I'm not sure the exact time on each committee either. Unfortunately this is the standard way we present committee info for members of Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes there. IMO, those bullet-points don't tell enough of the story and are better deployed in the infobox. I'd prefer having prose there to tell the whole story. Oh, well... it's okay. Let the "standard way" be. Posting --PFHLai (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mo Hayder

 * Posted Stephen 09:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janet Banana

 * Support. Sufficiently expanded and thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment: Bravo! Bananas.svg Thanks a bunch for the nice expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to slip up on this one. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ben Wagin

 * Support, after I fixed some Germanism - please help with more if you can - and made ill connections. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD now JW 1961 Talk 18:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ron Popeil

 * Oppose, weakly, in current form; several paragraphs lack clear references. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Maharashtra floods

 * Support article is short but quality is sufficient. Event is covered by major news outlets.  Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron 32 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, Weak Oppose on length (Though I do agree that the quality is sufficient) - There are no images except for the map, and I feel that the article can be expanded further. Tube·of·Light 01:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Joey Jordison

 * Support One of the most well-known and influential drummers in metal music. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 3 paragraphs/sentences unsourced; most of discography and parts of the filmography unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once brought up to par. A rather unusual death considering his age. Dare one suggest a blurb?--WaltCip- (talk)  12:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You know full well that "support once brought up to par" is meaningless when discussing RD, and that he obviously wasn't worthy of a blurb, so I'm not sure what the point of your comment was. -- Kicking222 (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is he not worthy of a blurb? Was not the death unusual and unexpected? WaltCip- (talk)  12:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Few cn tags from an overall sourced article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dusty Hill

 * Oppose really crap article for such a prominent musician. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose For an eminently notable person, this article doesn't establish such and is barely more than a stub. Also missing sources for near about everything. Desperately needs clean-up work. Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, from when I nominated it, the sourcing has been drastically improved and looks ready from solely that point. --M asem (t) 23:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We may have differing views on what constitutes "a stub". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As explained by nominator, "short but given his primary notability is with the band, that's expected". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rambles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to check, you think the article is "really crap", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure what state the article was in when it was first nominated, but as now, while short, it is definitely longer than a stub, and it seems fully referenced. -- Jayron 32 10:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved and is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Article much improved.  Spencer T• C 16:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Hendrick

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced. Would like to see a little more about his domestic test career but what's there meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 13:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for me. Marked as ready. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Menchu Álvarez del Valle

 * Support Article is relatively brief but covers what the subject was notable for with adequate depth. Referenced.  Spencer T• C 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment Marking it's ready because...it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Saint Lucian general election

 * Weak support the article seems to be close to being ready, but it would be convenient to have a section on the election polls, the reactions and aftermath and, if possible, something more about the results. As soon as this is fixed, my support will be full. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In far better shape than most elections when they first get nominated. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Alsoriano97. Article quality is decent, could use some beefing up, but it is better than many elections articles.  -- Jayron 32 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Never understood ITN's election fever, which is so dogmatically inclusive, it often includes elections in borderline micro states, like Saint Lucia, a country whose population is less than 200,000 people. Mayoral elections in major cities are of more moment. Oh well, a mystery, I guess... El_C 15:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * a mayor is not a prime minister or a president no matter how much the city has half of the world's population or not. Easy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, because who leads the sovereign nation of Saint Lucia is a super-important item that's In The News. I bow in reverence, Easy Rider. El_C 16:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we get this guy's picture off the front page? We have an ongoing Olympics and floods, both of which would make far better pictures than some guy's face and chest. 1779Days (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please nominate replacement pics here on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosine Vieyra Soglo

 * Support Expanded and updated; appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon In-fa and 2021 Henan floods

 * Support updated blurb it's already a blurb. New article is clearly relevant to the blurb, and it meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Cyclonebiskit  HurricaneEdgar    03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support updating blurb as new article is more than good enough, and demonstrates a wider importance. And the one already on front page is still fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Cyclonebiskit. Both events are related and definitely relevant enough to receive their own ITN posts. the updated blurb is appropriate, in light of the unfolding flooding disaster, and the significance of the event definitely warrants this.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Although there's still one cn tag pending to be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Topic absent from prime RS sites on Wednesday. (BBC, CNN cites above are three days old.) Nominator is a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, as are users HurricaneParrot and StopBoi. — Sca (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Being a member (or not) of a WikiProject isn't a reason to ignore people's opinions. Although your thinly veiled attempts to claim bias towards supporters of this nomination are clear. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. As noted in the past, the topic of WPTC is relevant to the subject of this nomination. No bias on my part. (And BTW, one of my favorite sea stories is Typhoon by Joseph Conrad, about which I wrote a term paper eons ago. Recommended reading.) . – Sca (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless the typhoon itself brings significantly more deaths to the current toll (based on the numbers that I see how the ITN template has been updated over the last few days as the current blurb has been there), I don't see a need for this. If the typhoon is found to contribute to dozens of additional deaths, then I would agree that a new blurb would be reasonable, but right now, the deaths seem mostly to stem from the original flooding/mudslides before the typhoon arrived. --M asem (t) 14:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * About $2 billion USD excluding Henan vs $14.7 billion including, others can judge if the deaths plus $2 billion where a dollar builds more is enough. It landed north of earlier forecasts which likely kept it a few inches under the mainland China cyclone rain record of ~a meter instead of above (coastal mountain ranges are like juicers that rapidly disassemble uphill-blowing parts of tropical cyclones into orographic rain, the taller (2.5 vertical miles!) coast at Taiwan once made 10.04 feet of rain from weak typhoon) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the most notable part of this story seems to be changing the outdoor Olympic schedules, it's otherwise not covered in the news as far as I can see. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The other tropical storm in northish Japan was in the news for affecting outdoor Olympics, did this one rain on Olympic places too? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be Tropical Storm Nepartak, not Typhoon In-fa. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 02:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is this one isn't really in the news, everyone is distracted by its little brother messing up sports day? Got it.
 * Oppose on not newsworthy. Routine and uninteresting enough that typhoon season isn't in ITN/R. Nothing special about this typhoon to set it apart from that ball of nothing. Yes, we have recently posted other floods, but all of those were/are exceptional. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Surprising dearth of news coverage given the apparent cost and death toll.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus narrowly in favor of posting; article is in good shape.  Spencer T• C 05:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Enzi

 * More refs needed to address {CN} tags and paragraphs with no footnotes. The section on Electoral history is also unref'd. --PFHLai (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey I am going to fix all of these problems today since I just finished writing the article about his successor Cynthia Lummis. I just added some stuff about his early political career too. Jon698 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great, Jon698. Please consider adding yourself to the list of updaters when you are done updating this wikibio for RD. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion on the article now? Jon698 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the work on this article thus far. I agree with Alsoriano97's comments below. And the "Committee assignments" subsection would be better presented as prose rather than bullet-points. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I just added a few more cn tags, which I imagine can be easily fixed. The "Committee assignments" subsection should have also be sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding those citation needed tags. I dealt with them and added some information. What are your thoughts on the article now? Jon698 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: R. Rajamahendran

 * Support - Fully sourced start-class article. Meets criteria for RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Tunisian prime minister ouster

 * Comment – Widely reported on Monday.     Police occupied Al Jazeera bureau, ejected staff. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Kais Saied (which is article linked in the nom) has quite a bit of unsourced content, which would need fixing, as well as an expansion of the lead. Hichem Mechichi is also too short for front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There now exists a dedicated article on the current events: 2021 Tunisian political crisis. --bender235 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a bit short but this should be the target article. Support on notability when expanded. --Tone 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that should be the target article if posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support It's ITNworthy, no doubt, and is having at least outstanding international coverage. But the target article is perhaps still too short. I also think the blurb should also indicate that Parliament has been suspended, but I don't know how to make it less long. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see if you think the altblurb I've proposed looks better. It doesn't seem outrageously too long. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose due to quality As of my viewing of the article, it's one sentence paragraphs in the lead and the body consists only of "reactions" in bulleted lists. We need a proper article body. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Trash the flag salad. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – on quality. The flags are gone, and that's a relief, but the 'Reactions' section still comprises 80 percent of the wordage. More narrative prose, less peripheral comment would improve the article. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But don't you care what Qatar thinks? WaltCip- (talk)  16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Youn mean Kater? – Sca (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality needs more prose, rather than just being a list of reactions. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - on importance. Important news in the Arab World. Putting it in the "In the News" section is a good way to help other countries to wake up and help Tunisia's democracy.<b style="color:#0033ab">ATGYT12</b> (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC+1)
 * No, that's not the purpose of ITN. Please see WP:RGW.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of WP:RGW, I don't think anyone would argue that this lacks the importance to be on ITN. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing that. It's the substandard character of the article that bars it from Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality I'm OK with an article that doesn't have much prose showing up on ITN, but the article currently needs a bit more background and a few more references. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho

 * Support Article is a GA article and is in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we need footnotes in Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho first, please? --PFHLai (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the editing conflict! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is now fully sourced and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Moses

 * Needs a fair number of additional citations. I’ll try to work on it today. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Well that took longer than expected. I think everything that needs to be is sourced now (though I’ve read it enough times now that fresh eyes on couldn’t hurt.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Dieter Brummer

 * Comment Awards and Filomographies will need referencing, will support when fixed JW 1961 Talk 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still lacking in citations for tables on Guest appearances and Filmography. --PFHLai (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Köfer

 * Support Article length ok, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Rodney Alcala

 * Weak oppose Timeline unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still lacking citations in the Timeline section. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jackie Mason

 * Weak oppose Overall the article is in good shape minus the works section is which nearly entirely unsourced. Weak support Though not entirely sourced, a good portion of the works section has been significantly been improved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird, it's actually tagged, uses IMDB (an non-RS) extensively, and is still subject to WP:BLP. It's nowhere near ready.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird. The IMDB sources have all been replaced. How did that happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs citations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. "I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any commentary on the actual article which fails BLP, yet you still support? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a rule that if it makes you laugh you have to support it? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not angry, just finding it bizarre that you'd support a BLP with a maintenance tag, several missing citations and IMDB as a source. Of course, your humour may vary. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said that was you? There are no tags. I've adjusted my !vote. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still tagged. Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I was starting to source the missing sections, but I need to know if the discography is just recordings of his shows, which can then be removed instead. Anyone know for sure? Kingsif (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources suggest they are all just recordings of his shows. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support all cleaned up, sources seem to check out. Kingsif (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like it's been cleaned up sufficiently. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "My grandfather always said, Don't watch your money, watch your health. So one day while I was watching my health, someone stole my money. It was my grandfather." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * “ The budget of this country was $136 billion last year. Do you know what I gave them? Twelve dollars. Without my $12 they can’t get along? First spend $136 billion, then, if you’re $12 short, give me a call.” -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Sierra Leone abolishes the death penalty

 * Oppose a lot of countries have abolished the death penalty. Sierra Leone just joins a long list (at the bottom) of those countries who have stopped doing such foul and inhumane things.   The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What about abortion lol. Though abortion restrictions would increase the % of the born who's parents were too unreluctant to kill fetus and too irresponsible to fulfill their simple wish of no conception and that would be even more inhumane. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the place. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. We haven't done it before, we won't do it now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "23rd African state" to end it is not significant. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mike Mitchell

 * Oppose article has not been updated with reliable sources supporting the death. Again. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions/Caution: Please check if the correct Mike Mitchell got nominated for RD. Has this Mike Mitchell died, but this Mike Mitchell got nominated here instead? The nominated one is only 38 years ago, not 65 as reported by TMZ. Why rush before reliable sources are in place? --PFHLai (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mumbai landslide

 * Comment – Al Jazeera puts toll at 135+. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is barely more than a stub- could it be expanded? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Trueman

 * Support Referenced, sufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Steven Weinberg

 * Asking for a blurb I believe Professor Weinberg is worthy of a blurb. He won a Nobel Prize for unifying two of the fundamental forces in the universe, and is considered among the top few physicists of a golden age of particle physics and physics generally, a field that is studied/use throughout the world Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't find any WP:RS confirming his death.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose unless reliable sources (e.g. not just people on Twitter) announce that this is definitely true. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He was one of the greatest physicists alive until yesterday, not some entertainer so it will take a while before you'll find a WP:RS reporting on this. Count Iblis (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably Monday morning. No rush... --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And until that point, RD shouldn't be considered. We should not be encouraging nominations before RS actually report deaths. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article will now be updated per WP:IAR based on reliable twitter feeds in lieu of traditional sources, so RD should be considered when the article is updated. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR does not apply to the fact that we need reliable sources to confirm death, and I don't see any RS saying it. People on Twitter are not RSes. where are these "reliable" Twitter sources- I just see random Twitter accounts posting it, no evidence of being official or reliable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See here. Quanta magazine is a reliable source, their twitter feed is verified. Count Iblis (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:RS added. Count Iblis (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Reliable source added (Associated Press). Article sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 7 paragraphs/sentences unsourced; "Honors and awards" mostly unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All reffed now Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose for RD post-posting; oppose blurb per reasoning below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Support blurb definitely one of the top 10 physicists of the 20th century, involved in a seminal theory, in a field studied throughout the world, as opposed to a sport or field that is only practised in several countries Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a duplicate !vote.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All reffed now Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb he was basically a living legend. Banedon (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments from his contemporaries. Hopefully that makes it clearer how incredibly profound his contributions were Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * asked me to support a blurb; I notice that user has also !voted twice already. I'm not familiar enough with Weinberg's work (or the field he worked in) to decide whether he was transformative in theoretical physics. The quotes in the article are certainly impressive, though it's unclear whether he reaches the high threshold we set for a blurb. The article is surprisingly light on his research career, so even if his is blurb-worthy it won't be obvious to readers why. Stephen Hawking got a blurb; Weinberg was undoubtedly a better scientist, but Hawking had a much wider recognition. So I guess I'm agnostic on blurb vs RD. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment for a "legend" I'm not seeing any real coverage of his death beyond the usual mundane stuff. Sounds like a load of hyperbole to me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per TRM due to lack of coverage that you saw for a David Bowie, a Margaret Thatcher, and yes, even Carrie Fisher. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As a general rule we only blurb deaths when the death itself is the story. I do not see this as one of the rare cases (per WP:ITNRD) where we make an exception.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb if Freeman Dyson didn't get a blurb, neither should Weinberg. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfred Biolek

 * Support Can confirm he is well-known in Germany, though maybe not so much elsewhere. Article looks suitable. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to be well known, as notability is not at issue for RD nominations. If he merits an article, he merits posting, once the article is adequately updated. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I meant to expand and nominate, - nice surprise that it's done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gerda made recently substancial contributions to the article, so added to updater. Grimes2 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support looks well sourced and more than long enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing: Summer Olympics

 * Comment is this article really a better choice than 2020 Summer Olympics to add to the ongoing? Especially when the calendar and Top NOCs by Athletes sections have 0 sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the chronological summary is what we always post to ongoing and even before it (remember that we had Olympic summary which motivated the introduction of the ongoing section).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So I am not the only one who remembers when the 2006 Winter Olympics . Or when the 2004 Olympics had its own dedicated Main Page section and template. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But we'll always have the gift that keeps on giving (stubs), WP:NOLY.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is a mess that nobody seems to want to fix. Maybe common sense should be used, rather than trying to force crap onto the main page? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I prefer to post it as 'Olympic summary' rather than '2020 Summer Olympics' or 'Summary Olympics'. It's important to include the word 'summary' so that readers easily get what it really is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In 2016, ongoing linked Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Olympics, piping it to "Summer Olympics".—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing any detail or any citations. ITNR it may be but this is clearly not serving our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Only post if the page will be regularly be updated and cited. I myself will not be doing it this year. Not only I am more busy in real life, but I am concerned about the current page sizes and the use of collapsible tables on both the 2016 and 2020 articles (see here and here). The addition of a list of Top NOC by Athletes was not my idea either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who is updating, the page is currently mostly without detail and unreferenced. It's a no.  If we could find a decent target, then let's use that.  This is not a good idea right now.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only decent target would probably be the main 2020 Summer Olympics page right now, but it currently is using some of the same unsourced number of athletes by NOCs and the calendar table. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I do not want to get involved, don't have the time to deal with this: Special:Diff/1035146925. Maybe this should be the year that it should not get posted anytime soon -- neither the main article nor the chronological summary. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This format is an egregious violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Basically, "This is so important to be linked from the front page, but actually not that important, since we'll just hide everything."—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to emphasize again that I am also opposed to the collapsible tables per MOS:COLLAPSE. I have been reverted on the 2016 page and another IP began to add it to the 2020 page soon after I moved it from the draftspace. I do not have the time or the patience this year to get into debates with this. If there are not enough editors who want it badly enough to get it onto ITN, so be it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Such is life on WP with sports: non-stop table churn justified by being collapsible.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title is an inherent absurd lie, enough to know when "2020" officially opens and closes, two easy blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article being suggested is a mess, but the 2020 Summer Olympics article is actually a decent article. Why not apply some common sense and add this one to ongoing? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All day-by-day summaries of the previous Olympics have the same structure (see this, this, this, this and this). While quality is important and our criteria for posting usually require prose updates, this is a notable exception that was established long time ago (I also can't imagine how long the article would be if prose updates are added for more than 100 qualifying and final events taking place during a day.). Suppose a reader wants to find a detailed list of all final events today or the names of the medalists in those events. There's no other way to get this information if we don't link to a summary article of this format. I understand your concerns but sometimes we need to ignore all rules in order to serve our readers in the most practical way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it correct. And just because we posted chronologies before, doesn't mean we should do it again. Adding an ongoing link as 2020 Summer Olympics is also a clear violation of WP:EASTEREGG. But whatever, insist on using this article and they'll be nothing listed.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've apparently missed my comment above in which I suggest posting Olympic summary rather than 2020 Summer Olympics or Summer Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently I have, that would be more sensible. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stop staring at your navels and post something. The bikeshed is painted black. Rmhermen (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The chronological summary article is egregiously undercited, and the main article is already in the blurb. Therefore, nothing can happen at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some navel starers will need to start editing and addressing concerns first.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're an admin?? Wow. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Olympics opening ceremony

 * It was suggested that this be combined with the Brisbane 2032 announcement. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if we should mention the delay due to the pandemic. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, I don't think we need to elaborate Support once last section is fixed. TubeOfLight  Talk Less, Smile More  11:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Dammit, I was 1 minute late (ceremony started at 11 AM UTC)  Updated  TubeOfLight  Talk Less, Smile More  11:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an ITNR event, meaning support on the merits is not required. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... I checked the Games article for quality instead of the opening ceremony and said that... Anyways, I think we need the "Ceremony key team" to be cleaned up as the title sounds weird and the source is given as a separate line. TubeOfLight  Talk Less, Smile More  11:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thought it might be useful to compare what we did last time, though, of course, consensus can change. The blurb was: "The Summer Olympics open in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.".  We wouldn't link the city now, I think.  A link to "Summer Olympics" was added to ongoing at the time of posting, rather than waiting for it to fall off the template.  The article linked in ongoing was soon after changed to Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Olympics - Dumelow (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added that as alt. I'm sure some admin will add an appropriate ongoing link. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention Osaka lighting the cauldron? 87.241.189.205 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment some unsourced sentences in the Ceremony and Proceedings sections, plus all the Dignitaries in attendance. Once sourced, would support, and also support putting into ongoing (as it's the world's largest multi-sport event). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought the Olympics was added to the Ongoing line, due to so much (reader) interest, and it spanning the best part of three weeks too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is, but the opening and closing ceremonies are also blurb stories in their own right, per WP:ITN/R. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dignitaries in attendance sourcing is inadequate.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's at 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, but you could have been bold and added it yourself if it wasn't already there. It's certainly not a prerequisite for ITN posting.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought this meant mention it in the blurb. Yes, it makes sense for the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or it's a Magic Eye trick.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Have added refs to the last section and reffed the other CN tag. cc:   Spencer T• C 21:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Cornell

 * Support Strop deserves a better article, but it is fully referenced at least. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Rehberg

 * Oppose Career section is essentially a resume in prose format. Any reactions to his work? Outside of the intro sentence stating that he composed "electronic audio works", the article gives me no idea of what his work sounded like or in what settings it was popular or utilized. That said, article is reffed and with an additional well-formed paragraph (or additional sentences in each current paragraph or something similar), this should be ready to go.  Spencer T• C 21:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Still not exactly sure what the subject's music sounds like but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 04:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is ready to go now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Sub-postmaster scandal

 * Oppose Purely local news, completely insignificant to the rest of the world. Mlb96 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support, as it looks to be major news in the UK, and the article has had a lot of work leading up to this point. However, I am very concerned that the relevant update (beginning with sentence "As of 22 July 2021, a total of 59 former sub-postmasters...") seems to have been lifted from this BBC article, and as such further copyright checks are needed before further consideration. A new blurb (assuming reader is unfamiliar with prior events) may also be in order. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless a substantial number of other Brits have been falsely accused of fraud and waited decades for sixteen hundred pounds of payback as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this is an interesting news story, but I don't think it's appropriate for ITN. We did not (for example) post the first (or all) of the executions by the U.S. Federal Government in 2020, the first time in 18 years, but I believe that this was about the same level of notability -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At least nobody went postal to hit the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS fetish.—Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mlb96. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm in the UK, and it's not even on the front page of BBC News here anymore. It is an unusual case, but it doesn't have the level of national and international of the Hillsborough disaster and scandal. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ISS module Nauka

 * Comment. I am mildly concerned by the two "problem" tags (the update one and the copyedit one), and the rules say that articles with such templates generally should not be accepted. Jarrod Baniqued has added them like, 6 hours ago, and I think something should be done with it before the nomination passes (at least the copyedit seems necessary). Plus the calendar-like section of the preparations to the launch seems IMHO quite offensive for an ITN-quality article and needs reorganisation. When these issues are addressed, I will vote for the nomination, as the topic is indeed important, but the quality could be better. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know I might be moderately hypocritical and have suboptimal reasoning for this, but I don't think we should post this if we rejected the Branson/Bezos flights; doing so would send a very odd message given what's actually been in the news. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That message being we cover encyclopedic content, yes. WaltCip- (talk)  13:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is saying that we have a very odd conception of what counts as "encyclopedic" compared to the general public. I say this as someone who firmly believes that nobody whose opinions matter really cares about what some website does, but this is the Main Page. I know I'm being out!voted here, so I'll let this conversation be. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is nice ITN material and news of high encyclopedic value. New compartments of the International Space Station are not launched every day and this is expected to have research function.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is extremely well developed. I believe this is ITNR. Albertaont (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support While this might not be as in the news as the billionaire "space" flights, it is far more encyclopedic.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; the bold article is egregious WP:PROSELINE and the section headings in that proseline appear to be editorial invention. I would also prefer to wait until it arrives at its destination to post, but don't feel strongly about that.  User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 00:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, I agree with the points made by . And it has orange-tagged section, and a general "needs a copyedit" tag on article, so clearly not in a fit state for main page yet. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Perhaps it would make more sense to post this after it (successfully) docks in a week. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for successful dock per . Would also give some time to fix the remaining issues. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just noting that the ITNR list says "launch", not arrival. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does the Rule Book say that? Isn't the purpose of the mission to get Нау́ка and all its stuff to the ISS? That won't happen until it docks with the ISS. Let's use logic (логика) on this one, comrades. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying what it says, "The launch of space stations or major components thereof". If it doesn't make it there, the blurb can be amended. We can also post it when ready and amend the blurb when it arrives. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Get it right the first time." – Old news biz saying. – Sca (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember why we retired? Everything went wrong! Move on, forget it and maybe do better next time, that's the new mantra, admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get it wrong to say it was launched and then later say it didn't make it. Blurbs are updated and changed all the time. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rockets are launched all the time. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "First and last launch of any rocket" is ITNR too. I don't understand the reluctance here(in general not you specifically) Feel free to propose changing the ITNR listing to your preferred wording. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The launch is nothing; docking is everything. – Sca (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It can't be docked until it's launched, so I would disagree. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a saying here on ITN too: "Go get the wording on ITNR changed." WaltCip- (talk)  16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, time for the news on TV. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait for docking, which is clearly what counts for a space station module. The article is substantial but could use some TLC - a light copyedit, sorting out the WP:PROSELINE etc. There are no show-stoppers but it would be good to have the article fixed up by the time docking occurs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not invested enough in this to object to the wording change of the ITNR listing, but I wasn't confused about it; the plain langauge said "launch" and this component's launch was a story itself, probably more so than the actual installation. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Brisbane to host 2032 Summer Olympics

 * Hmmm only reason I am unsure this should be posted in the current state is the poor introduction, which does not explain at all clearly how are "interested parties that did not advance" better/more advanced than "other bids that did not advance" from "cancelled or rejected" bids. How are these 3 categories different, and for something ITN it should be far more clearly explained, because right now the article reads like "there was one single bid, and a bunch of other undefined bids". 2601:602:9200:1310:4893:74A5:E26C:891D (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What's going on with the map? Also, a link to Brisbane bid for the 2032 Summer Olympics may be warranted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly support The last time an Olympics bid was awarded was also posted on ITN. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR but I would suggest that we plan to incorporate this into a blurb that announces the opening of the Olympics in 2 days. eg "The 2020 Summer Olympics begin, while Brisbane is announced as the host for the 2032 Summer Olympics". (this assuming article quality on all parts). --M asem (t) 01:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is good to go now, so would support posting it now. If there's consensus to do so, it can be merged with a 2020 Olympics opening ceremony post later, but there's no need to wait 2 days just because another Olympics thing is happening then. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll add Australia to the blurb to specify where Brisbane is. --Tone 08:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Can someone replacing the image of Terunofuji Haruo with the city of Brisbane please? 180.241.209.217 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which image though? There's many venue images in 2032 Summer Olympics- maybe The Gabba, as that's the athletics venue (and so presumably the main venue)? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. The current Tokyo Olympics are actually sorta happening in 2021 not 2020.  In such circumstances, it is ridiculous to be making confident predictions about what's going to happen 11 years from now.  The smart money is now putting a lot of distance between themselves and the Olympics as it is now considered a toxic brand.  Wikipedia should therefore not rush to join some promotional puff that may not actually happen. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While there are WP:CRYSTAL issues, I disagree that we should be using the problems around the current Tokyo Olympics to say that the 2032 ones may never happen. Heck, future Olympic games are specifically mentioned as acceptable under CRYSTAL as long as it's well documented. If the 2032 games are ultimately canned well before they happen, there's still factual information around host city selection/etc. that'd we keep. --M asem (t) 13:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Complete black swans such as the 2020 hullabaloo don't count towards WP:CRYSTAL. There's a reasonable expectation for an Olympics in 2032 (as there was in 2020 prior to March), so it'd be completely asinine to not post this for fear of a remote chance of being proven wrong. Besides, the "toxicity" is only due to the 2020 Olympics in particular, not the Olympics in general. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Brisbane Olympics have already turned toxic – see Disgusting! And notice that the article linked in the blurb says absolutely nothing about this furore, which is now dominating coverage in Australia and elsewhere.  That article has the title Bids for the 2032 Summer Olympics but notice that there wasn't a vote because Brisbane was the only candidate.  Our coverage seems to be business-as-usual PR rather than giving a NPOV and accurate account. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No crystal issues at all. Brisbane has been announced as the 2032 host.  That's indisputable and verifiable.  If the article needs improvement, go and fix it.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article indicates that others are updating Wikipedia in their own way to reflect this. Me, I have a point to make about black swans – an Australian bird which JMW mentions above.  It seems that black swan events are an everyday occurrence now.  For example, the Chinese floods were reported as being of once-per-1000-years level – a year's rain in just 3 days.  This is a black swan event which is actually happening right now rather than being speculation about 11 years in the future.  But ITN has rushed to post the speculation while dragging its feet over the present. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No speculation has been posted. The announcement has been posted. It's there in plain English. Deary me.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR, this is all bosh. Complaints department is over here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uttam Nepali

 * Support Ready for RD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGF'd all the non-English refs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Henan floods

 * Support because the floods are important enough to post & the article is being rapidly improved. There's no requirement that the death toll be above a particular number in order to qualify for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support notable and article is just about there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Notable, but still seems rather a developing story. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh cynical or not, 25 deaths from a flood seems like a fairly common happening every year. 2601:602:9200:1310:4893:74A5:E26C:891D (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Henan is the cradle of East Asian civilization, they farm a fertile flood plain like the other 42+ century civilizations. 25 isn't much but typhoon is still ridiculously far from Chinese landfall and strengthening, floods might get worse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The 201.9mm rainfall in an hour in Zhengzhou is a national record, which surpassed a 1975 record during Typhoon Nina. And Zhengzhou is a 10 million population megacity, the death toll will surely increase. So you see how serious it is. But yeah, the quality of the English article is to be blamed, it makes someone think it is something "fairly common happening every year", that's bad. The quality is to be improved. However, at least there's no more cn tags, so I say support. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as there are multiple cn tags. Once fixed, consider this a support vote. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk)
 * It seems there's no cn tags at this point. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would recommend a stronger blurb to indicate why this particularly flooding is unusual compared to the typical floods that happen in SE Asia this time of year, beyond the simple death tool. Maybe simply going (per Tomchen's point) "At least 33 people have died in floods and landslides in Henan, China caused by record-breaking rainfall." to give some weight of why this is internationally newsworthy. Simply on population numbers and the current time of year, this would be comparable to news about a tornado outbreak in the US that may have taken <10 lives - eg we'd not post that simply because that's par for the course. But this does seem unique due to the rainfall amount. --M asem (t) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support notable and passable quality. Yakikaki (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with Masem 's logic, but suggest we wait to see if the toll rises anytime soon. True, news often is slow outta China, and RS coverage has been rather spotty and featury. But there are Western journalists there Black Star 2.svg ... could become a major story. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but only with amended hook like the one suggested by . The flood is imo not notable for the death toll (at this point), but for breaking long-standing records.--LordPeterII (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. If those Metro scenes had been filmed on the London Underground or New York City Subway it would have been on the front page long ago? But I have to admit, it's a while since I checked out Chinese Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Just 2 weeks ago there was a waist-deep flood in some New York City subway stations and streets and a top 10 rainiest NYC hour of all time and there was a ton of opposes and it was never posted. Subway waterfall, older commuter waist-deep in filthy Manhattan subway water (different neighborhood from the waterfall), street entrance of that station, 100 feet elevation in the upper-mid levels of a minor Manhattan valley that steepens a few hundred feet left of camera for good drainage to sea level yet still waist-deep in rain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'm no longer sure. Here in the Euro-free zone we're Making Britain Great Again. I would not have opposed, for sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Not just "usual" flooding. Far exceeds the loose criteria for posting a weather article on notability.Destroyer (Alternate account) 22:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Definitely a notable event worth posting on ITN. This is an extremely damaging flood already, and the death toll is likely to increase in the days to come, unfortunately. I think that the blurb should be more detailed, though. Simply mentioning the deaths isn't enough, IMO.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – A major natural disaster under way. This report puts toll at 51, and that seems likely to rise. – Sca (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support was suprised to not find it especially after the visibility of the floods in Germany, Sadads (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How would the non-Henan landfall of the typhoon that is a major but not complete cause of the Henan flood be handled since Henan will likely be posted before landfall (forecast for July 25.5 UTC)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we have a new nomination for Typhoon In-fa (2021) & these floods together as one event, or as two related events during the same month? Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted "Floods and landslides result in at least 56 deaths in Henan, China." for now. Typhoon In-fa (2021) needs to be nominated and vetted here on ITN/C before going onto MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Black Star 2.svg Foreign journalists harassed over flood coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City

 * Support per nom. Quite unusual to lose that status, although indicative of modern aggressive real estate development in some countries. Update looks sufficient. Brandmeistertalk  19:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support curiously I thought this was just a "nothing" story but actually as noted, it's rare.  Good article, definitely in our news. I imagine it'll be declared "too local" but UNESCO is UNESCO and World Heritage Sites are global... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This reminds me of the revocation of Dresden Elbe Valley's status as World Heritage Site following the construction of the Waldschlösschen Bridge that literally prevents the clear view to the site. I don't want to delve too deeply into the strength of the arguments supporting UNESCO's decision but approving a large-scale development project in a protected area doesn't seem very sane.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite interestingly, most locals are rather saying "good riddance" to UNESCO. For reference, see comments here. (yeah, I know comments are not RS but still, just to have a glimpse into people's minds). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article has a 4 paragraph section that quite well covers the controversy and why it was removed, and as the nom noted it's only the third time something's been removed. If one can be crafted that's short enough, I think a small amount about why would be good in the blurb. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Honestly, feels like something that could be INTR. Very interesting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to go. Marked as ready. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support important as it's pretty rare. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, and would support delisting as a UNESCO site as an ITNR criteria.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Sure does. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For those interested, I've now started an ITNR discussion for future UNESCO World Heritage Site delistings based on the consensus here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Theo Jubitana

 * Support Well referenced little article. KittenKlub (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. I had to AGF all the non-English refs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck McMann

 * This wikibio is long enough. Formatting looks alright. Refs seem adequate. This nom looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elmo Rodrigopulle

 * Comment: Long enough. Refs seem okay. No glaring problems. Ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Granelli

 * Support Looks fine for RD, suitably referenced JW 1961 Talk 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) NBA Finals
Game 6 needs a written blurb. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per ITNR, blurb usually contains the winner of the NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award (Giannis in this case). Game 6 still needs a more thorough writeup. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Game 6 prose added. Please have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks good now. Support. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support has enough information about the matches, which is often the thing lacking in sports nom here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Blue Origin flight

 * ITNR only contains "orbital spaceflight" for a reason. If we set a precedent of "famous person/rich person goes to space" for this sort of "tourist" flight, that's not going to work when there's multiple of these per year. Now, if they were spending a week in orbit, that makes it more noteworthy than spending about 4 minutes in weightlessness just to be able to say "I went to space because I was rich". Now, this could be a DYK (or even an ITN potentially) if it is framed around Wally Funk (qualified astronaut who never flew) being the oldest person to go to space. Potentially being the key word - would have to be well crafted to not be too long yet still explain the significance. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been expanded to the flight as a whole, meaning the focus doesn't have to be on Bezos, I'll reiterate potentially support. My requirements would be that it focus on a notable fact (either the ages, both oldest and youngest; or the fact that a trained astronaut who never flew in her career was on this flight), and doesn't mention Bezos at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support when expanded. The first manned space tourist flight by a private company, which additionally (though slightly trivially) carried both the oldest and youngest persons to reach space. I would have supported the Unity flight for being the first, if it had actually reached space. It seems like this and flying cars have been predicted and anticipated for decades, and one of them is finally here. At last, some good news for rich people for a change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As with the prior case, this is not the first space tourist, nor first flight of this specific craft. While it is a significant step towards space travel, it is principally celebrity news --M asem (t) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, ITN doesn't just report firsts. This is unquestionably in the news, more so than Branson because of the parallels being drawn with the working conditions of Amazon workers .-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the first space tourist, but there is a pretty big difference between purchasing a seat on an established launch system versus building one from scratch. In my opinion, the distinction is notable enough to post. It's hardly mere "celebrity news". --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never had a doubt that it's possible to build a launch system from scrath with that money. Any evidence on how does this newly built system make an advancement in the field?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The richest person in the world goes to space. That's probably a good decision what to do in life with the money if you were he.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As mentioned above, I may consider this if it is about Wally Funk, preferably not mentioning the billionaire or company because I would happily add stunts to an exclusion list. Of course, what's the chance that oldest and youngest astronauts were flown as a stunt just so said billionaire got more (positive) attention. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn't post Branson and we won't post this; sub-orbital space hops just aren't that newsworthy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He came back. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , what does this even mean? That spaceflights are only newsworthy if they end in tragedy? ― Tartan357  Talk 05:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that depends on what you mean by "tragedy". "The richest person in the world takes a joyride to space"? I might support if the blurb was "The richest person in the world decides to give way all his money to the world's poor after returning from space". Might happen? I'll just abstain until it does. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support iff the emphasis is on Funk and Daemen being the oldest and youngest to go to space. Even that is debatable, but I'd rather discussion not be closed just yet. Otherwise this is just another billionaire space adventure: glad they're happening, but not newsworthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I think we are missing the forest for the trees here. Space travel is still rare and dangerous. There were notable aspects of this flight(not Bezos) and I think they got higher than Branson. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the mention of Bezos is replaced with a mention of Funk and Daeman being oldest and youngest people to go to space. Rich person goes to "space" as a standard for ITN would become very lenient in a few years.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose space is now just a journey, and while I watched this particular trip with excitement, it was just a tourist and advertising moment. If we don't post Branson, we don't advertise Amazon.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If space travel is just a journey, please show me your ticket stub. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better for you stop badgering everything I say here at ITNC. If I had $500K I could "go to space".  I don't want to go to space.  Or "space".  Now pack it in with your harassment.  As an admin you should know much better.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not harassing anyone and resent the accusation. I am responding to a comment with a legitimate criticism of your argument.  However, if you don't wish me to communicate with you ever again, I won't. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "a legitimate criticism" = " show me your ticket stub"?? Get a grip.  And yeah, best you leave me alone forever.  What a shame, I thought you had something, but clearly being an admin is too much.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's called hyperbole, but okay. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment even means, but sure, I'll do my best to avoid communicating with you. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * IRS might require Bezos to show ticket stubs to prove "legitimate business travel expense"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Proposed alt blurb without Bezos. None of the people on board were crew, they were all passengers. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Call me when he invents the warp drive. Thermo-scraping notsomuch. CoatCheck (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Unity" and "New Shepard" are terrible names, and so will be the Hyundai version, not promoting that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not notable because you don't like the name? What is going on here? ― Tartan357  Talk 05:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a supplemental Oppose, just another point of consideration. I agree with a lot of what's been said against this. Not all, but too much to repeat (I like Amazon, by the way, as a name and a service). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This was the first fully private space travel. Branson's flight did not reach the von Karman line defined to be at 100 km altitude. While that line is not all that relevant for suborbital flights (it corresponds to roughly the altitude above which the speed to generate enough lift to not lose altitude becomes larger than the speed needed to orbit the Earth), it can be said to mark the boundary line where the atmosphere is irrelevant for flight, so it is justified to call that the boundary beyond which space starts. Count Iblis (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very obviously the most newsworthy event of the day. Editors' personal bias against Bezos and Amazon should not factor into this decision. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question why is this more notable than Branson's flight, which was opposed at ITN? I'm not seeing the difference. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Branson is worth only a paltry US$5.7 billion. Because Old Beardie never passed the von Karman line, which is where space begins? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be good information for that article then, as it currently fails to explain why it's such an important event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Kármán line (or von Karman line) is an attempt to define a boundary between Earth's super-rich and Earth's really super-out-of-this-world-rich." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that Blue Origin NS-16 should include that detail- and some more other content- to explain why it's important, and to improve the currently insufficient article quality of the flight article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is 1400 characters long: this is way too short to be posted on ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh first launch of a rocket is ircc ITNR, and crewed flights are also ITNR. But since Branson's wasn't and this whole thing took under 10 minutes till landing, it is pretty meh.  2601:602:9200:1310:B112:B2E9:BC7A:3E88 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe they had test launched this without passengers previously, and it's orbital flights, not crewed flights in general. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:IAR and WP:NOTNEWS. We do not cover news for news's sake. We cover encyclopedic content that is in the news. --WaltCip- (talk)  12:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Leckie

 * Long enough. Formatting looks fine. Refs seem adequate. This nom looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Yes this looks fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted joining two other Davids on RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Terunofuji promoted to yokozuna

 * Hasn’t been approved yet. Stephen 09:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to wait until that happens tomorrow (21st) before nominating. Oh well, I'll get started on adding more references.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb based on Kakuryu's front page blurb from 2014. Photo from his page is the uploader's own work. Unsure if his given shikona is best style instead of just Terunofuji. 2600:1700:1E0:1860:4584:93A8:815B:B0F1 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support When Ready, preferably the shortest blurb (with "pictured" added), top of his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Promotion is official now and article appears to be ready. --LukeSurlt c 07:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose many more sources needed, particularly in the first half of the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 50+ sources in the article. You want the article to also be an FA first before it gets posted as an ITNR? /s 2601:602:9200:1310:B112:B2E9:BC7A:3E88 (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are also whole paragraphs, and multiple other sentences with no sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This is monumental news in Sumo, comparable to World Cup winner in football. It is even more notable since Teranofuji was previously an ozeki (second highest rank), then got demoted to second lowest jonidan (basically, amateur level), and then climbed his way back to ozeki and now to yokozuna. Imagine if Rafael Nadal got demoted to playing amateur tennis on national level and then managed to claw back to being one of the best tennis players in the world. That's basically what happened here.  Mel ma nn   10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Joseph's right, there are several sentences and even a paragraph currently without a ref. That's not FA quality, that's basic WP:V quality, which needs to be met. Event is ITNR, so notability is a given; until article is cleaned up there isn't much else to consider. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added citations, please take another look.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * nice work Pawnkingthree, if this article isn't ITN front page quality now I don't know what is 2600:1700:1E0:1860:F44D:D08A:C44D:EA0E (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that has fixed sourcing issues, thanks for that. Much more helpful than the snarly IP that clearly doesn't understand WP:V. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I tagged a few sentences with Cn.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dealt with.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing fixed, nice to see an uncommon "spontaneous" ITNR item posted.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Thatcher/Mandela standard applies on this living yokuzuna, since achieving yokozuna is an extremely important accomplishment in the newsworthy world of sumo, it indicates top of field and is a longstanding tradition of a historical, hierarchical sport. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support thanks to cleanup by PK3. Marking ready. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Peruvian general election

 * Support Election article is in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's certainly taken a while, but it's now the article's time to shine. Great job by the editors diligently keeping it up to date. Favor alt 2; shorter and "contested" applies to most elections. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is the end of a very long, drawn out election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I think the short blurb will do. --Tone 08:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, conclusion of a long presidential story. Yug (talk)  09:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a longer blurb that covers two things: 1) That Castillo is president-elect rather than president, 2) that the election was in April. The current blurb implies both that he is President and that the election just occurred. --LukeSurlt c 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, most presidents are presidents-elects until inauguration. But we post elections rather than inaugurations, the latter is just a formality. Brandmeistertalk  10:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-support for alt blurb II, it's important to tell the reader why the results took months to be announced. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post posting support for alt blurb II the delay in counting and publishing the final results is not just a "formal matter", it is significant and has had some international coverage. So this, as NoonIcarus says, should be explained to readers. Also, why is the published photo different from the nomination photo? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominated photo is the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons. -LukeSurlt c 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Thanks LukeSurl. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Finally this is settled! Most of the RS mention the fact that this has come six weeks after the runoff election, so I think our blurb should too. Davey2116 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Updating to altblurb II, I like it better than the original one. --Tone 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shouldn't it be "June's Election" instead of April, considering the second round was held at that time? Kobalt22 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Second rounds are not ITN/R though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Revert to original blurb. There's no need to complicate it that way. He was elected, the results are in, that's it. We have a standard format for election blurbs, and it should be stuck to. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Simplify to ALT III In the 2020 U.S. elections, we simply stated that Biden "wins the United States presidential election ..." For example, The Washington Post headline is "Pedro Castillo finally declared winner of Peru’s presidential election".—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's also discussion about the current longer blurb at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ALT3 Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abel Ramírez Águilar

 * Comment: Long enough. I had to AGF all those non-English refs. Formatting looks alright, except Ref. #1 (and I ain't sure if it's used in the best spot). Otherwise, this nom is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck E. Weiss

 * Long enough. Refs seem adequate and formatted properly. No glaring problems. This nom looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Westergaard

 * Weak support Line He took issue with the way Danish people have judged his intentions, telling Canadian blogger Jonathan Kay that he was been shunned by many of his former friends: "One of my old friends from the left, he said last year to me 'There are many who say that if something happens to [you], you were asking for it' — that it would be my own fault. is unsourced, but in general the article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A new footnote is now in place for that quote. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support since he was the centre of a big controversy and article is passable, but he died on 14 July, no? Yakikaki (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the date of death was indeed the 14th, but the news came out on the 19th (please see news sources above). --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Yakikaki (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Pegasus: Spyware Project Pegasus (investigation)

 * Oppose Governments have been purchasing phone malware to support their own intelligence services for decades.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... but they haven't been caught doing it, let alone with a list of the politicians, journalists and activists that have been targeted and by whom ... incredibly embarrassing for a number of governments. I note the Indian government has been identified today.  Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively minor thing compared to the disclosures made by Assange and Snowden, which clearly indicate that similar software was used on a large scale before, so this is definitely not the first instance of someone being caught.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Snowden "The 5 leading democracy spy on the World officially for terrorists-fighting" and this "For profit company sells effective spyware to 20 dictatorial countries with proven crack down on journalist and civil rights activists". It's a step further. Also qualified as the surveillance revelation for the decade (here), and style aside, likely the revelation of the past 4~5 years. 17 news agency collaborated to dig into this story and make synchronous publications. Yug (talk)  14:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the stereotype that 'democratic' governments spy to fight against terrorism and 'authoritarian' to oppress people. All governments use intelligence for the same reason, that is, to provide security and prevent instability. Also, there don't seem to be immediate consequencies like arrests, bans and international sanctions that we usually expect to have in order to measure impact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it either. But there, the tool escape government's hold, it's on the market. Second, the reach of violations seems to have enlarged : Snowden shown that US agencies operatives could read everyone's sexy messages, here it is proven that several 10+ governments are phishing on journalists, activists, opposition politicians for democratic repression and political gains. The way the technology is acquired, and the countries involves seems enough to consider this leak ITN worthy. Yug (talk)  18:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 17 news agencies collaborating for an investigation and coordinating for a synchroneous international coverages. They announce a centralized, industrial, international scale abuse of surveillance toward law-abiding activists and journalists by multiple semi-autoritarian or autoritarian governments, followed by judicial harassment or occasional killings (Khashoggi, Cecilio Pineda Birto). Worth noting. Yug (talk)  13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing about these cybersecurity exploits and breaches that raise them above others. See what Kiril says above. It would look weird to single out this controversy for coverage. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the target article is still in bad shape and is not ready for the home page. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's also uncertainty if the firm claimed (NGO Group) is really behind it or not, so this would be inappropriately accusational. This is a media evaluation and best that I've seen, not one that has yet involved cybersecurity experts. simply they found several numbers belongs to activists and journalists that were on a leaked list of phones claimed to be under surveillence, but seem to offer no further proof of that. --M asem (t) 13:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Investigation in collaboration with the Toronto Citizen's lab, specialized in this field. The NSO responses have not been to claim it's not them, but that the journalists' claims are exagerated. If NSO don't contradict the claim, should we ? Yug  (talk)  14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the Citizen's Lab backing, but I would still argue that because we're talking the media that are very sensitive to events that directly affect them, they may have a valid concern that a certain type of spyware has targetted their members and confirmed through Citizen's Lab, but whether NGO (which states they actively work to block malicious uses) purposely did this or not is far too early and not something that we can treat as a fact if it is only the media making the accusation. If it were, say, the US Department of Justice or equivalent national organization that made the call that has authority to prosecute towards this, that would be different. I am not saying that the media is fishing in a barrel here, I'm sure they have sufficient evidence, but we should avoid this type of conclusion in Wikivoice until validated by appropriate authorities. --M asem (t) 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think the article haven't document the methodology yet. So i searched a little and found this : "The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto has independently peer-reviewed a draft of the forensic methodology outlined in this report. Their review can be found here." . We need to document this more within the article, but this transparent methodology, peer reviewed by a world recognized team, and not contradicted by the accusee (NSO Group) together meet a very solid standard of verifiability. I will add that to the article. Yug (talk)  14:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That the collective group of media sources in collaboration with this lab found spyware on specific members of their group is something we can factually say. That this was purposely tied to specific journalists and activities in specific areas and used by some gov'ts to take action against them is a claim that can be said attributed to the media group. That the NGO Group is intentionally doing this is also a claim that must be said with attribution to the media here. But there's no formal criminal or other court-of-law charges here yet or any conviction towards NGO, and the media are not the authority to that end. Hence we have to be very careful in presenting NGO as the entity intentionally behind the entire "plot" that the media describes. I am sure they have evidence that points that way, but media is not law enforcement and wikivoice has to be very careful around that. That's why I think at this stage this is too early to post because its basically a media accusation against a company and not a point of arrest or conviction. --M asem (t) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So your point is the lack of material outcome such as an arrest or judgment, I see. Note: Snowden commented on this Pegasus Project here and here. Yug (talk)  15:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much yes : ITN does not run stories that include such major allegations against any individual or entity unless it is a result of an official law enforcement action, typically the conviction or verdict against the person/entity. (Rare cases we will document the arrest of a major world leader). I have no doubt that the media have found the PEgasus spyware on phones and found a pattern about who was targetted by it, but that's accusation that we cannot report factually yet. --M asem (t) 16:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - "The allegations here are not new. What is new is the scale of the targeting of innocent people that's allegedly taking place. Nearly 200 reporters from 21 countries have their phone numbers on this list, and more names of high-profile public figures are expected to be revealed." From BBC article Sherenk1 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Scale, diversity of clients of this private firm, journalists/activists being primary target makes the disclosure noteworthy if not unprecedented. Credibility of leaked data is supported by forensic analysis of small number of devices belonging to people whose numbers are on list. Ohsin  14:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance (especially since this is an expose of something that has been going on for a while), Oppose on quality - holy cow, yesterday I thought this was some minor thing that only affected India but now this is easily a major story since it: a) took multiple news companies from different countries to expose it b) affects political dissidents in many countries (both democratic and non-democratic). Oh, and please replace "Rights" with "Human Rights" in the proposed blurb. 45.251.33.254 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS - Would it be appropriate to name any countries in particular here? I don't think so but I'm curious since WaPo and BBC did one article each focusing on the spyware's impact in India. 45.251.33.254 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, illiberal democracies or authoritarian regimes as long as they are Western-friendly (UAE, Saudi, Azer, Mexico, Marocco, India BJP). I also think the article's quality is not sufficient as of now, but it will be polished in coming 24~48h, while this vote goes. Yug (talk)  16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This seems to have targeted actors that are both in the "west" and "outside". Albertaont (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very widespread and reported on by a large multitude of news outlets means this is notable news. Azrakjo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article still needs thorough copyediting. Though I don't think "possible danger of violating WP:NPOV in the future" is a pertinent disclaimer; LOL at the idea of warning editors and readers that "in the future this article might be bad". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are working on that, yes. Yug (talk)  07:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, and I'll support when you're done. That's how this works. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Yug (talk)  16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Orange tag. Keep trying. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but the articles need some improvement first. Just skimming through them I found some poorly written sentences, but it hopefully shouldn't take too long to get the article ready. I would prefer that the word malware in the proposed blurb links to Pegasus (spyware) if posted. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb is atrocious. Needs fix. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think what makes this case rise above the resit is that we have reason to believe that generally off limit targets like human rights advocates, journalists and political opponents were targeted. If this was the case of latest geopolitical grandstanding among the usual suspects, it'd be a non-story, but the fact that Jamal Khashoggi or Rahul Gandhi were targeted, is significant. BUT, I agree that the blurb has to be rewritten, and the quality could be better.  Mel ma nn   07:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those who support could work on the article and also suggest a blurb that explains why this event is unprecedented. Every few weeks there’s another major hack. What’s different here? Jehochman Talk 09:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb could be flipped into "Over 10 governments are revealed to use private anti-crime zero-click spyware to gain full access on phones of opposition politicians, journalists and others.". This is more on what the abusers do. If you are an English native, please feel free to pick this blurd up and improve. Yug (talk)  09:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's too technical. Maybe "An investigation by various news companies reveals that authoritarian governments in over 10 countries have used Pegasus spyware against political dissidents" would do but that's also a bit long and wonky. "Political dissidents" may be enough to refer to all of those being spied on since most targets are politically opposed to their governments. TubeOfLight  Talk  12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dissident is elegant, yes, i like it. But the scope is larger and don't fits, espectially with today revealation on Head of States. I suggest the following.
 * "Human rights activists, journalists, lawyers and head of States around the world have been targeted with phone malware sold to governments by a private surveillance firm." Note: I'am not an English native. Yug (talk)  17:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Die Zeit's analysis, over a dozen head of States have been targeted, implying possible full access to their mobile phones thanks to NSO's Pegasus spyware :
 * Support On account of widespread impact and implications. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * New: Can someone with German reading skills review this news ? 30 minutes ago, German Project Pegasus newroom Die Zeit revealed the following (if I understand well) (source). See citation below. Yug  (talk)  16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Heads of States


 * Noureddine Bedoui, Algeria Prime Minister
 * Mostafa Madbouly, Egypt Prime Minister
 * Charles Michel, Belgium Prime Minister
 * Emmanuel Macron, France President
 * Édouard Philippe, Prime Minister of France
 * Édith Chabre, wife of Mr. Philippe.
 * Most French ministers
 * Various French diplomats
 * Barham Salih, Iraq President
 * Bakitzhan Sagintayevv, Kazakhstan Prime Minister
 * Saad Hariri, Lebanon Prime Minister
 * Mohammed VI, Morocco King
 * Saad-Eddine El Othmani, Morocco Prime Minister
 * Imran Khan, Pakistan Prime Minister
 * Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa President
 * Ruhakana Rugunda, Uganda Prime Minister
 * Ahmed Obaid Bin-Dagher, Yemen Prime Minister
 * Confirmed by Washington Post (source). Yug (talk)  16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Help needed: There is lot of significant content coming out. Please consider contributing to this topic by following one single news provider on that matter, list of portals here: Talk:Project_Pegasus_revelations. Yug (talk)  17:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Altblurb added. Mel ma nn  19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please remove all this detail to the article talk page. We’re going to have months of revelations. For ITN we are looking for a significant event. The discovery that countries are spying on each other is mundane. Apple just released patches. By sure to upgrade iOS as soon as you can. Jehochman Talk 09:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, the scope of this involving so many prime ministers makes the event exceptional. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support pending resolution of the article name. There is a move discussion ongoing that will hopefully resolve soon.  The fact that all these heads of states have been named makes this investigation sufficiently notable for ITN. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Marking ready, and recommend altblurb2. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is an orange tag at Project Pegasus (investigation) that may need to be addressed? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this is an event that will likely go on for many days (months?), I think it's fair to push this out to ITN before the analysis section is ready. More analysis will come in the following days. Azrakjo (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then should there be an "Analysis" section at this time? Perhaps that single sentence there now can be moved? --PFHLai (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose analysis section is basically empty and tagged. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, and there is an unsourced paragraph immediately above it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The orange tag is no longer in the article. Citations still missing in the final paragraph in the "Findings" section and for Israel's reactions. --PFHLai (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support because of notability, international cooperation amongst multiple media houses and the implications of the list for multiple countries. --ShellPandey (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * All specific issues mentioned above have been resolved. Now ready. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb2. I did not give ITN credits, as this user has mostly edited Pegasus (spyware) (which is not bolded in the blurb), instead of Project Pegasus (investigation). --PFHLai (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Snell

 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Woodcock (cricket writer)

 * Support looks good enough for RD, dates of birth and death are sourced by . <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Open Championship

 * Support round summaries look good enough to summarise the event. And rest of the article looks okay. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The prose summaries of each round are good to go, it's refreshing to see those in place by the time of nomination. The 'field' section is overly long (approaching WP:PROPORTION territory) and poorly referenced; if that is removed or split to a separate article you can consider this a full support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready so this doesn't languish any longer. -- Calidum  17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are still unsourced lines, paragraphs and an entire section. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Cuban protests

 * Support per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There still appears to be protests that are in favor of the demonstrators that are still occuring primarily in the United States. – Skim (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the last update about protests in the article is on the 12th. On the 14th some cell phone footage of a police raid is not a protest. On the 17th a pro-government demonstration is not a protest. "Solidarity" protests in Miami are LOL since those people already fled Cuba and have precisely ZERO effect on their former homeland. In short, there is not a "continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news" as stipulated by the requirements In_the_news --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom, and IMO a counter-protest is still a protest.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A pro-government or pro-protestor rally is a pro-government or pro-protestor rally, no sort of protest, and Florida is Florida (no matter how many Cubans move in). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To me at least, the distinction between "rally" and "protest" seems negligible. YMMV. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rallies are like voting Support (happy, proud, "in", collegiate, loyal). Protests are pretty much tied to Oppose (sad, disgusted, "out", rowdy, primal). I guess demonstrations are neutral, at least till you get there and listen up on what everyone wants and when. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a more neutral phrase should be used which includes supporting and opposing actions.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Protests are still ongoing and globally politically relevant. Leavechelseaalone (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No blurb has been proposed. Also has died down from last week, was blurb-worthy previously. Albertaont (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a nomination for ongoing, not a blurb discussion. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, ongoing is usually after a blurb, we rarely if ever go straight to ongoing. Albertaont (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstand. 2021 Cuban protests was already blurbed and featured on the Main Page. Hope this helps. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake, you are correct, thanks for the correction. I struck that from the oppose and just oppose for notability. Albertaont (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not clear whether protests are still ongoing, it's been a week since any news of anti-government protests. No need to keep it up if the protests were short-lived and are now finished. BeŻet (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Tour de France

 * Comment The article still needs a race overview with information extracted from the detailed stage-by-stage summaries as it is the case with the 2019 edition. As for the race, I am a Roglič fan who acknowledges that this was one of the most dominant victories in Tour's modern history.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the recent introduction additions (2nd paragraph) cover the main details of the overall race, thus meeting the requirements for the prose summary. The 2019 is pretty much a GA candidate already. And yes, too bad Roglič crashed out early, imagine the mountain stages with him intact! Looking forward for the Olympics race. --Tone 08:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate for all the prose to be in the lead, with none in the body. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not the main content of it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose insufficient prose synopsis of the race. The body of the article contains only tables about the actual race.  If that is fixed, this can be main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready per Jayron. There's more text in the 'pre-race favourites' section than the rest of the article combined. The body has no prose at all on what happened during the race, just data tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there needs to be some sort of race summary in the body of the article. I know it's covered in the separate stage 1 to 11 and 12 to 21 articles, but there needs to be a summary of that information on the 2021 Tour de France page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready article seems appropriately updated for ITN/R. 2601:602:9200:1310:B112:B2E9:BC7A:3E88 (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure an IP with one other edit shouldn't be unilaterally declaring this ready... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support now that there has been a great improvement to to add a comprehensive race summary to the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of work has been done to improve it, so it's ready. I add the image of the main character. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Sherry

 * Comment – Presumably the nominator wishes to target Philip Sherry article. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - start class new article, well referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Share and "Sherry Like" I worked hard for that pun, and regardless of anyone's feelings there, the article makes perfect sense and we know it does, so "hit the ice" and "drop it". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mumtaz Bhutto

 * Oppose - Several missing refs and cn tags.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite a few citations still needed. More refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pilar Bardem

 * Comment: The orange {expand} tag needs to be addressed. Perhaps a quick translation from her bio in Spanish Wikipedia would help? Time is running out, though. --PFHLai (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Hong Kong University Students' Union investigation

 * Oppose Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding – but has an investigation actually concluded, or even began? In any case the article has not been updated regarding an investigation or any arrests, needs some major prose copyediting, and has several unsourced sections. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article needs serious improvement, and massive improvement in sourcing. And I'm not seeing how a university no longer recognising its student union is ITN worthy- it seems like a local issue to one university. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can't really do much with this. This is not a linchpin moment the same way that the Tiananmen Square incident was.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 'Shows strong determination' to investigate something is not a major news story. Nor is a single university arguing with its student union. We posted the Apple Daily closure, this is all part of the same crackdown on free speech in Hong Kong. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article, written in somewhat stilted English, lacks continuity. It's not immediately clear whether the govt. has in fact suppressed and outlawed the organization. Further, this seems just another in a long series of repressive events in HK. Scant coverage. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Randall

 * Support Short article but has references in all the right places, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Despite being a start-class article, it's fully sourced, and it's enough for a RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The article is inconsistent on his death date. The lead sentence says July 2021, the infobox has 11 July 2021, and the body says "He died during the week of 11–17 July 2021". I'm note sure what is a the WP convention when cited sourced don't mention a specific date, but the article should at least be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I put a note in the talk page with the relevant Independent text supporting the date range in the body, as the source is behind a paywall.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: The Independent doesn't seem to be behind a paywall? Sometimes it asks you to register to read an article, but you can just click "I'll Try Later" and it shows you the whole article without any registration/payment required (at least in the UK), <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Same here in Canada. But it's always good to err on the side of caution in case the article gets placed behind a paywall in the future. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Go figure. It seems OK now.  Sometimes sites allow free access for a few days and then restrict.  Other times, its a limited quota.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Curtis

 * Comment - I've expanded this quite considerably since yesterday, adding quite a lot of detail about his career, so I think it might be about ready now. I ended up removing the thing about him returning to Aylesham with the FA Cup trophy, as I couldn't find a cite for it and it didn't seem like a major deal anyway. If you have a source and want it back, let me know.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dolores Claman

 * Support – article is well-referenced; now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is well written and referenced. TapticInfo (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Christoph Strasser becomes the first person to cycle more than 1000 km in 24 hours

 * Comment That is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. It's not getting posted in this state. Mlb96 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need a "bit of work". He must get very tired, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is now slightly better. Still not even close to main page standards, though. Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article needs massive sourcing improvement. Also, it's not clear from the article who's actually ratifying that this is a record (Guiness World Records, UCI)? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true. His 2017 record was ratified by Guinness World Records: . But it seems this one has yet to be included. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, also, this seems a rather niche record. --Tone 08:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most racing sports track a 24-hour distance record. Admittedly, some are better-known than others. --Carnildo (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * True. What I wanted to say is that ITN typically posts only the most "famous" records, such as the 100m and marathon, as well as breaking of the athletics records that have stood for a long time. With the Olympics just a week ahead, all sorts of records are bound to be broken. As for cycling, we have the Tour de France concluding today, which is ITNR. --Tone 09:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article is just not good enough for the main page.
 * Oppose Quality of Article is not good enough. If an Infobox and better structure is implemented, I would support the article. TapticInfo (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Box added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, Count Iblis, why not make a few edits to improve it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you already put in a lot of work, I'll see what I can do. Count Iblis (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Micro-niche sports footnote. Sca (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most ardent oppose in every way, but especially because we barely post records in established disciplines, let alone first timed go at [arbitrary distance] in [arbitrary time]. Not to mention the lack of any news coverage - the source seems to be a personal/industry record page, and a google of his name doesn't even bring up the Wikipedia article. Great. Personally, having being to the German article and seen the quality of sources there, I'd actually AfD this bio: entirely SPS or PASSINGMENTION for the few legit sources, most still unsourced self-promo. Nothing about this is getting to MP. Kingsif (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Shucks. So my efforts at improvements, whether this gets to Main page or not, have been a complete waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We posted Eliud Kipchoge's running the first ever sub-2 hour marathon, but that's more established than this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Slightly cheating as he ran inside an X of teammates, who rotated and didn't run the whole distance (obviously), and followed a laser grid going exactly half marathon an hour, lased from a shield car, so not the official marathon record, still extremely hard to do (the first attempt with a top of the field marathoner in a box of mates behind a laser car with a clock on the back failed, at 2 hours 0 minutes 25 seconds) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it failed at 2 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the laser reached an insurmountable lead before 2 hours. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Be all of that as it may, it was still the first sub-2 hour running of a marathon distance, which we (rightfully, IMO, without comment for this submission) posted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 hours is the holy grail of distance running records, twice is fine. Betcha there'd be fewer supports from cricket nations though if someone breaks the no dope homer (non-bouncing boundary) record (61) but not official (73, held by that ex-slim man who looked like a bodybuilder in his 40s (before mandatory drug testing). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Conventional bicycles are poor for such records because they have too much drag. With better aerodynamics, the record was over 1200 km already – see List of cycling records.  Cycle races such as the Tour de France have lots of homologation rules to compel the use of the traditional inefficient design.  For example, the UCI defines a bicycle as "a vehicle with two wheels of equal diameter".  Hah! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * UCI records are more famous than absolute though, probably due to the fame of races like the tours and the Olympics. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, drat. I'm all for gay rights and all, but "homologation rules" sound a bit extreme. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks cooler in Italian. i.e. gran turismo omologato Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Il campione del mondo! – Sca (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Titane wins Palme d'Or

 * Oppose for now, barely more than a stub. Yes it's a new film, but surely there's more that can be said about it. And is it possible to add a plot paragraph? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Joseph. Stubby 275-word article completely lacks plot/storyline description. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, there wasn't much plot, if that's any help. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not ready per Sca. Needs a plot summary and some proper reaction, not just the percentages from Metacritic etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be a titanic film, but we can't tell from the article. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Still under 300 words. --PFHLai (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Biz Markie

 * Support: good article, lots of references, cannot see any problems at first glance. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – five paragraphs and discography section unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: culturally significant especially considering his collaborations with Beastie Boys. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots more citations needed, particularly the whole Discography section. As this is an RD nomination, how "important" they are isn't relevant, article quality is the only thing that determines whether this goes on the front page. And the article quality is currently insufficient. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cited the discography section where needed. The other paragraphs still need work. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , all cn tags resolved.. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - No cn tags or missing refs (as far as I can see), and the article is good enough for a RD (actually, it's better than most articles we post).-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – lists of 5 studio albums and 6 of the 8 compilations remain uncited. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I thought those weren't sourced because the articles are sufficient. I'm adding the AllMusic citations now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My previous noms on musicians were expected to have a fully-cited discography (most notably Doug Supernaw last November). I'd typically provide the artist's album discography ref from AllMusic, either as a general ref at the top or repeat it for each entry (as I did with Patrick Sky last month). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Oh snap. RIP.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry M. Rosenfeld

 * Support Article looks fine and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Mª Gay de Liébana

 * Support – added ISBN for the only uncited work. Apart from that, article is well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above. Fully sourced. Enough for a RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danish Siddiqui

 * Weak oppose It's a little short; could do with some expansion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support everything in the article is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment good enough for RD, have marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Five people arrested over racist abuse of English footballers

 * Unfortunately it's not even a comma, much less a conclusion. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post arrests, much less of common criminals who are the scum of the earth. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose good that action is being taken, but we don't post arrests, as it violates WP:BLPCRIME. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing against posting scum, if warranted. An arrest is not even a charge, let alone a conviction. Not even an Oxford comma, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gira Sarabhai

 * Support - Looks sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Kraft

 * Support - Fully sourced. Good to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugo F. Sonnenschein

 * Support Looks fine. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The infobox mentions affiliations with various institutions besides Purdue U and U of Chicago, and also shows a list of former students. Should these be mentioned in the prose with refs, please? Many things must have happened between his PhD in 1964 and his Provost job at Princeton in 1988. --PFHLai (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking great! Thank you for the quick addition. Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ebrahim Desai

 * Support - No major citing flaws. Good to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, looks fine. - Owais  Talk 05:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Peter R. de Vries

 * Support The article is cited well enough for RD purposes. rawmustard (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The page Murder of Peter R. de Vries has been created. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is a separate article needed? All that's in that can go into the biographic article. --M asem (t) 14:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a discussion for here, it's just a start of an article that will be expanded. The assassination will have a long aftermath and will have an impact on crime in the Netherlands, the security of people and the general rule of law. As the article already mention, it has a large political impact that should have its own article. Another examples: Murder of Derk Wiersum / Kidnapping of Freddy Heineken. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all WP:CRYSTAL, however, and if at such a time that coverage of the post-death overwhelms the bio, then it could be expanded. This could also be a simple open/closed court case given the suspects were quickly caught. It impacts this nomination since the story about his death should be covered in depth on the bio page. --M asem (t) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The death of Peter R. de Vries is cited by numerous international news agencies as top story. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would actually support a blurb although the assassination article linked to above is not ready for main page right now. -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Given the impact in the Netherlands and elsewhere - Simeon (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD, support blurb only. This is why blurbs exist, he did not pass away quietly in his sleep, there is a story here that needs additional elaboration, and this is the type of situation, where the blurb is needed to provide additional context for the death.  Agnostic on which article to highlight, though his biography article is in better condition overall than the one on his murder.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The story here is the murder so we should go with a blurb once the article documenting it is improved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, pending expansion Sure, de Vries could get RD. But the story is the murder, and is being covered as such in the news (rather than obits, coverage is crime-focused) - wait for the Murder of Peter R. de Vries article to be fully fleshed-out (there will be much more crime and investigation detail to go there than is really due at the de Vries article). And I would probably agree with Jayron that posting him to RD before then, would make it seem less of a news story when blurb posted, so would consider not doing that. Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The murder does not need to be a separate page at the time, that's the thing. They caught the suspects, so there's almost no investigation needed. At the present time, it is better if the stuff in the murder article was merged into the bio article so that we're not waiting on the murder article to be developed to post. At a future point, if there's a lot of issues related to the trial of these suspects or other aftermath, then a separate article may be warranted, but this wasn't like a crime that the police are still trying to figure out who pulled it off or looking for a known suspect. --M asem (t) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. This is not the place to start this discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle if and only if Murder of Peter R. de Vries actually adds some decent content e.g. some background or details about what actually happened. Right now, it's just a list of reactions, not much about the event itself. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME We should be careful about attaching these untried suspects to an unproven "murder" so soon in Wikivoice, regardless of whether we will. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have moved the page to Killing of Peter R. de Vries for this exact reason. Also, I changed the link in the proposed blurb to the new link (I'm unsure if this is appropriate etiquette) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As it is a notable person getting murdered, where the murder has its own article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, oppose on quality Supporting blurb death under the "death itself is the story" principle. Oppose on quality because both articles have significant uncited sections. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in both articles. Hanamanteo (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD. I don't think this is worthy of a blurb, frankly. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I would support a blurb, but none of the articles are ready. de Vries article is not even ready for a RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Major attack on journalism. Killed in notable event, had a notable career. Isn't subject to Thatcher/Mandela standard due to circumstances of death and its implications. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose either quantity of CNs and dead links is too high to post now. Neutral on blurb once those get cleaned up.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Once article fixes its cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose – With my background, I was very interested in this story, and in the career of Mr. de Vries. However, I hadn't heard of him before he was killed – probably because I'm not European, and because AFAIK his work was confined to one country. So I'm dubious about blurb-level significance in this instance. – Sca (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support both Notable, unusual event covered in international newspapers, thus significant enough. I don't see any major issues which would be enough to disqualify this from consideration (the few cn tags can likely be fixed - none of them seem to be for any contentious matter, afaics). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once issues sorted. Having said that, "being shot in the head" sounds almost prurient in this context - "is assassinated" would be fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Assassinated = dead. He wasn't dead until nine days later. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , think of US president James Garfield and press secretary James Brady: Garfield took a few months to go down from assassination, and Brady took over 30 years to die. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And there's [redacted], whose leaders were poisoned so gradually even their assassins weren't quite sure it wasn't just a coincidence in the end. I like "shot", at least, if not "in the head". Lets readers know the assassins didn't use poison (or a bomb or a sword or a fishing trip). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The most commonly understood meaning of assassinated is the killing of a prominent political person in a sudden attack,, the most famous example being the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his morganatic wife Sophie, who both died within minutes of being shot in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 – ultimately touching off WWI. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, Mr. Recentist, that shot may have been heard 'round the world, but Julius Caesar's pitiful screams have echoed for centuries. His last words haven't, but admit it, hell of a famous stabbing (and Claudius had a mighty upset stomach). As for sudden, forget about it; modern medical machines can keep an essentially dead person "alive" almost indefinitely, provided some organs are working. If the victim was influential and killed for ideological reasons, "good" enough. We have no idea of motive here, but I'd wager revenge or cash. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Recentist? – Sca (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're barking up the wrong tree, Mac, it's your new unofficial surname. Check an antique phonebook, Mac Recentist, that's your long-forgotten, very great uncle, possibly Irish. Seriously though, poison was a classic lethal liquid long before the Red Baron turned it into DDT to eradicate the Faministas (or whatever), see the newly rechristened Lists of poisonings for mountains of dodgy evidence (and in fresh-off-the-press news, the Malian guy was possibly lightly "licked" by an assassin's blade today, stay tuned for hypothetical infectious details). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Two of three paragraphs in Killing of Peter R. de Vries have no footnotes at all. Please address the {cn} tags. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is partially why the killing as a separate article makes no sense at this time. The only new material in that is the Reactions section, the rest is basically covered in the bio article. Maybe in the future, a separate article might be warranted if the trial of those suspect is a media circus, but right now, separating the killing event from the bio when it was such an "open and shut" case is not helping towards posting. --M asem (t) 17:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Peter R. de Vries needs more refs, please. The section on the Kidnapping of Freddy Heineken, too. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - I believe there is consensus for a blurb. However, most of the "Kidnapping of Freddy Heineken" section, as well as the first sentence of the "Natalee Holloway disappearance" require citations. I would try but I have a feeling I'd hit a wall rather quick due to not speaking GoldMember. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 00:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed his "Early life" says nothing about his faw-thur. I guess that's not crucial info. But it sure is usual and expected stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Action Needed With this consensus, it needs to be up with a blurb before getting too stale to post. Citations will be accounted for. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but article quality w/ critical issues such as significant uncited material (not simply one or two cn tags) overrides any consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Suggest speedy posting. Jusdafax (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – In functional news terms, now quite stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not even yesterday's news by now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment still missing citations, on both the article itself and the killing article. Even if it's stale for a blurb, it could still make RD, so I'd keep this open until it rolls off. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the main article has a whole uncited "Kidnapping of Freddy Heineken" section, and the killing article has two uncited paragraphs. This isn't quite stale yet (the oldest current blurb is older than it), but time is limited for posting before roll-off. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the real world it's very stale. No website is an island. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stale. We could still post this as an RD if someone fixes up the bio page before the end of tomorrow, but it's too late for blurbing. News is almost a week old now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hate to say it, but its a lost cause. Consensus was that this was noteworthy and impactful enough for the blurb, and that it was something fresh, a journalism related assassin incident outside of America, but the article wasn't worked on enough on time. This is a very disappointing shame, and honestly I feel that if it was an American event people would have actually cared enough to get citations ready for Blurb. I didn't work on it myself because I didn't know enough about his career as I'm an American, so I left it to more knowledagable and/or proficient citation Wikipedians, but the Wikipedia community screwed up here. I'm not upset, just thoroughly disappointed. We need to do better next time this happens to someone like de Vries, whether he or she dies immediately or days/months later. Hopefully its still good enough for a run on RD though. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As a point of note: doing a google news search on his name gives only stories on the day he was killed, and today with his funeral. Nothing inbetween, suggesting that the "importance" of this was over-predicted. While I would still generally agree that a blurb was appropriate, this goes to my point that the separate article on the killing was entirely unnecessary, all the key details could have been on his bio page. A single article would have likely draw enough attention to get the blurb in place. --M asem (t) 19:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 European floods
If accepted, this should include other countries as well: e.g. in Belgium there are at least 6 dead and probably more to come sadly. Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered. Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too stubby for the main page.  If this is expanded sufficiently, with proper depth of coverage and properly referenced, consider this a support vote.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reportedly they have been finding more bodies as the floodwaters recede. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this addresses my concerns, but thanks for sharing? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Toll likely to rise over time, thus significance. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't remember bringing that up, so it has no bearing on my opposition. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are significant and ongoing soil disturbances you didn't consider when addressing the stubbiness, too, aren't there? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to full support. Article has been improved sufficiently.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment at the moment it's a stub would support per Jayron32 if it were to be sufficiently expanded (PS I didn't really update the article much, just tidied it up a bit when it showed up on NPP) JW 1961 Talk 13:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement. Lots of people have died in this flooding event which according to the sources is an extremely rare one in a hundred year event (and that according to the climate of a few decades ago that already includes some of the global warming effects due to our CO2 emissions). Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppport - Article already in development, topic highly in the news at the moment. — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there's quite a bit more that can be added (de.wiki has a nice article if we can get any German speakers). In a few hours, I think the article will likely be in a good enough state. Definitely notable enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support quality looks good enough now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support when article ready, some of the damage looks more like a tsunami than a slow rise (which isn't surprising as the rainiest 12 hours rained a quarter meter) Some well built-looking buildings and cobblestone roads smashed into rubble here Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because the floods are significant enough to post and the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Also main news in the Netherlands. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support very notable and the article is in good shape. It seems that the situation is likely to get worse. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Though the weather in the UK is blissful, this is the main story. An entire city in Belgium has been evacuated, too, and the Netherlands are on warning, so maybe the blurb shouldn't name Germany. Kingsif (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Death toll now "at least 65". Angela Merkel has called the flooding "a catastrophe". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle – pending somewhat more detail. The existing 885-word article is about 40 percent devoted to 'Response,' led by Merkel's "catastrophe" quote – which itself is notable enough, given that it's primarily Germany that was affected. Much of the balance of 'Response' is predictable and expendable pol talk. That leaves us with around 600 words of descriptive text, still perhaps a bit on the thin side for ITN. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait One CN tag, and an unknown amount missing, particularly about missing people beyond the Eifel. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when ready - A no-brainer. This is making headlines around the world and are the biggest floods in Western Europe in decades.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted: Severe floods result in at least 70 deaths across western Europe. --PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment More than 120 dead now, can we update the blurb? Yakikaki (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, article now has 127. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Number of missing is not 1300. The 1300 figure came about as a result of a mobile phone outage causing local authorities to not be able to verify the whereabouts of 1300 people. These are then 1300 people who are unaccounted for due to the circumstances, but they are not really missing. Count Iblis (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The headline ("missing of 1300 people") is misleading. Not only I can confirm that for a short while, those numbers were raised/mentioned in the media because of broken mobile/telephone-infrastructure in a certain area. (Source: in german: by the spiegel (which is acknowledged by the english wikipedia). If you would like to the check the source for yourself you can do that with translation-addons. I ask those with ITN-authorization to remove those missing numbers and update the death toll (over 150 people) now. --LennBr (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reuters on Saturday put toll at 157. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Muhammad Muhsin Khan

 * Oppose I updated the article but it isn't worth the ITN in its current condition. I couldn't find more information. It fails ITN because DYK-helper shows it is still a stub. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  03:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not what matters for inclusion in RD, but the quality of the article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are less than 1600 characters in the prose. And the Works section needs more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted): RD: Sergio Silvagni

 * Comment - Some lines missing refs, but it seems easy to fix.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready - Just did some tidying and added some refs. Looks OK to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There's an unsourced high school shot put victory, but who cares? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is actually sourced, in the same source provided for the 440 yard record immediately preceding. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dawn Foster

 * Weak oppose - Mostly sourced, but some pivotal information are unsourced or poorly sourced, so I have to oppose per WP:BLP.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's safe to say the subject is reliable in most cases for their own birthdate and where they were born. In any case, the article meets the ITN criteria of "Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable." Marking for further attention needed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. A little short, but still OK. --PFHLai (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricki Wertz

 * This wikibio is a little short, but still okay, coverage-wise. Refs seem adequate. Ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully sourced and ready to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Belnavis

 * Support - Start-class article and fully sourced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted: It's a bit short (not quite 2400 characters of prose), but still okay. --PFHLai (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Tidrow

 * Support - Ready to go. Fully sourced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Boltanski

 * Support - Fully sourced. Good to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/ Blurb : Mamnoon Hussain

 *  Weak support The last line of the Political career section is unsourced (although it could be deleted because it doesn't seem very noticeable to me). It would be great, also, if that section could be expanded, especially detailing a bit what he did as president. I don't know if he was important enough to have a blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the unsourced line and it is now ready to be posted in RD. Not in blurb because of what the colleagues say below. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as it is good enough for RD, but Oppose blurb, per this sentence in the lede: "Hussain maintained a low-key profile as President and his role was rarely seen in the nation's politics, although he was involved in a Polio eradication program."Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb for "the ceremonial head of state of Pakistan". In Pakistan, the Prime Minister has the authority. Lets not get fixated on the expression "head of state" and instead see if it actually means something. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per LaserLegs; RD quality is just about there, with only one piece of trivia uncited at the end of the article. Per Alsoriano97, I'd wait a few hours to see if someone will fix that, otherwise I'd delete the sentence and post as RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD -- No blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Lightning strikes in India
Oppose because the storms don't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Jim Michael. If it's important enough to be on ITN, then it would be important enough to have its own article, and for that article to have significantly more information than the three sentences listed on that section. Until an article demonstrating its importance is created and sufficiently good quality, we shouldn't be considering this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted): RD: Shirley Fry

 * This nom looks ready for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree (American tennis player). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree, and have marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I no longer strongly agree, three headers violate MOS:NUMERAL (but whatever, go with it). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Richardson (lawyer)

 * Support - The article is fully sourced, and it's good enough for a RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Emma Bunton marries Jade Jones

 * Oppose and close please. This is beyond a joke.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough to justify the nomination of ITN. Wedding can be happen everyday. 36.77.92.164 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yashpal Sharma (cricketer)

 * Comment There's a few unsourced statements in his bio (which I've tagged), and I'm not sure why the one-line on his death needs four sources.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Added references to the three CN tags that remained on the page. In addition, I also trimmed the sources on the death section as requested by above. Meets homepage hygiene. If additional edits are required, please feel free to let know. RIP. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a decent little article now with improvements made JW 1961 Talk 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapse of Siji Kaiyuan Hotel

 * Comment: This article is stubby (not even 300 words of prose). Please expand this article. In particular, the background section is rather thin and unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality barely above a stub article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paul Orndorff

 * Support May have fewer unreferenced sections than Paulose II, and is undoubtedly the bigger name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments: A stronger article than Paulose II's, but both need to improve sourcing. I've put in a few {cn} tags -- things like getting fired, failing a physical, getting to a Hall of Fame, etc. should be ref'd. A few older refs appear to be deadlinks and may need to be replaced/updated. --PFHLai (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Several cn tags and several statements without a single ref.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New prime minister in Nepal

 * Support finally a real story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good to me now.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good, and head of state changes are ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, nice work. --Tone 21:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paulose II (Indian Orthodox Church)

 * No Paul Orndorff, but the article's wonderful enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Paul Orndorff may have fewer unreferenced sections. --PFHLai (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, but are you checking the articles before voicing your opinion? SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am not a robot. When I'd looked, though, it looked better than when you did, and after. Still not terrible, in my opinion. Marked up, not ultratrustable, though not a hit piece. But yes, falling apart faster than it isn't, moves me to Weak Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article needs a lot of work. Several cn tags, two orange tags, etc.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least 6 places where sources are needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 South African protests

 * Strong Wait Article's currently not pretty, chronologically mixed up and in the middle of a heavy 87-byte edit war. But it has potential. Just like any mass protest story. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update there were two articles covering the events and now they have been merged Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added 1 citation needed tag. Also, some of the named references aren't defined anywhere, so this will need fixing (so they point to the references that verify the content). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the citation problems, how does it look now? Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - major protests, rioting, looting etc. with a high death toll that are being tackled by the military as well as police. The article is being rapidly improved. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support worldwide news coverage of this, clearly ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I read about it today in local and national news, clearly something of importance. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle – pending updating of article to include 72 deaths, 1,200 arrests. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Deaths and arrests have climbed extremely rapidly, therefore suggest original blurb to remove need for a ticker. Will likely end up as ongoing anyways. Albertaont (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle (with the reported deaths and arrests) but Oppose on present quality as the deaths/arrests are currently only delegated into the infobox and should be part of the prose of the article. Everything else about the article seems fine, but these need to be in the body before we can post. --M asem (t) 23:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I have added deaths and arrest numbers to the lead and body. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support considering that the main issues appear to have been fixed. Alaexis¿question? 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Prominent second-day coverage.   Time to post. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked attn. – Sca (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is looking much better than before. With the recent events including multiple lawsuits, criminal charges on politicians in the ANC and EFF and deployment of the army (SANDF), I think this article is almost ready.TapticInfo (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, it's already been posted: it's on the main page right now. Please now stop. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Edwin Edwards

 * Oppose A lot of paragraphs are unsourced. Not ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing: Western North America heat wave

 * Support - was thinking about nominating this too, article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a separate heat wave from the one that affected the Pac NW in late June. Additionally, while this wave is breaking temperatures, these are nowhere close to the deltas that the Pac NW one broke or led to the deaths that we saw in that one. (Yes there are wildfires attributed to it, but those are also normal for this season/weather in California and other Western states). --M asem (t) 03:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's less sigmas (deltas unimportant, as the number of degrees per standard deviation correlate with continentality (climatology term)) but if verified will be the new highest reliable temperature on Earth which is something so notable it should be posted if someone writes an article. A weather station in Death Valley also stayed above 107.7°F from Saturday to Monday which is the new high midnight-to-midnight low for the world outside of Oman (108.68°F, caused by most Arabian seawater being body temperature — the hottest in the world). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We know global warming is happening, so there's no surprise to see record-breaking temperatures in places that are already generally known for the hottest temperatures on earth. The Pac NW was extremely unusual and led to numerous deaths because of its intensity and unusualness --M asem (t) 13:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The real world record has only been broken a few times, I think it should be posted at least the first few times. And major landmarks like last Friday's first 130.0 in the world. And each multiple of 5 Celsius and Fahrenheit and the fake 134° if that ever happens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can pretty much expect that the highest recorded temperature is going to be broken every year for the next several years given global warming. This isn't anything surprising. What would be newsworthy would be akin to another UN assessment of how the current Paris Agreement work is affecting if we will keep the global average under 2degC by 2030/35 or a similar international scientific study. --M asem (t) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose In the northern hemisphere it’s summer and there are heat waves in many places. Neither this one is more relevant (for now) than others nor a heat wave is exceptional wherever it is. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Breaking the real world temperature record of 129.9°F is important and no heat wave being exceptional whatever it is is laughable when there was a 2003 European heat wave which killed 70,000 people. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all heat waves cause deaths. If this one does, I will undoubtedly support this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a separate heat wave event (different air masses participating even as the mechanism remains the same) and as such, must be treated separately. If, as some suggest, the heat wave in the SW US merits its own article and all-time records will be/were beaten, I'm fine to have that in the news. But we must have a separate article for that purpose. The one I've substantially expanded related to the heat wave that started around 25 June and finished by July 7 in Labrador. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article doesn't indicate it's an ongoing heat wave any more as much of its content documents extreme temperatures and fatalities at the end of June with no daily updates recently. To put it simply, the timing for the nomination is bad.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the same heat wave, there is no article on this one which started in a different part of the West about the time the supposedly ongoing one left the continent's easternmost province in a significantly weakened condition. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – It's still doing what it's been doing, with the Beckworth complex of fires east of Chico spewing smoke far & wide, but essentially there's nothing new in that. Cough, cough. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A calendar day averaged 118.2°F in Stovepipe Wells, California which is a record (untied) for an Earth weather station. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pfft, my stovepipe beats that every winter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a Canadian version of place names like Furnace Creek, California in Death Valley? Like Snowshoes Thud, Yukon, Foggy Bottom, BC or Polar Bear Froze, Nunavut? There's an Alaskan town called Deadhorse near the north end of the border and people would joke it's not just a name, it's a guarantee! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dry Alberta has Vulcan, Redwater and Smoky Lake. Soggy Ontario has Thunder Bay, Ball's Falls and Wawa. Further east, things get a bit Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, what with the Dildo, Peggy's Cove, Witless Bay and all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Dildo. I wonder if the average Dildo man that comes from a long line of male Dildoers needs a phrase with a dildo in it to have an unusually high funniness level before they'll find it funny. Compared to similar men in the non-Dildo population (or non-Dildo region/-Newfoundland/-Eastern Canada) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, you said "region", good question! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support still in the news, likely to be for a while longer. Banedon (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, basically per User:Alsoriano97, given that it is now being reported across multiple venues that deaths in the hundreds are occurring due to the heat wave (see Forbes, The Guardian, The New York Times, KGW8 News, ABC News). I tend to agree that any event in which hundreds of people die, and further deaths appear likely, is ongoing news. BD2412  T 01:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are all "post-disaster" aftermaths, as there is no heat wave in the PacNW anymore, and we usually don't do followon to disasters like that. The heat wave in the Western states is a distinct weather system that would need a separate article to demonstrate ITN-ness. --M asem (t) 02:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, what is needed is a single article (and item) on 2021 North American heat waves, since they are not unconnected events, and each one is setting records and causing deaths in its respective occurrance. BD2412  T 04:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This latest one hasn't caused anywhere close to the number of heat-related deaths as the one in the PacNW. It would be SYNTH to link the events in the same article. --M asem (t) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What about something like a "List of 2021 North American heat waves"? I'm sure there are sources indicating that these are related, such as this article referencing both heat waves as part of an "overall global blocking pattern". BD2412  T 04:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Too complicated. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – As of Wednesday, more than 60 wildfires burning across U.S. West. Thousands of evacuations. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that wildfires during this time of year in these areas are common. --M asem (t) 12:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But not this intense. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Bulgarian parliamentary election

 * Wait Second parliamentary election in three months and it's still unclear who will form the new government. I'd rather wait until the new government is formed instead of posting the 'meaningless' outcome from the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but general election results are ITNR. Government formations are not. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember that Greece held two elections back in 2015 and we posted the results from both. Despite this, I still don't think that the ITN/R status should apply to repetitive elections after a failed one and this could be e good case for invoking WP:IAR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's completely irrelevant whether these elections lead to the formation of a government or not. The results, as AllegedlyHuman says, are ITNR by itselves. And if they are repeated, let them be re-nominated. I've added a better picture of Trifonov. The article is not bad: Results by constituency needs content and Aftermath section is still marked in orange. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe I have addressed these concerns. The article is in better shape now, and I believe meets quality for posting. Requesting more attention to this nomination. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support after work by . _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Now ITN is indeed on ITN! --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The image used for Trifonov is a potential copyright violation, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trifonov.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeeno (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2021 July 18 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The pic is now removed from this wikipage. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Moldovan parliamentary election

 * Support article looks fine and well sourced, event is ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support I've added "Results by administrative-territorial units", but the general results section need some prose. Otherwise, the article is very good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just fixed the only CN tag and added sourced prose in the results section. Marking it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted--PFHLai (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for posting this, I wonder if we could also add the abbreviation of the party, PAS, in parentheses? Not that it is too important but I believe many people into Moldovan politics will identify the parties faster with their abbreviations. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for your work on the article. That's more important work. I should ask this: is PAS like NASA or UNESCO? If so, perhaps instead of parentheses, the acronym should replace the fullname? --PFHLai (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that would be excessive. The acronym is not that well-known as to be able to replace the party's full name and is also an acronym for other things (see PAS), and the Moldovan party is probably not the most primary topic out of those that use that acronym. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Gallagher (footballer, born 1940)

 * Support Short article but the referencing has much improved since yesterday JW 1961 Talk 08:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Cuban protests

 * Oppose NYT reporting only "hundreds" of protesters (in journo-speak, <1000). Scale does not seem evident here, unlike with the 2021 Colombian protests, the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, or the George Floyd protests, for example. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the BBC article which reports "thousands of people" in the lead. I agree that it may be hard to report the scale this early on, but the NYT article said that these are the biggest in decades (presumably since the Maleconazo) Pacific26 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, I think it's hard to see where it will go from here, but it seems like a significant amount of protestors have been involved and there are notable international protests abroad, such as in Miami and in Chile. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Saturday protests are prone to fizzling out. If a rebellion starts or something this can be revisited. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support France24 has reported thousands of protesters (as well as the BBC and other outlets) and there have been reports of protests in up to 15 cities. The demonstrations have been described has "rare" and as the largest in Cuba in 27 years, since the Maleconazo in 1994. Additionally, there have been substantial improvements and expansion in the article, and the quality is alright. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Protests in Cuba are rare, especially large scale ones. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per comment by 331dot. Elserbio00 (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per 331dot. Couple of things need sourcing or removing from the infobox, but a couple of cn tags shouldn't preclude this going on front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Tentatively Support. As per Joseph2302, there are unsourced entries in the infobox that may violate the NPOV policy. I would more strongly support this proposal if verifiable sources can be found and/or if unsourced content is removed.--Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone already removed unsourced information from the infobox. Elserbio00 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. I think the article might need temporary semi-protection due to vandalism by IP and new users, but that's an issue for a different page.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Protests are rare and it meets notability from numerous international sources.-- Simón, el Silbón (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – To see what results there may be. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the main goal of the protests? I can't support this nomination before the article clearly articulates what the protesters want to achieve.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: The event is noteworthy, and the article does not seem to have any major flaws, except for those that come from being about an ongoing topic that started a day ago. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable event. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. To quote the opening sentence from the story in the Guardian: "The biggest mass demonstrations for three decades have rippled through Cuba, as thousands took to the streets in cities throughout the island, demonstrating against food shortages, high prices and communist rule." That summarizes quite clearly why the story is ITN worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if something actually happens w/r/t the government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I know a large percentage of people on this ostensibly neutral encyclopedia are die-hard commie supporters who'd already whitewashed the article about the Castros, but I think the largest protests in the country in over 60 years (since the beginning of the communist regime) ought to be blurb-able, don't you think? 212.74.201.233 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Um no, there's no developed country where a large percent of the people are commie supporters, communism has been irrelevant for at least 29 years. Wikipedia has left-wing bias but pro-communism isn't it. Note: Left-wing bias isn't always bad, often the right-wing is delusional. Hey you get some things right though, sometimes I look at Democrats and wonder "how the fuck is the Frazzledrip Space Laser party infinitely more sane than you on 5% of the issues?" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Capitalist dog propaganda, and too soon to know the results (if any). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would that be the running dogs of capitalism, by chance? – Sca (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're out of line again, comrade, do it again and I'll see you can't even run for dogcatcher in this state! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Notable event, rare in Cuba. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I'm surprised by how little we know about the situation so far. How many people are attending these protests? Have there been any injuries? Have there been any arrests? If so, how many? It's difficult to judge the notability of the event when we don't have much to work with. I'm sure this will change with time, though. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 00:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems relevant. Elishop (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, historic and with international coverage. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – A lot of people have gone to jail, it seems.   – Sca (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I was considering posting, but the first paragraph at 2021 Cuban protests is unsourced and has a citation needed tag.—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Paragraph sourced now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Incredibly rare for protests to occur in Cuba, this is a historic event even if nothing comes of it. The article is flawless, so I don't see any reason to delay posting. Mlb96 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted I dropped "large", as it's relative, and the post anyways implies it's large enough.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A substantial historic event. BD2412  T 03:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Euros final

 * Better blurb... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed "defeats to defeat" as per WP:ENGVAR (European English). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but wait until the article is updated to include some prose about the match itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment can we not give the IP a nomination credit? We shouldn't be encouraging nomination before things actually finish, this seems to be an attempt to game the system to get the blurb credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since none of the blurbs as they stand are from the IP, I don't think that would pose problem. I've gone ahead and struck their sig out per this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Don't be silly. It's not like this makes a major difference, and the IP was the one who proposed it so they get the credit on their talk page. Let's focus on things that matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
 * They nominated a blurb before the match finished. This isn't the first time recently that sports results have been nominated before matches have finished. We shouldn't be encouraging this crystal ball behaviour, as it seems an obvious attempt to game the system. And allowing editors to gain credits by proposing nonsense hooks hedging bets on the winner is just going to encourage it to continue. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, provided the first workable, actually correct and usuable blurb, so we should consider them the nominator. Rather than someone who suggested one of two teams won. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys are all joking right? The credits are just a bit of internal Wikipedia appreciation. More than one user can be given them, and having credits means... not much, unless you're an updater. It's not a competition. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it really that big of a deal? Just give the credit.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LOOL this is the perfect example how wikipedia is broken. everybody is running for shit recognition while completely ignoring the original spirit of wikipedia.  spend 500 characters on dismissing some random IP, while also protecting the said page.  keep talking procedural crap while preventing actual updates and politicizing anything with shit terms like "systemic bias".  yes, there is a systemic bias in preventing ips from doing any editing while people who register with usernames focus their energy on shutting everyone else down. good job   and . don't even bother signing your edits but do put energy on dismissing people who don't even care fro recognition. 2601:602:9200:1310:8C95:3A7A:3E5E:5660 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as there's no prose on the match itself, just the pre-game stuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: at least two red cards missing in that match Supporto procedurale debole: Major sporting event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs a prose write up. Hopefully we'll get one Soon! This article is going to be an FA in the future, but it's not good enough for the main page right now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a prose write up.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The blurb, after the article is ready. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose wrong team won. Article needs work, I'll be doing it soon, but not now.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 23:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What if you had a break for rest after extra time, then played a second extra time with the same rules except the goals get wider at whatever millimeters per second would cause the average score to be about 10 goals per team by the 150th minute, but if a team ever trails by 2 while the goal is growing they lose immediately. Would that help the right team win more often than penalty kicks? It would also incredibly boost TV ratings in the c. 2/3rds (more?) of U.S. sports fans who wish soccer was more exciting, but only for the duration of the growing goal periods. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. but yes, penalty shoot-outs are so bad because they allow the game to be decided on failures, a miss or a save, rather than on a positive goal.
 * Oppose as the article is not ready and per systemic bias would be posting Italy's victory and not Argentina'x yesterday. CoryGlee (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For someone who opposing the blurb because of systemic bias, two football competition are held differently. Copa America final and Euro 2020 final helds in different countries (England and Brazil) and different dates (10 July for Copa America and 11 July for Euro 2020). Regardless whether someone opposing the blurb because of bias against Argentina, the argument is bit unrelated and would be necessary to posted two Football competition finals as blurb respectively, except if someone in the Americas think that posting the Copa America blurb is more necessary than Euro 2020 final. 36.77.92.225 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the Copa is less necessary, if a combined blurb would not be too long there is nothing wrong with combining the 2 if there's not enough desire for having 2 soccer blurbs 1 day apart. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Confused by the blurb. Was there any score? CoatCheck (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sports scores don't often make the blurbs here. It's penalties, so you know it was tied. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Conditional support based on changed blurb Blurb is terrible, maybe mention scores and in penalties? Event itself is definitely notable and belongs in ITN, but the blurb needs work. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN blurbs doesn't include scores for a long time now. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the amount of characters written to shut down this nomination, while putting absolutely 0 characters towards fixing the concern, while also continuing to semi-protect the article against allowing IPs from vandalizing the unupdated article with any sort of match updates. 2601:602:9200:1310:8C95:3A7A:3E5E:5660 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "allowing IPs to vandalize the article with match updates" is necessarily a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sufficiently updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support updated with well sourced match report now. Blurb should maybe start "In association football", as not everyone will know that UEFA means football (and we tend to do it for most sports hooks). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Wimbledon Championships

 * Comment needs some actual text about the tournament in this article, rather than just linking to the articles on men's singles, women's singles etc. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For comparison, see the last time this tournament was posted on ITN: 2015 Wimbledon Championships. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. None of the articles have adequate prose descriptions of the finals, or the tournament as a whole. There needs to be real encyclopaedic content, not just a load of data tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't look like anyone is working on adding prose to the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Unity 22 spaceflight

 * Comment did he fly on his own? No other passengers? PS: the article linked has an image caption at the top which says: "The first space tourist, Dennis Tito...."  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I don't know why I thought it was just the pilots and him. Note to self: read own sources! El_C 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support w/ altblurb - Richard Branson is not the first space tourist, and also not the only occupant of the flight. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb (the verb, not supporting the redacted "Blurb" OR Alt1, use SOME words) Now that's what I call entertainment news, celebrities leaving us through flying, not dying! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is a stub. Needs expanding. Notable enough once expanding. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once quality of article is improved. The significance is that it's the first journey with space tourists, and alt1 doesn't convey how it's different from any other spaceflight. Would support a variant of the original blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the flight which had "The first space tourist, Dennis Tito...." right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the space tourists club, Tito, allows for old ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your attempt at humour: we've had space tourists. It's not news.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a group, though, or a duo. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting that Branson was more of a tourist than Dennis Tito?  Or are you just deliberately wasting time again? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the "six occupants" part is new, but calling them space tourists, dead fucking serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So the blurb which talks about the "first space tourist" still solicits your support despite it being utterly inaccurate? Perhaps you can start considering this project with an iota of gravitas rather than an alternative for Reddit or something.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hang on, in this Virgin flight, how many "tourists" were there? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4 I think. + 2 pilots (unsure if those pilots were astronauts themselves, possibly not). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok so four (perhaps) tourists (only one of whom was declared as a tourist) is newsworthy because....? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...it is, in the new normal's word of the year, unprecedented. Even before 2020, that factored into journalistic newsworthiness hard. First time, ever, in history! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What is? What you've voted to support on the main page doesn't reflect your bizarre attempts at humour here.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A group of humans, in space, touring together. Seriously. You see humour here, not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some employees of Virgin going in sub-orbital space. Amazing.  Come back with a real encyclopedic article to bother us instead of the relentless failing attempts at humour.  Seriously, some of us are trying to make this an encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't want a blurb, that's fine. But don't tell people who do that they're failing at humour when they're not trying, and telling you repeatedly how they mean it. It's unsettling. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to make your opinion clearer then. Your background is purely in attempted humour.  Your starting point was "It's the space tourists club, Tito, allows for old ones." which makes little sense to me or perhaps was an attempt at humour or an in-joke.  Maybe be clearer.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No Homers Club. Thought you might recognize it, and appreciate it as a simple way to grasp the true unfunny premise. I overestimated your and Wikipedia's cartoon cultural awareness, but hadn't considered that by alluding to a famous old saying, I'd be mistaken for funny myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think having a group of space tourists is significant. Here are a few sources discussing the effect of the trip on space tourism and BBC says Sir Richard billed the flight as a test of the space tourism experience he expects to begin selling to customers from next year. I think that makes this distinct from the usual 'guy pays Space Adventures for a trip'. Celebrity news would be the 'space rivalry' between Branson and Bezos, and likely we're not going to have two blurbs so only featuring one might suck us into the drama, but I think this is 'in the news' (that is, the news of two spaceflights in a short period of time with space tourists). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting this would certainly be good advertising for Virgin. So that's a thing.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not the first manned flight of this craft, not the first space tourist, and mostly just celebrity news. --M asem (t) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose rich man takes a high flight. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No small feat even for the billionaire, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh? We've had space tourists.  What is this?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the precedent is first civilian spaceflight, no? El_C 17:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed that distinction in the blurb, sorry.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on article quality. Virgin Galactic Unity 22 just says "some people flew".  I'm not sure why it's a separate article from VSS Unity, and if people don't improve it, it won't be separate for long. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose also based on importance; the people claiming this is important are struggling to find any "first" other than "first time Richard Branson has engaged in this marketing technique". User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Might one to include in blurb that Sir Richard is the first billionaire in space (I know...). CoatCheck (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and the first "English billionaire"? Or you could say "the first English airline-owning billionaire"?  Or even "the first man with a beard"?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Surely, that was Moses?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Charles Simonyi is the first billionaire in space. See . — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Beat out by Paul Scully-Power on the beard, too. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first space tourist is Dennis Tito, who flew to the ISS in 2001 aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. Tito was also the first orbital space tourist; Branson and others who flew with him are suborbital space tourists (where "space" is defined as either 50 miles or 62 miles above the surface of Earth). So, what do we put in the blurb? Virgin Galactic becomes the first company to offer suborbital space tours (defined as tours to an altitude of 50 miles)? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even if it had went beyond the Kármán line I may have opposed. A flight that only went into space according to US' and no one else's definition, err no thanks. -- KTC (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the day that human spaceflight is so common as to no longer be itself blurb-worthy in ITNR, but this didn't reach the Karman line in any event so I must oppose even though it's lighting up space Twitter. Besides, the first space tourist was way back in 2001. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This did not go into space, it did not reach the Kármán line, the standard definition of space. Only in the US would this be considered a spaceflight. Fortunately for the americans, it looks like the blurb will actually go to the other billionaire in a weeks time. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the reason it is notable is that it is the first commercial enterprise to do private commercial suborbital flights. Technically the equivalent of SpaceX doing this is its Inspiration4 since the other crewed flights were contracted by a governmental agency (NASA), while the Russians launched space tourists as a governmental agency themselves.  This is strictly about privatizing space, since all previous space tourism involves big government money, not individual pocket money. And first successful launches of a new rocket are ITNR, this is just the first paying successful flight of such a rocket. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cmnt: just noticed the complete lack of quality updates to the article. Considering how secretive this flight was, it would be difficult to get a meaningful update to the article now besides its relevancy and rivalry to the Bezos competition. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Spaceflight is still rare and dangerous, and civilian passengers were on this flight, a private flight. (Tito bought a seat on a Russian government flight). 331dot (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but not opposed in principle to it being posted. - Indefensible (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Virgin's In Space, yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Too much personal hype for the likes of Wiki. And I don't see much genuine significance in this $tunt. – Sca (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Note that Little Peter's Journey to the Moon took place in 1919. – Sca (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC) →
 * Manned shells to Luna are cool but the acceleration would be like the worst instant of a giant that kind of one-punch kills you but for 10 nonstop seconds. Also it'd probably have to be a helium barrel or something even more exotic as no non-nuclear explosion can expand in air at over ~80% the minimum moonshot speed and it must be about 30 miles long in addition to being a very hard to design "constant acceleration cannon" with many explosions per shot to kill you this gently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oooh, Milky Way, you damp squib. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't doubt the redoubtable Hans Baluschek? – Sca (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sca, I've found a source that says 16 times Earth gravity for 1 minute would kill us, so a 180 mile long moon cannon would still be fatal. The average person would pass out on a moonshot of about 6 or maybe 5 g's, I'd try to keep the cannon at least 700 miles long so it's more like a strong roller coaster valley for 4 minutes. One day someone may make a 700 mile long Moonstik® from future substances that'll not collapse from their own length, but electromagnetic, and within a century of that someone will become the first man to listen to a dubstep buildup while attached to a 600 to 700 mile long lineac Capsool®, and when the electromagnetic linear accelerator railgun inductors or whatever "go to warp" the illest 4-minute bass drop ever composed will start. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the many varied reasons outlined above by Masem, The Rambling Man, power~enwiki, KTC, 104.243.98.96, Sca. It is not Wikipedia's job to be the hype-machine for a billionaire and/or the stock of a publicly traded company. Chrisclear (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, weak publicity stunt with no lasting impact. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The billionaire space race has been covered internationally and seeing the world's richest battle over who'll be the first to space is a rare event.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we consider the "billionaire space race" to be an actual thing, since the aircraft didn't reach the Karman line, it's not really a major milestone Scaramouche33 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. This signifies the beginning of commercial sub-orbital flight operations, there is clear lasting significance and widespread global news coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Ethiopian general election

 * Oppose with regret, still no improvement really 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPOQ important development but threadbare article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Removal of Robert E. Lee Monument

 * Oppose An unimportant aftermath. Removing the statue won't cause any effect to the current issue. It's just a statue among many others and although removing it would definitely resolve the protest, it doesn't have any long-term effects. --125.166.22.203 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is news that I doubt is ITNR even in the United States. A statue is removed, as so many have been removed in that country these past few months and in Europe. Unless the Statue of Liberty (which is known globally) is removed, I doubt that removing a Confederate monument (or of any other significance) would have any future as a candidate to the main page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose so many statues have been removed in US and UK, that we don't need to post about one of the many occurrences. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Esther Béjarano

 * Support - Start-class fully sourced article. I think it's good enough for a RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short article, but sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmel Budiardjo

 * Support I fixed up the article. Pretty well cited and should meet standards for RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why so fast? There's a lot of unposted ready RDs below and it would be better if you check those first instead of this one. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no noms will be posted if no one expresses their support here on WP:ITN/C. This nom has the support votes from two Wikipedians. --PFHLai (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also no RD noms below this one that I see with supports/consensus to post. They all have comments or opposes based on work that needs doing, and doesn't yet look to have been done. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Copa América

 * Comment I haven't checked article quality, but I think we may need a combined blurb with this and Euro 2020 (with the final in less than 24 hours). User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, when there are two events in ITNR that happen in a 24 hour period they should both get blurbs if the articles are ready. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, these are 2 completely separate events. When we had 2 aircraft disasters, we didn't merge them into one blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is not ready. Keep blurbs separate. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. While the article is currently a stub prose-wise, it would make zero sense to combine two unrelated events that just happen to be in the same field into one blurb. If there are two plane crashes on the same day, do they get a combined blurb? Of course not. Kingsif (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it would make sense to combine into a single blurb. The 2 organizers, CONMEBOL and UEFA, are sibling organizations within FIFA, so it does not seem accurate to say that they are totally unrelated. - Indefensible (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember a few months back,there were two US shootings combined into a single blurb Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless they were linked shootings, then they shouldn't have been. Wimbledon just finished, so why not add that in there, so we have only 1 sports blurb? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is still not ready. Given that the Euro final will be done in around six hours, and will probably updated quickly, keep the blurbs separate.  Also, I rewrote the blurb for ENGVAR.Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment no matter what, do NOT conflate this "tournament" with Euro 2020. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why mock the CONMEBOL championship? It's less important than the UEFA but 4 different countries won the last 5 and 5 won last 8, the same country doesn't always win like CONCACAF or OFC. It's almost a de facto Western Hemisphere championship, as the following teams have played to increase the field to 12 and let weaker confederations play South America: Costa Rica (1997, 2001, 2004, 2011, 2016), Honduras (2001), Japan (1999, 2019), Jamaica (2015, 2016), Mexico (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016), Haiti (2016), Panama (2016), USA (1993, 1995, 2007, 2016), Qatar (2019). USA even hosted 2016. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose dreadful article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose dreadful is correct regarding the bold article. No prose about the game or outcome, and the entirety of the background section is about Bangladesh, which (checks notes) is halfway around the world in Asia. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too short. In order not to be biased against the victory of Argentina I may oppose to any outcome of England v. Italy too. CoryGlee (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Both are ITNR, so only consideration is whether articles are good enough quality. We are not being biased here for opposing this one (which needs more info) whilst accepting the European competition (which is of sufficient quality). The way to "fix" this bias would be to improve this article, not to oppose another article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Cmnt only requirement of ITNR items before posting is to have sufficient updates, which surprisingly this does not even have a "Road to final" section that these kind of articles have. 97.126.66.142 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a prose summary and will be working on a pre-match section soon. Can't have a major tournament left uncovered, especially one that had such a global impact (see: riots in Bangladesh).  Sounder Bruce  06:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged as updated. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support following the update, the article is now ready for the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging Considering the recent progress in the nominated article, would you change your 'Oppose' vote? --PFHLai (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now there's enough text about the match and post-match. Seems good enough for the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now it fits. CoryGlee (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It currently meets the requirements to be posted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taliban offensive

 * Wait, Leaning Oppose, Ongoing Is Fine Not in article (and should be "recapture"). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the July segment,but yeah,it's only a single paragraph, I'll try to expand it a bit Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see them entering, but I don't see capturing. Pretty big difference (ask withdrawing Americans). Still needs much expansion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (For those wondering, the original proposal boldlinked "capture", not "enter".) InedibleHulk (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Opppose Doesn't seem like it's gaining a lot of attention. Now one WP:ITN purpose is showcasing quality content, but the page is subpar WP:PROSELINE.—Bagumba (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It was inevitable anyway. (Good morning, Afnamistan!) – Sca (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question wouldn't it be better to nominate 2021 Taliban offensive for ongoing? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best solution, Taliban has made major gains within the last few weeks and more regions will fall under their rule. So the article will be continuously updated. I worry that Kabul may suffer the same fate by the end of the year Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing the Taliban rule paragraph of Kandahar to the 21st century section, a return to relative normality and occasional (or less apparent and deadly) crime seems nice to me. I'm not a woman or girl, though. Could be sadder for them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we ignore the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the forced deportations, the gender apartheid, the refusal to accept food aid for their starving civilians, human trafficking and mass rape, the destruction of cultural heritage and the ban on modern entertainment, living in the Islamic Emirate doesn't seem that bad Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Where'd you see that part? All I see in the article is a hijacking and some censorship. I don't condone post-9/11 ISIS-type shit, certainly. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The atrocities carried out by the Islamic Emirate are described in the Taliban's article fairly well (but not in the Emirate's article for some reason,which we can improve later). Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly talking about how things were in Kandahar under the Taliban, not all of Afghanistan, and definitely not during the insurgency. War brings out the worst in people. If it was bad in the old capital, we can at least hope it'll be relatively better the second time around! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gee whiz, it's really hard for me to not fall back into reductio ad Hitlerum here. WaltCip- (talk)  16:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the women and the Tajiks at least,I doubt it. Anyway, should we nominate this for ongoing? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support it, but not because I want Tajiks and women to be cruelly discriminated against, rounded up or eradicated, Walt, just because this war goes on (and government policy can reform for the good of humanity after a great war, it's happened before). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I changed it to an ongoing nomination after receiving some feedback Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the Taliban are offensive – it's their nature. – Sca (talk)


 * Oppose ongoing, please propose a blurb. In most cases ITN stories should start with a blurb, and they then roll on to ongoing if there's consensus that the issue is still generating fresh news on a regular basis. This seems like a new issue, so please propose a blurb for it so that we can vote on that and assess its significance. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Putting military conflicts directly into ongoing without a blurb first is highly unusual. Is there at least a potential blurb we could post? Mlb96 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it seems that the proposed blurb was originally "Taliban forces enter Kandahar, the second largest city in Afghanistan." I would support posting this first as opposed to posting directly to ongoing (not saying that I actually do support the blurb, I'm still neutral). Mlb96 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Changing it back to a blurb nomination as suggested by Amakuru and Mlb96 Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements but added altblurb. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is basically still the final chapter or epilogue of the 2001 Afghan War, parts of which we've blurbed already (probably several times), so Ongoing is still fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm supportive in principle, but curious what is meant by they "entered Kandahar". Have they seized the city, or parts of it? That would certainly be a major development if so, but it's a little unclear from the blurb or the article exactly what's happened here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Parts of it, according to TOLOnews, clashes are underway in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 15th districts Scaramouche33 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paul Mariner

 * Comment will try to assist improving referencing later today, Support in principle, RIP Paul  JW 1961 Talk 12:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I and some others referenced a good few sentences yesterday but I'm afraid the 1980's section will need to be re-written by someone with more expertise in this area in order to cut it down to what is verifiable JW 1961 Talk 10:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The section on 1980s remains largely unref'd. The orange {refimprove} banner atop the wikibio must be addressed before this nom can proceed. (Time seems to be running out too quickly here.) --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Galileo

 * Oppose for now The race record and progeny sections are unreferenced. Also an image of him would be nice Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For some reason, I thought that Galileo Galilei had died today and I was confused. Thanks, Kaiser.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 01:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment But could he do the fandango? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jehan Sadat

 * Please add more refs to this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of the article is unreferenced. Gotitbro (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jose Jaime Espina

 * Support Looks ok. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gian Franco Kasper

 * Support Swiss ski official, sourced, nothing shocking. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ngaire Lane

 * Comment Some reference tags remain. Joofjoof (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article also uses this source, which looks like a copy of the article itself. Joofjoof (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Frank Lui

 * READY for RD – No obvious concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources did not pass verification. Also, is there more detail about what he did as a Cabinet minister and as Premier? Joofjoof (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's ping, the nominator. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Makhubo

 * Comment can the controversy section be moved into one of the existing sections? Controversy sections says that "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is fully sourced. The controversy section is neutral and sourced, I don't see a problem with it.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bryan Watson (ice hockey)

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Neptune made an appearance on the East Sussex coast

 * Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I mean, I’m into what you’re putting down, and if it turns out to actually be the Roman sea deity, that would warrant a blurb. However, it seems to just be a cool picture, so not blurb-worthy. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whilst East Sussex is fantastic and needs better representation on ITN (I'm biased and joking), this is not mentioned at target, and not true. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as it's not Jupiter and catches the first lady he see.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abul Kalam Qasmi

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

(Closed) Hurricane Elsa

 * Wait until a fuller picture of the impact can be determined. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait there looks to be a tropical storm warning for parts of the US. Dependent on what emerges in the next day or so (in US and anywhere else it hits), it may or may not be ITN-worthy. Although why did they name it after the queen of Arendelle? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is possible that the name was nominated as a decent replacment for the name Erica in 2016 because of Frozen, NHC did not name this system Elsa because of Frozen.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious, I guess that didn't come across well ;) <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The impacts are not overly significant at this time.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Run of the mill storm. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait If this is the extent of damage, it is a run-of-the-mill storm and not significant for posting. --M asem (t) 17:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless that one person killed was a major figure in his or her field. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a pretty typical hurricane. Nothing extraordinary. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Per 331dot. There are likely more impacts in Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, etc. Also, the storm is likely to impact some areas of the northeastern US. Not ITN-worthy now, but if the damage is greater than it currently seems, I'd post it. Also, there's a cleanup tag for preps in the Greater Antilles. codingcyclone   advisories/damages 19:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Thus far nothing extraordinary about this this one. – Sca (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Jason Rees. Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even WPTC would agree that this is on the low end of cyclonic impacts.--WaltCip- (talk)  01:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- its strongest impacts were not even in the United States. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Lotsa rain.  – Sca (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose top wind speeds of 50mph in New York. That's not groundbreaking enough for ITN. I think for this nomination, we need to Let It Go. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Virbhadra Singh

 * Comment He was 87, so not to be confused with Rachhpal Singh, the Indian politician who was 78 when he died the same day. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There are a few {CN} tags, including points about political activities of various living family members. Please fix up these missing refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Went in here hoping to fill in some of the {cn} tags, but, some editors have already done that. Seems well referenced. Ktin (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Stanley Cup Finals

 * Boo, my team lost... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So did mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My team won 51 points this year, whooo. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Je suis désolé. Wait pending write-up of Game 5. Also, ITN/R notes that Stanley Cup blurb usually also includes the winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy. I've added an altblurb accordingly. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Vasilevskiy. Who else. ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's over now, one of the largest sports leagues in the world. No brainer. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending the game 5 writeup. This is how we should write sports ITN/R articles. Lots of prose, and supporting tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added second alt blurb, which I think is more in line with how we usually phrase it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a repeat championship. I'm not sure if we usually make a note of consecutive titles or not (probably not). --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Question - is NHL.com considered WP:PRIMARY and if so does this article meet WP:RS? - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's the kind of primary source we'd want to avoid (if it is one), and it very certainly is an RS for a competition which it runs... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the wording in the blurb: it should be written that the Lightning won the Stanley Cup, or some variation of that; they didn't win the "Finals". So something like alt-2 would be appropriate. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, they won "it all". The final game, the final series, the cup, a bunch of rings and historic immortality. But the Finals article is the timeliest article we have, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was that the first two blurbs are worded incorrectly, and should not be used. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, and all I'm saying is they're worded fine and one should be used. I don't want to take this outside, buddy. But nobody wins the cup around here without taking four games of the Finals first! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 – article looks good, and game 5 write-up has been added. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 As Kaiser matias notes, we don't really say "winning the Finals" in Canadian/American English for the Stanley Cup. The wording in Alt2 feels much better to me. Canuck 89 (Speak with me)  06:15, July 8, 2021 (UTC)
 * Support First Alt Nice and concise, totally accurate and the prize is explictly implied by the title of the current event target. Could go with "over" over "against". But no dealbreaker! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And if anyone's thinking of telling me we "need to" specify which sport, let me be the first to smash a rhetorical bottle against the proverbial bar and raise a toast to the effect of "Open your eyes and look at the damn MVP, whaddya think he's playing with that helmet, rowboat?!?". Peacefully, though. Nobody wants any trouble, nobody gets some, just a traditionally friendly game of cups. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a standard way of doing sports blurbs, and that includes the sport name. No need to run this one differently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was about to break a pool cue and point out that Alt2 still sucks regardless, because the Stanley Cup is a timeless object, but now see it's an astonishing Easter egg pipelink to the right article all along. Less opposed now. Less strongly, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 as ALT2 is our standard way of doing sports blurb for finals (the format "In {sport name}, {winner} win the {competition} against {loser}"). It may seem obvious that it's ice hockey from the image, but we shouldn't presume that readers would know that. And for every other sports nom, we add the sport name. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 The article itself looks good, I'd prefer alt blurb2. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Game summaries are present and the article seems fine. I've added an alt3 blurb with two minor tweaks to avoid the WP:EGG links and the undefined acronym. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone would definitely have asked what an MVP was.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb2. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Priscilla Johnson McMillan

 * Support Passed. Grimes2 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in excellent shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - GA article.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 08:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Horovitz

 * Support Satisfactory. Grimes2 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The prose looks good. The publication list could use more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was away all weekend, and nothing happened, sad. I'm just as qualified to look for sourcing for a topic I don't know as everybody else. I added some, and if nobody beats me to it, will supply the others. Please beat me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ references and missing isbn added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough to me. Additional sources, for all his publications, should be easy to find. Haha, yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keshav Dutt

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Soles

 * Support: This nom looks ready to go for a touchdown in ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Downey Sr.

 * Support once the very few remaining cn tags are addressed . (Nice to see a nearly fully-ref'd filmography.) Davey2116 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * all cn tags addressed now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, nice work. Davey2116 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Reutemann

 * Support - satifies the criteria. Talk page lists him as high importance for both Formula One and Argentina, so highly notable. SSSB (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have just added a "Death" section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - several paragraphs and even whole sections unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add more references to this wikibio. There are more than 10 {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Jovenel Moïse assassination

 * Oppose until such time as the article is in a fit state to appear. Certainly blurbworthy once it is fit. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality it has two orange tags, both of which would need to be fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The PDF linked for the electoral history section 404s. This section is also oddly formatted/ --LukeSurlt c 10:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed these issues. --LukeSurlt c 10:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per quality, but it's undoubtedly blubworthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per quality, but definitely blurbworthy.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't at issue here, given the result of this tragedy. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the history of the nation,this might not end well for the country. Should we include the 2018-2021 Haitian protests in the blurb? Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem speculative at this stage to associate this act with anything else in particular. A short, straightforward blurb serves us best here. --LukeSurlt c 10:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose only on quality Assassination of a sitting head of state is certainly blurbworthy. Once the issues with the articles are fixed, I would support. Canuck 89 (What's up?)  10:58, July 7, 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assassination of Jovenel Moïse now exists. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 11:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have redirected that for now. There was nothing in the 3 sentences long assassination article that wasn't in the article of the individual. -- KTC (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The quality has been improved, but I'd like to see deeper coverage of his presidency, especially during the last protests. It almost only focuses on election results. I also propose that the blurb picture be changed to the one in the infobox of his article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed it in the nomination. -- KTC (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb worthy and citations have been fixed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – What sort of nomination is this? – Sca (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's not technically ITNR since we don't know the successor(the PM has claimed to be in charge, but I don't know if that is legal). But this will clearly be posted even if we don't know the successor. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I second this. I think it is possible for us to do a double blurb (his assasination and his replacement). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - assassination of current head of state/gov of any country is easily important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - The First Lady is reported to have died of her wounds . The article Martine Moïse was created today about her. --LukeSurlt c 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Both articles look fine to me, but the target should be the Moise himself IMO, provides a better background. Also, quite a rare happening in recent times, the last one being in 2009 per this list (discounting the Pres of Chad who was killed in a mil engagement). Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, is that (Chad) even an assassination, should probably be removed from the list. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks like the earlier commenters’ concerns had been fixed. Event obviously blurb worthy. Juxlos (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, weak oppose on quality. Clearly blurb-worthy news. However the assassination article has literally three sentences on the event, the rest of it is all background. It's almost the same three sentences as are already in the biography article, so I'm not sure why there even needs to be a separate article. Expand one or both with a decent paragraph on the assassination then it can go up. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I redirected it to the person but another editor reverted it. It's not worth the fight. -- KTC (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – There is enough to post. It has the basics. A five-sentence paragraph on the event itself is enough to get us started. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Three sentences on the event is not enough. While we're still not aware of the exact motives, there's clearly enough in the news reporting on this event to list possible reasons (which the background of our article isn't covering). We need more about this specific event since it is "new" before we can post. --M asem (t) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. All the top RS shops gotta be working on it. NYT (paywalled) sidebar headlined "Public Anger Was Rising Over Moïse’s Attempt to Cling to Power." – Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think we should wait till news regarding the First Lady is confirmed
 * Posted The current consensus is that the article is in reasonably good shape and of proper length. (Early opposes were based on a shorter version of the article, an issue that has been resolved already.) As motives and analysis come out in reliable sources, they will be added to the article.  The blurb is stable.  The plain fact is that the man was assassinated in his home.  We don't need to put any reasons in the blurb, though it could be updated later if need be.  Jehochman Talk 16:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article has been expanded substantially from when I checked this morning. ITN/R would seem to indicate that we should include the successor in the blurb, but I'm fine with waiting for the situation to develop. Davey2116 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The post is currently vacant. Feel free to nominate when a successor is appointed / elected. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated I have updated to the altblurb to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the successor.  Feel free to discuss and revise as the situation develops. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – U.S. 'rebuffs' Haitian call for U.S. troops. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Dilip Kumar

 * Oppose - article currently needs some ref improvement before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that we have posted blurbs for Rajesh Khanna (see nomination) and Shammi Kapoor (see nomination). Joofjoof (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that both of those examples were from before the creation of RD in 2016. Since then, the standards for a blurb about a death are higher. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Possibly the first ever big actor in Bollywood. Certainly deserves to be added. Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the photos have fishy copyright tags including one b/W one that says 'own work' Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Arguably the greatest Bollywood actor ever (tied for most best actor awards), certainly the greatest of his generation, death is getting international attention, so a blurb discussion is warranted here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a blurb is being discussed, I've taken the step of adding a blurb to the nomination. Would oppose posting right now until the filmography section gets some kind of summary, and the "Legacy" section could use some copyediting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I know little of Bollywood actors, but just based on the widespread coverage, he would seem to merit a blurb as tops in his field. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb His career has been described as legendary by international medias and as I recall Christopher Lee, Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds also had blurbs. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Definitely meets the standard for transformative actors, like Sean Connery and those mentioned by TDKR Chicago 101. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Definitely merits it as even the Pakistani PM has issued a condolence message. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Referencing seems ok, the proposed blurb doesn't really add anything to what a RD listing would.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD for now per Pawkingthree as the current blurb doesn't add much - would support an appropriate blurb in principle JW 1961 Talk 19:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many paragraphs that end without a reference. Stephen 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb. fixed all paragraphs that were pending a reference. Article looks fully sourced now. Good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still no filmography write-up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire middle section of the article seems to be filmography. Am I missing something? Ktin (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a section labeled "Filmography" which is blank save a link to Dilip Kumar filmography. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems alright to me. Replicating a subset will be duplicating the above sections. Unless you want to move the link above, which is unecessary imo. However, I have fixed it. Good to go to homepage / RD / Blurb Ktin (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb Stephen 01:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If there is an opportunity to rotate the pics on the homepage, might be a good idea to consider. Ktin (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Do not read this as a pull or any other change here, but I am concerned that the separate filmography article (which was already separate before death) is completely unsourced. While we do not require those linked articles to be at quality like the featured ones, here is a clear case that I would expect that readers would likely link to the filmography page to see his works and find it completely unsourced. Its too late to do anything about this now, but given that we are very critical when in-bio filmograph and similar sections are left unsourced, that separate filmography pages should be at least reviewed when we're posting RD blurbs from a quality standpoint. (I wouldn't expect that for a standard non-blurb RD entry). Eg: what we don't want editors doing is to say "Oh, I can't source all these films, let me dump them to a standalong filmography page and solve that problem!". We need a bit of parity for this across the board. --M asem (t) 18:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with the larger point you are making here, Masem. However, in this case, I see two things -- a) the filmography was not spawned off into a separate article while the article was being evaluated. Please correct me if I am wrong. So, this is not one of those 'gaming the system' situations. b) The entire career section is filled with filmography elements and each one of them is sourced adequately. Combination of these two things makes me feel good about this article being referenced from homepage. Happy to defer to other folks as well. Ktin (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These two comments should be referenced in all future filmography discussions.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is not a case of forking content merely to fast track a posting—that's a disservice to the reader. It's not to say filmographies can't be spawned into separate pages during a nomination as long as key performances are covered in the bio in prose. As long as readers aren't shortchanged merely to get some shiny stuff on a user page. Be wary of those editorial decisions being biased when an ITNC is involved.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that the filmography page was already separate before his death (and well before that point, when I looked through history to see, it wasn't made a few days ahead in anticipation). That said: there's almost no reason for as short as this bio is for a separate filmography page (and given how well sourced the prose section is, completing the sourcing in the filmography table probably would have been trivial.) Without seeing the history, it absolutely does look like we swept a sourcing issue under the rug to get it posted. This might be getting beyond just bios, but when there are tightly connected pages related to the one featured page - eg an actor's filmography for an actor we're featuring in an RD blurb, or to use a previous example, the subpages of events for the Hong Kong protests when they were ongoing - we should consider the quality of those, but I don't know how we can articulate or require that at this point. I just dont think that when we are doing blurbs (not RDs) that we make a facade page that looks great, but all the problems with sourcing are buried elsewhere. --M asem (t) 06:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think all sub-articles need to be referenced in general, I think your point here is a valid one. Filmography tables are something found in all actor articles, and there's no particular reason for this one to have its filmography in an unreferenced sub-page, even if the original split wasn't done as part of the ITN candidacy. Also, the empty filmography issue was raised by above and the section was then removed, rather than expanding it. I don't believe that was done in bad faith, and it was not a WP:GAMING attempt, but we should make clear going forward that issues such as this one need addressing before posting.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We want a decent description of their career, which includes films for an actor, which was already in the bio. It just so happens a filmography was on another page. If it wasn't there, I would not require it to be added as a prerequisite for posting; therefore, I wouldn't require a merge either. GAMING is a separate issue. While I can understand the urge to have consistent quality standards, a prose overview of their career with select works mentioned in the bio is sufficient. However, it is disingenuous to remove or fork existing filmographies that already exist in a bio. Merging already separate pages can be a plus, but should be outside the scope of ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly sourced now, FWIW. I am more concerned about the sources in the article that we did blurb. Trying to export sources, I found that too many extraordinary claims are sourced to BoxOffice India and other iffy sources. For example, After a few more unsuccessful films, it was Jugnu (1947), in which he starred alongside Noor Jehan, that became his first major hit at the box office.. Assuming it is reliable, all it says is, Year 1947, Film Jugnu, Box Office 5,000,000, Verdict "Hit". Nothing about "few more unsuccessful films, nothing about Dilip Kumar, nothing about Noor Jehan, nothing about it being the first "major hit" for Kumar. This is, btw, the state of affairs with almost all other sources as well. The source will say something like "Dilip Kumar was in ...", and it will be cited for something like "Dilip Kumar's first major film, and the first successful film in three years, in which he appeared with ..., ... won him his first Filmfare Award for Best Actor, which he went on to win a record nine times." Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The hope is that the information is verifiable, even if it's not cited. The onus is on the supporters to vet it out, or an opposer to sniff it out.—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Actor dies at 98. Dubious significance, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to post as blurb because people in some parts of the world may not be aware of this important actor. It's a good chance for us to provide education and variety. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He was clearly a very significant actor, but my view is that actors basically never warrant a blurb. We have recent deaths for recent notable deaths; that's what we should use. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suzzanne Douglas

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Nicely sourced, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 08:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although there's still a cn tag. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * cn tag now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William H. Pauley III

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support long enough and fully cited. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jivan Gasparyan

 * Comment In principle, no reason why not. But currently none of his recordings are sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. we seem to call him Djivan Gasparyan
 * The biography section of Djivan Gasparyan is also rather under-ref'd. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * -- this article will go stale in a few hours. Please see if you would want to work on this article. Ktin (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021)

 * Support, standard significance. I've made some expansion. Brandmeistertalk  15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality current, there are 4 sentences of text about the incident itself. I expect more information will come out soon, but right now the article is barely above a stub (1784 characters). Significant enough once article is improved. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Not quite long enough yet, but it is significant enough for ITN.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment How rare is it that a single flight number has two accidents? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * American Airlines Flight 1 has three: 1936, 1941, 1962; Aeroflot Flight 3739, Aeroflot Flight 5003, TWA Flight 841, Japan Airlines Flight 472, Air France Flight 212, United Arab Airlines Flight 869, Northwest Airlines Flight 5, Linea Aeropostal Venezolana Flight 253, and American Airlines Flight 383 each have two; Aeroflot Flight 315 (1959) and (1960); Aeroflot Flight 36 (1960) and (1976); TWA Flight 800 (1964) and (1996); ČSA Flight 511 (March 1961) and (July 1961); American Airlines Flight 63 (disambiguation) features two fatal accidents and a failed terrorist attack Ionmars10 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * United Airlines Flight 826 and the 1960 New York mid-air collision one, and also the TWA Flight 800, 1964 and 1996.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – At barely 300 words this seems too thin for the main page. Lacks detail. – Sca (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The crash happened in Russia. We're not going to get the wall-to-wall coverage that we'd have got if this had been in California. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or in Kent. That doesn't necessarily mean it's ITN material. Wiki isn't spot news. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support once expanded too short for main as it stands, but a good story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Twenty-eight people die for reasons not immediately known in a place most readers never have heard of. Newswise, what's good about it? (Let alone encyclopedic?) – Sca (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear that EasyJet may be offering some discount deals on that route for the Summer season. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as is. This may be all the info that can be obtained for now.  We should post this article because we do not want to be biased against remote locations that have thin news coverage. See streetlight effect. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not see it as necessary it is necessary to post every plane crash that results in loss of life, as such incidents are not rare (5 fatal crashes in 2020), particularly when another plane crash story is currently on the main page. 204.154.192.252 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC).
 * Agree. Petropavlosk is one of the remotest cities in Russia, so it is indeed unlikely that much detail will be forthcoming. For now, let it be. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And Palana, near where the crash happened, has a population of 3,155 at the 2010 census. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it's OK. It's not a stub, and the article reports what's known about the crash and response without going off topic. And we certainly don't restrict what we post because "another plane crash story is currently in the main page". I think this is basically ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still a grand total of 291 words, including headings. Below 'front page' weight. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still in the CNN front page ticker. Certainly "front page weight". The bottomline is that it's not a stub and reports everything that is currently known. Brandmeistertalk  22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stub size is generally taken to be 1500 bytes of readable prose, with occasional allowances lower than that if the circumstances are right. This article has 1973 bytes, so it's well over the threshold. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when did bytes supersede words as a measure of article length? People read words, not bytes. People aren't computers. And individual words can contain a wide range of bytes. At Wiki, anything below 300 words has long been considered stub territory. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's over 320 not counting infobox, refs and Cats. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Seems we also have a useable image of the crash site, which is unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the crash site image is useable at MP size. Stick with a picture of the actual aircraft, either the one proposed here, which is protected at commons, of the one used in the article, which will need protecting at Commons before use. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. There's not much to see anyway. But it does show the terrain clearly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – 5-4 doesn't equal consensus to post. 'Ready' designation therefore removed. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More details have been added now to reflect newer information that became known since the early quality-wise opposes. Ready. Brandmeistertalk  14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bit more could be gleaned from this fairly extensive ref. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready - Some of the opposes reference an earlier, shorter version of the article.  These opposes are outdated because they said the article was too short, but it has since been expanded significantly.  Based on current state of opinion, it looks like this is ready to be posted. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which was my thinking when I marked it ready early this morning. Article is over 10k long now, so shoud easily be long enough to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ten thousand WHAT? In human-being-friendly terms, the article totals 389 words, of which only 218 describe the actual crash. The other 170 words are boilerplate. – Sca (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting 389 words from. An intitle search produces "10 KB (760 words) - 17:36, 7 July 2021". Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From MS Word (if you've heard of that). – Sca (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC).


 * Support Significant crash, article long enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and mark as good to go, there are some truly bizarre thoughts above, I hope a decent admin passes by to assess the clear consensus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Where can anybody find a decent admin these days? WaltCip- (talk)  11:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted without the picture. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Masood Ashar

 * There is next to nothing included about his 70-year career. Stephen 00:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing that. Could you check it now. I've improved and added the section of his Career. Thanks- Hasan (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gillian Sheen

 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Aggrey Awori

 * Support article in good shape and well sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a few {cn} tags. Please add footnotes as needed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still missing refs for him running for seat in the National Assembly and lost, becoming ambassador and then reassigned, ... etc. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Didi Contractor

 * Support: satisfactory. Grimes2 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - adequate to post. --LukeSurlt c 09:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready, as looks fine for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fay Allen

 * Oppose Barely beyond a stub. Surely there's more information out there. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit more, but seem now to have exhausted online coverage of her (including on Newspapers.com). Which is a shame, but the obituaries gave almost no extra information about her, sadly. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If there's no more that'll have to do. I checked Newspapers.com too and couldn't find more info either. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - adequate quality to post. --LukeSurlt c 09:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Big Jake

 * Comment Article is short, but above stub size. No it isn't, it's 750 characters, which is definitely still a stub. Needs expanding. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we just call it a pony? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded a bit, now 1572 bytes / 272 words of "readable prose size". Don't think there's much more room to expand without dragging in unnecessary trivia at this point. --LukeSurlt c 08:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary trivia is (are?) what this nom. is all about. – Sca (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Awww, bless. Are you crazy? What we need here is a "Statement by POTUS and FLOTUS"! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whose horse did you ride in on? – Sca (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not enough horses on Main page. It's unfair. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's been a fair bit of editing on this today and there's a little over double the prose now that there was at the time of nomination. --LukeSurlt c 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:STUBDEF, there's no set size for a stub, and I don't think there is much more that can be expanded, so this is acceptable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose barely cold and a fair use image already? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. No excuse for having a copyrighted image in this article, and it certainly can't appear on the main page in that state. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not proposing a blurb and a picture of Jake on the main page, are we? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Two separate issues, we shouldn't have a "fair use" image which clearly isn't fair use yet in any article, and we shouldn't link from the main page to an article which is misusing fair use. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles nominated for ITN and RD are assessed for compliance with quality requirements and also copyright policy, and this article does not pass on the latter due to a potentially replaceable non-free image. Doesn't matter if the image is to be used in the blurb or not, it still has to be compliant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stephen has removed the image. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Richard Donner

 * Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement per nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Though the article could use additional citations (there are only 15), I believe the article covers the subject of the article well and is an individual whose contributions warrants inclusion. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no question that if the article quality was there, we would post this. But there's at least 2 unsourced paragraphs, and the filmograph and other similar sections are completely unsourced. That's a non-starter. --M asem (t) 05:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more citations.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yasunori Oshima

 * Support Seems to meet all the requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted: a little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/ Blurb : Raffaella Carrà

 * Comment - nowhere near the quality required at the moment unfortunately. Most of the Career section is unreferenced. Also probably not transformative for a blurb, although I'll admit I haven't heard of her, so perhaps I don't know her true significance... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD - article currently does not meet quality standard for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely passes RD. Entire career and filmography sections are unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the proposed image, a suspected copyvio tagged for speedy deletion at WCommons. --PFHLai (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD as the article is woefully undersourced. Oppose blurb because they don't meet the very high standard we have for people's deaths to be added to RD- she seems to be comparable, maybe less well known, than Vera Lynn was in the UK, and she didn't get published on ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment I am updating her article, but in a separate document. I say this mostly because there's few activity in the "history", but I'm working on it. I guess I'll have it finished tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment, , , Cited new information added and now appears to meet the minimums. Please check it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Filmography & television appearances still look unsourced. Hopefully there's a source that has most of that info, as it's the only unsourced content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A technicality but filmography still needs sourcing, the article has really been improved though since the nom. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. comment Marking it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matīss Kivlenieks

 * Please add more references. There are multiple sections with no footnotes at all. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have added references to all unreferenced paragraphs. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references in the prose. Please also add references to the tables at the end (just above the refs). Him being named an all-star, best whatever in WJC-D1, etc. should be mentioned in the prose, too. --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak support , the article is basically fine, the cause of death could need some more details and I have no idea what GAA is. Yakikaki (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Goals against average. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Changed to support. Yakikaki (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything is now referenced, and I used those references plus some others to expand the non-death sections of the prose. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb With multiple-day original reporting in many prominent outlets, this is a no-brainer under our "death as the main story" criteria.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Swamy

 * Support Article is in great shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced - Sherenk1 (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Menshov

 * Comment in answer to the IP nominator's question: yes, everything needs to be supported by a reliable source. Lots more sources needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does *everything* need to though? Do you need sources for stuff that happened in the movies? What about his roles, do there have to be sources for what role in what movie had he played in? 212.74.201.233 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. If, say, I edit the article and wrote that the actor has played in the movie 300 as a child peeing on the street, how do you refute my claim and remove the statement? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement per discussion above. - Indefensible (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Referencing has improved over the past few days, but there are still quite a few paragraphs of footnote-free text. Please add more references to this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - References were added and article improved. I think that the article is ready to be posted. Filmmaker is a transformative figure and was in several international productions. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted: Thanks for all the new refs, Kirill C1! I can only AGF them, though. I don't know Russian. --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Richard Lewontin

 * Oppose - article currently needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Donahue

 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Adang Sudrajat

 * Question - all of the refs seem to be in Indonesian, can anyone confirm that they are WP:RS? If so, the article probably meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kompas and Tempo are the better private news sources. Antara is the government owned news agency. The other sources are good enough usually for RS. Juxlos (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This wikibio is a little thin, but it looks okay for RD purposes. I have to AGF all non-English refs, though. No glaring concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to have a (Attention needed, please) on this. Non-English RD noms often get tossed away and that's it. 12 minutes before the time changes and there's nothing we can do.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harmoko

 * Support He was a important member of a government, seems notable enough.Pyramids09 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Lazy referencing, dumping multiple references at the end of the two major paragraphs, makes it difficult to ensure that every fact is cited. Stephen 02:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Assigned the references to sentences - better now? Juxlos (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notifying . --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support In the process of rearranging the citations I checked them and basically everything in the article is backed up by those sources. Just about long enough. 40-60 year old Indonesians will be having a slight nostalgic trip from the news. Juxlos (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is well-sourced for the mainpage. --ϗ (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This nom looks ready to me, too. is the referencing good enough for you now? --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Philippine Air Force C-130 crash

 * Comment. I haven't reviewed this event yet, but typically we treat military aircraft incidents a little stricter than civilian ones, as military service is inherently a risky business, that those who do it are aware of. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment –  Agreed. It has received a fair amount of coverage, though, and 17 soldiers were reported missing. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Headlining on BBC radio news this morning and on BBC home front page: . Notability may be that so many survived. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - with 29 dead and 13 missing, there is enough weight added to pass the bar for posting. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Though a military incident, the deaths are significant. Article is short but looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have suggested altblurb2: with "aircraft" instead of "plane" and actual location, in Sulu, Philippines, linked. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment I do note that the crash did killed at least 3 civilians on the ground (per BBC) so this is quite unusual in terms of a military aircrash and posting seems appropriate. --M asem (t) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PP Commment – Current blurb doesn't make clear whose military the plane belonged to. Suggest: "A Philippine military plane crashes in Sulu, Philippines, killing at least 45 people." – Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated per Sca's suggestion. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed, please) RD: John Siffy Mirin

 * Could you take a look at this? Tks. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This wikibio is a little thin, but it looks okay for RD purposes. AGF'ing all non-English refs. No apparent problems. --PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Kallstrom

 * Posted Stephen 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rachmawati Sukarnoputri

 * Support - sourced and complete. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Haunani-Kay Trask

 * Support Good to go.– Ammarpad (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Selected works section could use some footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the refs so quickly! --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Ramsey (singer)

 * Support Article well referenced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramlan Hutahaean

 * Support A small but well-sourced article, seems OK for the mainpage. --ϗ (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient for RD JW 1961 Talk 07:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support just about long enough for RD, though I'm sure there must be more that could be said about him, as the leader of an established church. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas G. Plaskett

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements; would be good to find the missing links for a bunch of the refs though. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - decent article, AGF on non-linked refs JW 1961 Talk 19:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Transair Flight 810

 * Oppose I believe there was a recent near-disaster in passenger air traffic recently that we did not post on the basis that non-crashes are interesting, and "thank goodness"-type news, but not ITN appropriate . --M asem (t) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Add further this was a cargo flight, with only two persons aboard (the pilots). Even if it did crash into the ocean, it would not be of major significance to post. --M asem (t) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No deaths reported. 180.243.211.196 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS but in all seriousness, everyone was thankfully unhurt and the economic impact was miniscule, so nothing to see here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is very rare for both engines to fail on an aircraft (I'm not saying that I support this, however). 45.251.33.202 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems notable enough. Also, if this is not notable enough, why did we add a blurb about a South African president going to prison? Pyramids09 (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A miraculous plane landing with no deaths could be notable if there were a large number of passengers (see the Miracle on the Hudson, one of the most notable plane crashes in recent history despite having 0 deaths). Here there were only two people on the plane, so the notability is largely reduced. I wouldn't be surprised if this article ends up at AfD. Mlb96 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it's a bit sad that if the plane had crashed and everyone had died, it'd probably be posted. Banedon (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, it was only a cargo plane with two pilots aboard. That may not have made it to ITN. --M asem (t) 05:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the story here is a twin engine failure which is basically unheard of and is the foundation for ETOPS. This was a very old variant, but depending on the engine configuration this could be infinitely more consequential to aviation than some backwater pilot misunderstanding the flight director of their 737-Max and driving it into the ocean. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And the successful water landing. Still, these were really old JT8Ds so probably we can pass on this, but seriously, the obsession around here with body count it patently absurd and is a lazy shortcut around actually understanding what you're talking about before commenting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 400 m hurdles world record

 * Oppose on quality: several unreferenced sections and results. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Career section now fully referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not particularly significant This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 or 4 older in field. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Athletic records (including longstanding ones) get broken all the time. I fail to see a reason why this is essential news we need to push out to 60 million readers. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but where did you get 60 million from ? - Indefensible (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misremembered; the main page gets 6M views per day, not 60M. So it'd have to last for 10 days, which is probably on the high end. 20M might be a better estimate. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We did have that shot-putter on the main page the other day for breaking a long-standing world record.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was confused by that one, how did it get posted? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for a record this old, sure. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it weren't Olympics season, I'd consider this. We can expect multiple more headlines similar to this in the next month that we won't post, I don't think we should post this one either. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the standards for world track and field records should be loosened a little, if so many events get in automatically every year (like the 1 or 2 a year for the our national motorsport (NASCAR) which is big here (especially in the South) but no one else cares) then why not world records in the most universal Olympic sport? The only Olympic sports which have given a gold to every continent are probably still athletics, swimming and boxing and everyone runs, jumps and throws stuff while not everyone swims/Western boxes (like Greenlanders/Chinese). Can world records set at Olympics be posted if a ticker's added till the closing ceremony blurb leaves? Too abbreviated?: World records: 400m H•shot p•pole v•stpl•10K•trpl j jav•800m•100m•long j•dec•mara heck, t tm trial•50m arch•st 500m. Female records can be pink text. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment A bit funny how this nomination is being opposed, but this didn't. Banedon (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Brawn vs. speed bias.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also remember that a 16-year-old WR break was posted a couple of years ago (consecutive to another, non-WR, athletics post). This record will probably not be posted, but through trial and error we may be able to determine which athletics events are notable for ITN purposes. So far, marathon and shot put are notable, and 400 m hurdles is not notable. 3 down, only 40 or so left to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sdkb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Running is more widespread than most, and a very long-standing record Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as this was the world's longest standing track record, as per . But article needs some more info, and would need to actually state the fact I mentioned (as would the blurb), to show why it's notable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is just a collection of stats and gives no indication of the importance or otherwise of this record. I don't think we should routinely be posting the breaking of athletics world records at ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Breaking one of the longest-standing world records merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree with the more kurt oppose !votes above. Sports are not a priori unencyclopedic. But the article is poor, has apparent referencing issues and is composed in an odd way. I thought of adding an altblurb with 400 meter hurdles but that article is orange tagged twice.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting in the mainpage, article condition needs fixing As mentioned above, breaking a longstanding running record is worth a mainpage sentence. However, several parts of the Career statistics is still undersourced. --ϗ (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Comparatively minor sports-record items get stale quickly. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) OECD tax rate

 * This should be noted as a followup to this previous nomination when the finance ministers of the G7 agreed to establish this rate. Yes, this would still need to be ratified through all member countries, but this is by far the largest point of agreement this will see based on that previous nom. --M asem (t) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: are there any major economies where the rate is currently less than the 15% threshold? Corporate tax lists only Ireland and Hungary - neither of which are signatories - below 15%. Every other country is listed as already taxing at the minimum level or above. If they're promising to do something that already happens, this agreement is moot. If it gets rid of tax havens then it's another story. It's not clear to me whether this agreement will do that. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this also gets rid of tax havens and other breaks for corporations to where they can "hide" profit. "The minimum corporate tax does not require countries to set their rates at the agreed floor but gives other countries the right to apply a top-up levy to the minimum on companies' income coming from a country that has a lower rate." per . (and common tax havens like Bermuda and Caymans are in the 130 countries). --M asem (t) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that sounds promising, but isn't mentioned at all in the article. That NASDAQ source also lists a bunch of (contradictory?) limitations and requirements, so it's not going to apply to all companies. I think there article needs to have a thorough explanation of what the practical effects will be, not just the current WP:PROSELINE about the negotiations. Perhaps then we could make a more informed assessment of its significance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modest Genius. If it is this significant, that needs to be added to the article to explain it. Right now, I'm confused at how important this is, and so cannot see why it's ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that the article needs the details of what is in this agreement that the 130 countries have agreed to. And as yet another possible "wait" aspect, they will be coming back in October with the actual formal rules of this, but I don't think any country can back off then without a formal withdraw process (ala like the US backing out of the Paris agreements). --M asem (t) 13:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I have heard of the OECD. I suppose it functions the same way as INTERPOL, in that it functions as an international coordinator but yet lacks the power to enforce its decisions? I'm not quite sure how much newsworthiness we tack onto these organizations, or any decisions made therein.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Josh Culbreath

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support long enough and everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 23:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louis Andriessen

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Everything is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've added two citation needed tags for some obscure bits. Completely fine otherwise. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroaki Nakanishi

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming good faith on the info cited by the FT, everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - some of the older refs suffer from linkrot. can they be updated/refreshed, please? thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those just state information repeated in the later sources. I'll go ahead and just remove them. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing things up so quickly, Uses x. --PFHLai (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: The Patriot

 * Comment Heavily undersourced currently. Mlb96 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first two sections in the Professional wrestling career has no sources. --ϗ (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Update Blurb: 2021 Western North America heat wave

 * To give focus to Lytton without knowing the specific death toll there is questionable. We've noted wildfires started, and those are known to destroy homes and towns and the like. That this one was so fast and potentially killed several is of concern but we need some type of toll here. Assuming, say, 2000 ppl living in the town including the reserve, and only 5 died in the evac, thats not a significant number to compare to the larger current death toll. But if half the town was caught and died, that would be a different story. Keep in mind the event is something that is affecting a few million people so to focus on one specific incident of only a couple thousand would be a bit of a bias. --M asem (t) 19:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps the destruction of Lytton by wildfire can be a separate nom for a separate blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. The desctruction is a one-time event, as the settlement is not that large, and besides, it would consume too much ITN space, and we should give way to other news coverage, too. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The road between the 3 million in Vancouver/the car ferry to that big island and the rest of Canada also passes through Lytton. Surely the rapid growth was caused by the very strong drought in the western continent (drought levels change slowly) and absurd temps @ 10% humidity (above the all-time highs of some major cities in Arabia) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we add "which previously set the highest temperature recorded in Canada", I'm fine. If not, I think we should wait until more details emerge (particularly on the First Nations reserve, which apparently they had communication issues with). I will be working on that and I will let you know. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've updated the info, and here what I can say about the fire:
 * 1. The rescue operation in Lytton, BC is ongoing and the destruction is indeed widespread, with railway, road and telecomms infrastructure damage. I have found no info that said that the rail connection was suspended. We can imagine that the reserves were also affected, though the info about it is scarce - we only know that the people there were ordered to get away ASAP.
 * 2. The fire is indeed in the news internationally, in Poland, Ukraine, Czechia France, Switzerland etc.
 * 3. We should comment the evacuation just yet, because apparently they had too short a notice for the wildfire, and anyway that should not serve as a reason to include the information.
 * Based on that and my recent updates to the article, I'd support the update, even not necessarily mentioning the previous heat record (though I'd personally do that, if there's enough space). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. The death count seems to exceed 400 now (321 in BC, 79 in Oregon, 38 in Washington)
 * Toll likely to rise as more isolated victims are found. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this AP report actually gives nothing that we don't already know. That the count is likely to rise is in the article, so that so far, we have 438+ victims. That's the newest data that could be found so far. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Point was, they're still finding more. (Donno where that 400 number above came from, tho.) – Sca (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple summation: it's now ca. 480 in BC + 95 in Ore. + 38 in Washington. WP:CALC par excellence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Update the number, then roll it into ongoing. Not enough known about Lytton to include in the box. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hard numbers still lacking. This report says heat "may" have caused 500 deaths in Canada, but quotes officials saying "it will probably take months to determine the exact cause of death for hundreds." – Sca (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think blurbs like this would be more accurate without a precise count. The cause of nearly all of these deaths are speculative. Except for those who died of heatstroke or exposure, it's people dying from mundane causes, potentially exacerbated by heat. The article doesn't even make a causal connection for the biggest set of deaths: .130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional pre-emptive oppose for Ongoing. We're talking about slightly unusual weather confined to geographically tiny part of Earth with a relatively low population density. The article is written in a breathless, scattershot manner.130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much just lying here, nearly breaking the world record for "margin of recordbreaking at a weather station that has been recording long" and getting the heat wave equivalent of a c. 2,000-year-flood throughout a half percent of the world's land is the opposite of slightly unusual, the most affected parts of the heat wave have about 17 million people and parts are dense enough to have 3 cities with skyscrapers and intracity trains (in fact Vancouverism and urban canyon are the only "see also"s at Manhattanization). And I think we've all learned by now that excess deaths are the most accurate estimate of excess deaths, at these non-excess deaths per day levels it just doesn't vary that much without a big reason, there's no potentially that at least most of the excess deaths were elderly exacerbated by heat and perhaps the only thing you said that makes sense is that the number should be replaced with "at least hundreds". 500 and 700 are probably close enough to 600 that they might be the real number. And also the no ongoing part but not because your minimization attempts are persuasive but rather because ongoing simply to update a death toll of about a thousand has failed a not vote before (the port explosion a few years ago). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Lytton fire now being considered human caused, not caused by the heat wave (though the dryness may have accelerated the speed it spread). --M asem  (t) 20:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn as it turns out only two people died, and as the heat wave blurb's death toll was updated, I'll go ahead and withdraw this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Surfside condominium building collapse

 * Oppose. We only post stories like this once, even if they remain in the news for a few days and then roll off ITN. Ongoing is intended for things like the Hong Kong protests, where a fresh major newsworthy event happens every week over a prolonged period. More tragic news may follow in Miami as the rescue effort continues, but the overall story is still the one we originally posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Similar to the Grenfell fire which was added to Ongoing for 6 days the rescue and recovery efforts in surfside are still ongoing. Since this was a total collapse, it may take longer to recover all the victims. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @LaserLegs There was no consensus for that (a sysop acting alone), and it was removed with consensus the same day. Uses x (leave me a message) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. Not important enough for ongoing; we can maybe post another blurb when everything's wrapped up, but the main story has already happened. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whilst any individual currently listed as missing could be found elsewhere, the scale of casualties will not change. It seems unlikely that any new information about this event will meet the ITN threshold.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They've had a week to find those missing people and none has turned up elsewhere alive. We should park it in Ongoing for at least six days for the causality count to rise. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the point: it is understood those indicated as missing are actually dead. Confirmation is not news at all.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Moving the Grenfell fire to ongoing was the lone action of a single (former) sysop, with no census whatsoever, so that's not precedent. It was removed the very same day. Past that, it's not important enough and the story has already happened. At least the Grenfell fire had lasting political repercussions for the Conservative Party, but that's not happening here. Uses x (leave me a message) 15:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was, my bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uses x, consensus to move a rolled off blurb to ongoing was not required until December 2019, so that admin did nothing wrong. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose endlessly pulling out remains is not newsworthy. Sorry. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The collapse as such is over. The expected developments (bodies recovered, memorials held, lawsuits filed, etc.) are not front page material.  Sandstein   16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose awful that they're still finding bodies, but unfortunately not unexpected. And not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - already blurbed and despite the tragedy does not merit an ongoing entry; can probably be WP:SNOW closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This was a spot news story a week ago that has faded into pretty much of a non-story newswise. Not much going on. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Canadian Indian residential school system

 * Borderline ongoing. Is there a reason these are happening so close together?  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Following the discovery of the bodies at the Kamloops Indian Residential School last month, every single former residential school site in Canada is being checked for bodies. There were over 100 of them, so we can expect more stories like this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose These latest unmarked graves were found in a graveyard next to a school. They were unmarked because they were originally marked with wooden markers, according to indigenous tradition, which subsequently degrade.  They were discovered a year ago but are only being announced now.  There is no evidence yet that these are children from the school.  Stephen 02:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just some random people buried next to the school... Lotta janitors. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you understand that there was also a hospital next to the graveyard as well? Stephen 22:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I recommend you to report the previous blurb to WP:ERRORS because there is a place where you can requested to update a blurb. KRI Nanggala also getting some blurb update in WP:ERRORS mechanism due to same reason. 180.242.14.83 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Should just be added to ongoing considering the number of such discoveries. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per In_the_news:"The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news.". There presently is no such article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes there is, and I've prepped it for the purpose of being an ongoing item. 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 12:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While there is new news that there is now going to be systematic search of schools to see if more such gravesites exist, we should not add to ongoing simply on the presumption that more gravesites will be found - that's being too WP:CRYSTAL. If the search does identify at least one new gravesite early on (and clearly of the type of concern here, not just a cemetery that lost markers) then that would probably be a rational point to consider an ongoing (with 3 such cases, 1 that came after the start of a systematic search that is still going) However, with only 2 right now and the search yet exposing others, ongoing would be presumptive. --M asem  (t) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose ongoing yes the investigation does appear to be ongoing, but no evidence that there will be significant updates every few days. Yes there have been 2 major updates in the past week, but before that there were weeks without any updates. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. This is not a typical ongoing saga, these are separate finds and should be treated individually. If we think the new one is significant (although Stephen says above that he thinks it is not) then it should simply be posted as a new item, and we can fold the two together if the original one is still present on the template. This is emphatically not a matter for ERRORS, since it requires consensus building. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – This latest discovery is not a small matter, but there is the editorial problem of such reports becoming repetitious. Does anyone know of a better solution than Ongoing? I don't. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Report to WP:ERRORS, which is the place someone can report errors/typos or updating the previous blurb. 180.242.14.83 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an error or typo, it's a content change in the blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment How about a new blurb for the 182 graves at Kootenay? --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The last blurb was pretty bad because we didn't make clear these were previously marked. Is this known in BC? A blurb for a rediscovered section of a lost cemetery seems rather silly. If there is a story here, it's the rash of arson attacks against random Catholic churches that's taken place since the first round of media hysteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So craft a better blurb for the more recent (re)discovery. And the new ITN nom can be assessed on its own merit. --PFHLai (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose any new blurbs. This is frankly ridiculous. Would support ongoing, though. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination is to update the existing blurb that is currently in the box, not create a new blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II torn down in Canada. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about this statue? – Sca (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost impossible to topple over or tear down, I would imagine. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose too long. The suggested blurb should be summarised or put in ongoing (which is the best thing to do for the future, anyway). Uses x (leave me a message) 20:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sentence is too long; suggest nominating a separate event. Otherwise all article is in OK condition. --ϗ (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)