Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2020

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

(Posted) RD: Ludwig Finscher

 *  Weak Support it's bare bones, hardly anything, but probably squeaks over the line. Frankfurt uni needs dab.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * dab done - Frankfurt am Main should really become the primary - too tired for more right now. Fine source NZZ, - anybody to get more from it while I sleep? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I used an English ref more, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted by El C.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ida Haendel

 * Support Article seems fine. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudolfo Anaya

 * Support All looks ok JW 1961   Talk  17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely referenced article JW 1961   Talk  12:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Famous case. Davey2116 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong National Security Law

 * Support per nom. We can discuss whether this should roll off into ongoing when the time comes. Davey2116 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no-brainer, quality is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've since updated the article with what we know. China has not published any final version of this law, and according to sources, bypassed the HK approval to pass it (!!) so we're going off what was known to be in the draft. --M asem  (t) 03:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above and comment: is there anyway to incorporate into the blurb that China overrode HK's usual legislative process? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb, quality is good. Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 does require Hong Hong to pass a national security law so it doesn't breach that. I believe the treaty you are referring to is Sino-British Joint Declaration, so how does this sound:
 * China passes its Hong Kong national security law in an act widely seen as a breach of Sino-British Joint Declaration.104.243.98.96 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the HK leader doesn’t even know what’s in the law, so it really does breach the Basic Law. But also the Joint Declaration, hence the UK rightfully not getting as much flak for being involved as the US has just for trying. Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per significance, alblurb preferred, because I oppose blurb that contains grammatical errors. 182.1.10.212 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, you’ve been commenting this on a lot of recent noms when there’s no grammatical errors. Further, whoever posts it will correct typos and punctuation, so there’s no reason to say oppose just because you think there’s a spelling or other mistake (where there isn’t one). Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now pending more details. Especially oppose altblurb which is NPOV. Banedon (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that China has not published the details and given how little they've published on the draft, no one expects details on this to be published readily in the next few days. --M asem (t) 05:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we can't have a blurb, can we? It'd be sort of like a "elections just concluded, but we don't know who won yet because the votes are still being counted" kind of blurb - we do nothing until the count is over. Banedon (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to that position, this is much like the Premier League blurb –&#32;this is in the news now, and we already know of the law's existence. Waiting will probably do more harm than good. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we know enough about what it contained - that it criminialises cessession attempts of HK, attempts for HK to work with foreign powers, and other details from a draft published earlier last week. There was no indication that China was going to change it mind on those terms, but other specifics that may have been added or removed are not clear. What was supposed to happened was that HK was to have gotten this bill to vote on at which point the world would have known, but instead China backdoor'ed its passage and kept the bill's text a secret. Chinese officials in HK will get the bill and start to enforce it at which point its full extent is expected to be known but those details don't matter - the broad concept of what was in the bill was well known already -that's why there were those protests for nearly a year - and its passed with clearly no sign China was backing down on the matter. --M asem (t) 05:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant build up from last year, not sure about the blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but agree current blurbs are speculative and veer off NPOV. I suggest something along the lines of "China passes a new Hong Kong national security law in the National People's Congress, bypassing the Hong Kong Legislature." This is not speculative yet still conveys a reason behind why the issue is controversial and in the news, without taking a position on it. CMD (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb. Significant event, but the main blurb makes no sense. I think what meant to say was, "criminalises support of the secession of Hong Kong". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  all those words and it doesn't tell me anything about what's in the Hong Kong national security law. The hook says that it "criminalises secession of Hong Kong and other controversial measures". What other measure? Is the whole point to just implement Article 23 of the Hong Kong "basic law" (which apparently wasn't a law)? The article spends 1000s of words detailing outrage but doesn't actually tell me what the problem is. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the news here seems to be the outrage over a piece of legislation, not the actual legislation itself. The alt-blurb proposed by CMD is better, the current proposals are highly POV --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and WAIT Support now until the Gazette is published and it comes into effect. The Gazette will also contain full details of the law. It should be later today or tomorrow, probably. After keeping an eye (and writing much of) the article, I’m surprised it’s been nommed quite this early. Yes, the story is at least half about the controversy, but we can’t say the article has been updated appropriately to reflect that it’s been passed yet. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not even the details of the law, but that it was passed bypassing HK when it was expected HK would have a say. Now if the text is to hit within the next few hours, that's reasonable, but the story is that HK just got kicked out of the room on their own future here which the rest of the world is crying foul about. --M asem  (t) 13:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gazette appears to have been published, so the point is moot, but if the only story was the controversy of China getting involved, it would have been posted last month with the decision - but I think that was quickly shot down with 'wait until they make a law and it comes into effect'. Kingsif (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't China getting involved, but that they decided to use a process - technically legal apparently - to bypass any input or vote from HK themselves to put the law into effect, and which HK can't do anything about. UN and most other countries are seeing this as a severe violation of what was expected even after China got involved last month, which was for HK to have a chance to see and vote on the law themselves. --M asem (t) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically legal, under Chinese law, just about from the political reading I've been doing for the article. And a lot of media seemed to hope that Beijing would at least show Carrie Lam the law before approving it, but a lot them didn't exactly expect it that to happen. I think China has now also dropped the claim that this is to 'support' a law that the HK LegCo should bring in with the same text. They're just getting started from the sounds of reporting. We'll probably know more very quickly with all the democracy supporters who have said they're still going to protest tomorrow. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but note that blurb should read "secessionism" not "secession" or should be reworded to clarify. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a question: Isn't that an ongoing thing? Why it is not considered ongoing, particularly when you consider the effect of the bill. Agree that the blurb seems POV, maybe something like : China overrides local power to introduce a National Security Legislation so as to criminalize some acts promotes Hong Kong independence and/or foreign inteference. ? --1233 ( T / C） 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In_the_news read up --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. As far as I can tell, this was the final stage in the legislative process, unlike previous nominations. I can see the logic of waiting a few hours until the text of the law is published, but no more. None of the blurbs are particularly good though; I'll add alt3. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "imposes"? Come on, HK is sovereign territory of the PRC --LaserLegs (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's perfectly legal for them to do so (under Chinese law anyway, unclear under HK law), but it has not been passed by the Hong Kong legislature. I don't see what's wrong with that word, but you could swap it for 'legislates' or 'promulgates' (once the text has been published) . Modest Genius talk 12:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking as the full text has now been published. I think consensus is clear, marking ready. Modest Genius talk 16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – On EV more than news value, as this has been in the wind for months. Somewhat favor Alt3 referencing effects. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - A significant event that probably will change Hong Kong forever. OceanHok (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ALERT - No Brainer: This IS the "English" version of the gazette: Just an English frame but main content still Chinese text: --1233 ( T / C） 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on significance in Hong Kong history. Altblurb3 preferred. 110.137.125.1 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a very important issue, and must not go underreported. Altblurb preferred. KittenKlub (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now updated, I'm just reading through the grisly details to add more on the content. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This law is currently IN FORCE in Hong Kong.--1233 ( T / C） 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We got it, dude. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Hong Kong has now lost its special status within China. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Altblurb posted, it's hard to come to a NPOV blurb since the issue itself is a POV (anti-China/pro-HK). For now I'm posting the altblurb because a) it has the most support, b) it seems to be an accurate representation of current talk in the media. Discussion should continue towards a better blurb imo. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. The blurb needs to mention successionism as the reason for the law as well as the fact that it has other controversies. The other blurbs don't describe what the law is supposed to do.104.243.98.96 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Current blurb is kinda bad. I'm itching to place a Template:By whom just after "widely seen". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to CMD's alternative blurb with wording of ", bypassing the Legislative Council of Hong Kong" on NPOV grounds. When the England-educated, former Tory, Grenville Cross, himself former Director of Public Prosecutions in the HKSAR from 1997 to 2009, writes that the law is a result of the Basic Law not being treated as a "two-way street", it is unacceptable WP:UNDUE to treat frothing 'criticism' from the U.S. / UK governments on equal grounds. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CMD's altblurb; failing that, I'd also support altblurb II. Both strike me as being neutrally worded, whilst conveying the gravity of the situation as more than "some random law passed". Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 18:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated blurb to CMD's suggestion per above.  Spencer T• C 22:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Image update I don't expect asking in this thread to be seen, but since the talkpage was less helpful: I think the image for the blurb should be changed. The current image isn't in the article, and an image of protests may be more relevant. I added an image of some protests against the law decision in May, and someone else just added this photo from protests yesterday, which I think would be a good option. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Mandel

 * Support Everything looks well referenced (as usual when Bloom6132 nominates) JW 1961   Talk  20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carl Reiner

 * Oppose masses of unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, typical of most actors even legends like Reiner. --M asem (t) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the article doesn't look terrible unreferenced and RD isn't a blurb (which Reiner should possibly have). We are talking about a comedic legend that even if an article might have some referencing issues, should be highlighted on the main page. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a blurb and regardless of blurb or simply RD, the same quality standards apply. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Referencing (as usual). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and fix anything that needs fixing. A highly notable recent death. BD2412  T 19:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether a blurb is needed. BD2412  T 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whole paragraphs unreferenced and the TV appearances are mostly unreferenced too.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And this should go without saying, but even if all citation issues are fixed – RD only, no blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Career section has a lot of referencing issues along with missing refs in the work sections (discography/filmography). Gotitbro (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A comedy icon that defined American sketch during the second half of the twentieth century. Article needs work though. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly falls short of ITN standards. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with blurb Stature is comparable to Robin Williams (whose death WP blurbed). I have not enough basis to judge whether the article is refined enough to post now or "soon" but it should be posted. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The two are not at all comparable. Williams was posted because of the circumstances of his death, not his stature in the field.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with blurb All the "citation needed" tags have been filled in and many references have been added to support the material. It would be nice to have an Impact or Legacy section, but the article is in great shape and should be considered for a main page appearance. Yoninah (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly an entertainment legend; should not be omitted on the basis of pedantic, fallible guidelines. BMJ-pdx (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support blurb . Article appears in excellent shape. When we total the page views of all the six current RDs and three blurbs, they total less than 20% of the page views Reiner's article received yesterday. --Light show (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Almost no unreferenced appearances from the long list, since the few without a separate citation are blue-linked to articles which support the details.--Light show (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Potentially dignifying Reiner, a Jewish WWII vet, alongside now posted Georg Ratzinger, would not be a good idea.--Light show (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment until the article is fully cited. Def oppose blurb at any point: this is a candidate for RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Can we get some examples of what uncited statements still need to be addressed? KConWiki (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Parts of the Filmography and all the Discography and Bibliography, for starters. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - the article is well sourced now, I'm not sure what it was like when the others opposed. You can't ask for perfection and the article is perfectly suited for inclusion now. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  17:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we can't ask for perfection, but there are 30+ roles in the filmography without citation.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I've always been under the impression that filmography sections do not require citations, because the sources are the films themselves.  Calidum   18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the only time this can be taken as true is when the person was in a top-billing role. Particularly when we get to some of Reiner's roles here as cameos and uncredited roles, they absolutely have to be sourced. --M asem (t) 18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Common misconception though, so don't be sad about it. Many filmographies feature items which aren't even linked to articles, so the verification of claims is even more tenuous.  Often, linked articles here on Wikipedia don't even mention the individuals.  And worse, Wikipedia isn't a RS.  Doubly worse, the linked articles may change and lose the references needed.  Worse thrice, We could just add a bunch of fake movies and say "well, if you can't find those movies, you're not trying hard enough".  So no, three times no, each appearance needs to be referenced in this article, and that is a general principle for all BLP/BDPs.  Cheers!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, no blurb Looks good to go except for the filmography section, but nowhere near Little Richard or Vera Lynn, much less Matcher or Thandela. (:P) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * .....  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Article appears to be reasonably sourced aside from the -ography sections. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 96 years This seems to be yet another case of a veteran star getting hung up at RD because they had a long career and the jobsworths insist that every role and appearance be cited. Our readership doesn't care, as they are already reading the article in large numbers, but, as this keeps coming up, I thought I'd check what difference it makes.  Are any of the uncited entries actually wrong?  I compared the entries in Reiner's filmography before the death, when it was almost completely uncited, with how it is now, when it is mostly cited.  I found that all the entries remained the same – so no errors – but that three recent bit-parts were added – awful stuff like Dumbbells, which is probably best forgotten.  So, this insistence on citing filmographies seems to be the waste of time that one would expect.
 * Such casting information is unlikely to be wrong because it is public knowledge – millions of people watch the movies and the credits are quite well-documented. It's the other details that need checking and verification.  For example, I see an uncited sentence – "Reiner was a lifelong Democrat."  Do people get registered with political parties when they are children in the US?  What about before WW2, when he was a machinist, not an actor?  Is this uncited because it's hard to verify or perhaps even not true?
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That certainly needs a citation; thank you for pointing that out. Also his “endorsement” of Bernie Sanders in 2016 is just cited to a Twitter post saying he liked one of Sanders’ rally speeches. Not good enough. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "lifelong Democrat" has now been cited to an obituary in a newspaper but that's probably a case of citogenesis. I'm wary of such obituaries now because they often rely on Wikipedia.  I'm going to try taking out the word "lifelong" and see if such sources follow.  As for Twitter, Reiner was quite prolific in that medium, tweeting every day.  That's quite easy to verify but our article doesn't say anything about such new media.  From looking at Twitter, I find this recent reminiscence on Youtube: Dispatches from Quarantine.  That's quite well-produced and very accessible so it's a shame that Wikipedia isn't keeping up.  And there's old media too which might be missed.  He recently wrote a book I Remember Radio and I found a reference to an interview that he gave on Monitor.  Tracking all these various media appearances over such a long career should not be an obstacle at RD because it should not be necessary.  We are supposed to write in a summary style and, per WP:NOTDIARY, not try to record everything that the subject ever did. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to dive in and fix the issues rather than list them out here. Improving the article might go some way to getting it posted.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from this reference, Reiner appeared in literally dozens of television specials and acted in television series from the 1950s to 2000. We have completely sourced his film appearances, but the television appearances are difficult to source (some only appear on fan websites; one was just removed as a non-RS) and the list may never be complete. I expanded and sourced the Bibliography section but have no idea how to trace his old records under Discography. I agree with : enough already. The article got half a million views yesterday. It is in good shape. Comment out the stuff without cites that you don't like and let the rest of our readers see it. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am flabbergastered about is the lack of sourcing for the 1990s shows and beyond. This should be easy. For example, there's a Crossing Jordan episode. Less than 10 seconds in Google gets me a ChiTrib hit (which I will add). I did try to look at that 1958 special earlier and that looks a lot harder as it has a couple different names it seem, but people need to look at Google Books and other resources out there. Documentation is there. --M asem (t) 03:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New swine flu strain found in China

 * Oppose, unless this actually becomes a serious pandemic. We're not a crystal ball. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although this does seem better than most of Count Iblis's other nominations. This will probably be like the "murder hornets" a while back and be exaggerated for the whole "2020 amirite lol" value. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:CRYSTAL. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 01:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but a reasonable good-faith awareness story in 20/20 hindsight of COVID. We (ITN) shouldn't jump on it but good that the news is covering it. --M asem (t) 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but I'd say is exaggerating what would need to happen for this to be suitable. I'd say that if the WHO declares it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or even if more than twenty people die of it, it can be renominated and I'd support it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Also the article quality is no where near ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Crystal and appears to be latching on to the COVID-19 pandemic, don't see how this would be a significant news or ITN material otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) François Fillon convicted of embezzlement

 * Support, the scandal arguably sunk his presidential candidacy on LR ticket, too. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – He left office eight years ago. – Sca (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and adding altblurb because he hasn't been PM for years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man and Gotitbro. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose isn't the French PM role just a vanity role? Who cares that a has-been French politician got caught?  Parochial, no enduring impact, etc etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Opppose Per TRM, "former" "ceremonial" official got convicted, pretty domestic not ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Fillon affair is a decent article could bold that the update needs a bit of expansion. François Fillon needs refs in the career section. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM; it appears that unlike many other countries, the President has more power in France than the PM, otherwise I'd support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all over the place. We actually have a pretty decent list List of current heads of state and government --LaserLegs (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - We'd cover it if the Vice President of the US was convicted of embezzlement, and the PM is a similar role and France is a great power in any sense of the word. As political scandals go, the only thing that might make it less than notable is American other-countries-don't-exist-ism (FWIW, I'm american) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it was the current VP but definitely not for a former one and it would be a hard sell either way. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support While not equivalent to countries such as the UK, the Prime Minister of France very far from a ceremonial role. Further, it was a very impactful scandal during a significant Presidential bid. Similar to Orbitalbuzzsaw's point, if Joe Biden was taken to court for paying his wife hundreds of thousands for nominal work, that would be big news, as would the result being a prison sentence. CMD (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Second in command of a major country, in the executive, gets convicted of wrongdoing and jailed. If the treasurer of a major country got jailed for fraud etc especially when lining up to try and take up the top job, that's notable, and per Chipmunkdavis Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the precedent of Conviction of Vital Kamerhe a couple of days ago. Had Fillon been a former head of state or incumbent PM, I think it would be different. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. We would post it if Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence were convicted of embezzlement, while in office or afterwards, due to conduct related to their duties or campaigns. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really a fair parallel because those are both active politicians. A better example would be Dick Cheney or Al Gore. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor is it fair because the PM of France is not the equivalent of POTUS. Not by a LONG shot.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per CMD. This is a case with very significant impact. Davey2116 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to let me know what that impact  is?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Recall that Fillon was neck-and-neck with Le Pen in the Presidential race when this scandal broke, at which point his numbers tanked and never recovered. It is more likely than not the reason the current president is Macron and not someone else. The focus of oppose votes on the relative importance of the PM seems to be missing the point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so just some political damage to an individual. I see.  "Politician gets caught".  No big deal then.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone in this thread exaggerating their positions? Of course it's a big deal if the probable next leader of a G8 country goes to jail. Maybe it's not ITN-worthy (I'm not supporting) but it's certainly a valid candidate.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM and Brigade Piron.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Benny Mardones

 * Oppose basic issues with the article such as inadequate referencing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significant content and referencing issues, needs major work for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) China Forcing Birth Control on Uyghurs

 * Oppose There is no discussion of this AP News story in the target article. I note there is previous discussion of the subject (i.e. forced sterilization) but that uses sources from 2019. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tentative oppose. The issue is that it gives a lot of weight to this report, and Wikipedia itself would be saying 'China is currently committing genocide' - a very weighted statement - based on this report. Then there's also the likelihood of the Hong Kong national security law coming back into the news soon, and with this and that the box would be 2/3 'China is doing horrible things to people'. Without placing a judgment on either story to be posted over the other, there are many more RS about the national security law, so saying 'China is destroying human rights in HK' is probably safer main page because of the weight of outside sources saying so. If there's more RS about this genocide, I would probably support. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Patten (last HK Governor) has now called it genocide. Article should be updated. Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY and the weak sourcing that the AP article uses, heavily quoting Adrian Zenz. Even the Wall Street Journal has acknowledged that Zenz is responsible for the publicity of the exaggerated re-education camp figures; despite the fact he is a "lecturer" at a suspect institution (unlike a highly regarded one such as University of Munich). And note this gem by Zenz. All in all, nothing attributed to Zenz should be treated seriously here on WP. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The issue is getting significant coverage by respectable media such as the BBC. It seems more significant than the horse race blurb, which is 9 days old now and so quite stale.  Let's be displaying what's actually in the news, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's a page on the BBC  website.  On the main page of the BBC  News website is the Golden State Killer plea bargain which is getting much more attention.  If we're going to  become WP:TOP25 at least use the "actually  in the news" stories.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence (emphasis mine) from that BBC link is The report, by China scholar Adrian Zenz, has prompted international calls for the United Nations to investigate. See my remarks on Zenz above, and what qualifies him to be a "China scholar", e.g. a degree in Sino studies? Peer-reviewed authorship of China-focused sociology? Crickets, because there are no such credentials. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For context, Andrew often opines that ITNC carries stories which are not of interest our readers yet supports this article which has had an average of 370 views per day this month, c.f. 1,618 for Belmont Stakes (despite being "9 days old now and so quite stale" and the lurid Golden State Killer scoring nearly 15,000 daily hits including nearly 65k yesterday.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To put his in perspective, a major global newsmaker like Beyonce – Pardonnez-moi, I mean Beyonc é! – racked up 95,000 page views last Friday. (That's an average of seven page views for each one of the 13,500 words in her article.) – Sca (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's worth noting once again that I believe running ITNC on pageviews is absurd, and that's what WP:TOP25 is for. Others appear to have different views. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the basis this only being a single source of discovery. This is not to state the report necessarily is wrong, but that its only one point; it will very much likely trigger human rights agencies like UN/WHO to investigate and come out later with declarative statements against Chinese about the practice which would be more substantial ITN points, assuming they came to the same conclusion. They may not, as a possibility. The press is not the court of law and in line with what Kingsif is saying we need to be careful how that then is presented in Wikivoice given how controversial this statement would be. --M asem (t) 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but currently unsure of the sourcing per the others. Perhaps a more neutrally-written blurb could be written, but if true and more properly verified this is a huge deal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose seems a bit overblown, also we have another more important China blurb w/ Hong Kong. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per others. Needs better sourcing and wider coverage. There are unquestionably some pretty horrible things going on in China these days. But we need to tread carefully when discussing them on the main page per NOTNEWS and RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more than a single source being one report. Should be added to existing page on Xinjiang. Opens up the door to having similar allegations of ITN for other countries, i.e. India. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – There is at least one additional RS report, from the BBC, but two sources isn't good enough for ITN. Also, we certainly would not use a polemical phrase like "demographic genocide" in a blurb. – Sca (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Guardian fields cautiously worded article. – Sca (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems like a technical oppose for me. Don't really see how this is ITN material, considering this is part of the Xinjiang re-education camps, and I don't remember seeing that on ITN (please correct if I'm wrong), which hasn't had significant updates in the campaign. And what is the blurb and hook here exactly? The linked article isn't in the blurb and appears way too broad/not exactly related to the news reports. A better blurb, hook and reasoning is needed here. Gotitbro (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd support posting something on China's oppression of the Uyghurs, but I don't think it is acceptable to word a blurb in this way. AP states "some experts are calling [it] a form of 'demographic genocide.'" We can't take that and state it has been 'revealed that China is committing demographic genocide'. No alternative blurbs immediately come to mind. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose POV blurb, POV article title. AP reports that Chinas social conservatives are forcibly limiting reproductive rights ... what's the event here? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not gonna be posted, but your framing of this issue is very dishonest. Of course, this really isn't the place for a debate. MetaTracker (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this kind of claim needs more than one independent source to be featured. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Uncharacteristically, normally staid AP is pushing this as an "exclusive" (which it isn't) for the second day in a row. Too much hype on a sex-related topic for my taste. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Pakistan Stock Exchange attack

 * Weak oppose: Terrorist attacks are sadly pretty common in Pakistan and the body-count is not particularly unusual here. The only question to my mind is whether the location is enough to make this particular attack notable, and I'm not sure it does. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The BBC observes "Pakistan has suffered years of militant violence, mostly by Islamist groups, but attacks such as this one have become rare in recent years" - furthermore, the nature of the attack here, in which a prominent institution was attacked, is significant. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 11:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Comparatively minor. Wider significance not readily apparent. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality at the moment - it is too flat on details to post. If the article improves it may show enough significance to be notable enough to post. Kingsif (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb There isn't a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS which means this can be posted given a notable target & the global coverage which can be seen within the article. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Unfortunately, gun and terrorist violence is extremely common in Pakistan. There really isn't anything here that makes this altogether unusual. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb and updated count. Appears to be a significant development in the relatively low-intensity Insurgency in Balochistan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of significance, I would say it's not so much the casualties but the target itself. As this appears to be the first time the Stock Exchange was hit, the attack on a major financial institution makes it noteworthy enough. Mount Patagonia (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb' while it is not significant, but it appears to be the first time a major financial markets being attacked by terrorist attack, the other being Jakarta Stock Exchange in 2000. 114.125.234.247 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt iff the ridiculous flag salad "reactions" section is removed. I was on the fence, but the arguments that it's a rare attack on the rich (vs some street market) are compelling. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Terrorist attacks in middle east are currently less common during COVID crisis, also stock exchanges being hit is extremely rare. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready article is fine (I boldly removed the flag salad we'll see if that sticks) and consensus is clear --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT.  Spencer T• C 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Spencer Since when did we start recognizing the death of terrorists? Why does the blurb say 8 people died instead of it being four? Guy in the Mall (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Malawian election

 * Oppose both articles need more citations; election article needs more coverage. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Relatively brief at 440 words, but seems to be mostly there. Fairly widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see some expansion and background in the article before going for a support. Some dangling paras with no cites also exist in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is a notable event. Article looks good. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good if a bit short. Might be less relevant if the previous election hadn't been annulled, but it was so here we are This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is a notable event. Fairly widely covered. AbDaryaee (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t understand the above supports. This is ITN/R (automatically deemed important enough) and the only judgment needs to be made on article quality. While improved, both target articles still need at least two citations - in the election one for stats/results, no less. Kingsif (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? The election statistics are cited (albeit in a slightly unorthodox way) to the Malawian Electoral Commission. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last line of "Candidates" and first line of "Opinion polls."  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These have now both been addressed, . —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support A notable event. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kingsif. Article is very thin, and anything this short need to be fully cited. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay now. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficiently referenced now. P-K3 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Belarus unrest

 * Oppose This appeared, at best, to be a story from about last week, but there's little international coverage of it since. The article on the protests also don't show the signs for an ongoing event. If this was meant to be a blurb, the story is definitely stale. --M asem (t) 23:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nominator comments I have nominated this because the protests are rapidly gaining momentum and are escalating. Obviously coverage of Belarus is lacking at best anyway in most countries that do not border it; even the fact that WikiProject:Belarus is inactive show how well covered the country is; but certainly Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian media are now picking the story up more and more frantically and the protests are getting more and more intense. The article is short because it is still early days, but the closer to the elections the more coverage I expect there will be. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Crystal ball nom, nominate when there are actual "ongoing" protests and which are "in the news". Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unsee current coverage. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Devine

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Siya Kakkar

 * Oppose Stubby and has a CSD A7 tag JW 1961   Talk  07:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub article overly focused on her death and questionable notability. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Much too obscure & personal. – Sca (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Irish government formation

 * Oppose on quality too many citation needed tags. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We usually do not post the succession of a PM. We do post general elections, and posted this one. Removed the errant ITNR tag - Taoiseach is the head of government. Only the head of state (president) is ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? 'Usually' may be technically true, but it seems deeply misleading. It is probably technically true because of such factors as that there are many new PMs in many microstates who don't even get nominated, etc. But it's news to me that we have ever failed to post the succession of an Irish PM, and I know such a failure has certainly not happened in the last 10 years. We certainly posted the last one (Leo Varadkar), even tho I have argued below (in my arguments for Support) that his succession was far less significant for Irish (and British) history. And we had a lengthy debate about precisely when to post that one, but almost everybody then took it for granted that the story should be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlhslobus (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN/R, we already posted the general election in February. P-K3 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion about this nomination, but at the time of the elections results it was not at all clear who would form the government. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support on significance (I leave others to judge article quality) - Just because it is not ITN/R does not mean it should not be posted. We posted Varadkar's appointment 3 years ago even though it was far less significant in terms of Irish (and British) history, being merely a change caused by the retirement of the incumbent (OK, he was also openly gay and half-Indian, but that barely got a mention in our discussions here). There was a long debate then about precisely when it should be posted (when he became party leader or when he formally got elected as Taoiseach), but almost everybody then took it for granted that the story should be posted (which was probably why supporters felt they could risk having a debate over when to post it). This will be the first time FF and FG, the traditional main parties in Irish politics, have been reluctantly forced into coalition together, and it leaves Sinn Fein (the party of the supporters of the illegal Provisional IRA, who fought a guerilla/terrorist war against Britain for about 30 years in the Northern Ireland Troubles until 1998, and murdered senior members of the British Establishment and of Britain's Royal Family) as the main opposition party, and thus, in the eyes of many, the likely leaders of the next government in less than 5 years time. (That might be attacked as WP:Crystal, but the fear or worry that results for some (such as me), and the hope that results for others, are realities with significant consequences now - but of course a Wikilawyer can always shout WP:Crystal whenever any news story is argued to be significant, because significance can ultimately only ever be seen with hindsight, as in the claim, variously attributed to Chou En Lai or Mao Zedong, that it's too early to decide on the significance of the French Revolution.) None of this was clear at the time the election results were posted over 4 months ago. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per P-K3. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I didnt even know they didnt have one.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the assessing admin give any weight to the above opposition justified solely by an admission of personal ignorance? If that were to be accepted as valid grounds for opposing, almost nothing could ever be posted at ITN, as most of us are necessarily personally ignorant about most subjects, and could thus almost always massively outvote those who weren't ignorant of the relevant subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle: the Irish taoiseach is the one who leads, who people from around the world have heard of, etc. I don't know the Irish president's name. This is, in effect, ITN/R as the role with actual power (akin to PM with a monarchy). Of course, if the posting of the election cancels out posting of succession (surely not, since both seem blurb-worthy moments in different ways) then don't post. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per Kingsif - this is the actual moment power in Ireland changes hands, not the inconclusive 2020 general election (which was on 8th February and not January per the blurb). Our President has only a ceremonial role in this country  JW 1961   Talk  18:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is Ireland's first rotation government, first time that the two traditionally main rival parties sit together in a coalition (it's been called "the end of the civil war politics"), and has come after a record number of days of post-election negotiations. I daresay that this is a bigger deal than the election. <i style="color:black">Rami</i> <i style="color:red">R</i> 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant change/appointment of a country leader. Not sure on what basis this is being opposed on. Would like a better taut blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Far too many CN tags. Once referencing is up to scratch I expect to support. On which note; it is true that ITNR mentions only changes of heads of state, but as a matter of practical reality we do usually post changes in heads of government, conditional on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on some improvements to the article. Right now it's not up to snuff but if it improves absolutely a good candidate for ITN. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ITN/R provide for the general election and succession of head of state for virtually every country. We all understand the governmental happenings in Vanuatu are not as "important" as those in China, but we do this so we don't have to draw a line indicating some countries are notable and other are not. If we blurb certain countries head of government as well (especially Anglophones) we are sabotaging a good faith effort to combat BIAS. I fully understand the Taoiseach is more important than the president. I personally suggested we change ITNR to make the more important role automatic, but this was rejected. Martin's party won the election, which we posted. Posting his succession as well is plainly bias, and I say that as a flag-waving member of the diaspora.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I sometimes quote it here when I happen to think it is right (and/or probably also sometimes when I just happen to think it is useful to my case ), WP:BIAS is only an essay and is NOT policy, and quite rightly so. It is an often deeply dubious essay. And one of its most dubious aspects is the occasional implication that English Wikipedia is being unreasonably biased by paying somewhat more attention to the affairs of English-speaking countries. I doubt if many reasonable people would attempt the equivalent criticism of French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or other versions of Wikipedia. In other words, it seems to me that any such WP:BIAS criticism is actually itself unreasonable bias against English speakers. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:POV is a policy and addresses the need to mitigate editorial bias. Specifically, it notes how disproportional representation can be a symptom of bias. Posting the routine formation of government for the 122nd largest country when we don't post the 121 before it is out of proportion. That the country is Anglophone - and thus the home country of some editors - may indicate bias is a force behind this desire for disproportional representation.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess at least that's progress of sorts, as WP:POV is indeed a policy. But it still seems to be a dubious or misleading extrapolation of that policy to an area which, contrary to the initial impression I got from reading the above, does not seem to be specifically covered by that policy, given that the only part of WP:POV that specifically uses the word "disproportionate" is the section WP:PROPORTION which is specifically discussing proportion within an article, which is NOT what we are discussing here. I have every reason to expect that there have been past attempts to extend the proportionality policy beyond what is stated, and that such extensions are absent because there is understandably no consensus for any such extension (presumably for pretty much the same reasons that WP:BIAS has NOT been accepted as policy). Consequently we have no reason to accept that the above attempted extension of that policy to here is a correct interpretation of that policy, perhaps especially when it has at least apparently been misleadingly presented as policy rather than as a highly questionable attempted extension or extrapolation of that policy. As for the alleged Anglophone bias and alleged double-posting bits, I have already addressed essentially the same points above and below, as also have some other editors to some extent, so I currently see no point in repeating myself ad nauseam here.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, contrary to the impression one might understandably get from reading Ghost's above comment ("Martin's party won the election, which we posted."), our ITN posting after the election over 4 months ago quite rightly made no mention whatsoever of Martin or his party ("The Irish general election concludes with no party holding a majority of seats in Dáil Éireann.") and certainly did not say that it had won the election nor that he would be the next PM, and neither did the article, since nothing was clear in the unprecedented situation at the time. (If anything, many understandably felt Sinn Fein had 'won' the election, as they had unarguably got most 1st preference votes, and were consequently promptly given the first chance to try to form a government.)  Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose only for grammatical issue, like typo, punctuation, etc. otherwise I Support because it was significant change/appointment of a country leader which decides the future of the country. 114.125.244.157 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where on earth are the supposed typos and punctuation (errors?) on the suggested blurb? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. However, the blurb should be reformulated to put emphasis on the reason for this notability, ie. the structure of the coalition. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the election results were posted, as noted above & this isn't listed at ITN/R. Would we post both the election results & govt.-formation of any Asian or African country? If the answer is no, then why post this? Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post "formation of government". We already posted the general election at the time it was in the news, there's no need to make any exception here. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability As others have said above, this is as (if not more) important than the election. I believe the long time the government formation took warrants another posting. Davey2116 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. Oldest item is newer than this one. Suggest close. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2020 China–India skirmishes

 * Support for now. This has been getting news coverage and border tensions are at their highest in decades. Article quality is quite good and it is receiving regular updates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There has been no actual "skirmishes" for over 10 days as both China and India have publicly stated an intention to de-escalate the conflict, for which it seems both sides are doing. The economic response response to any event is always ongoing and extends beyond the duration of any conflict, which is the topic at hand. Statement from US Secretary of State shifting troops cannot be attributed directly to Kashmir, but as part of a broader tensions between US and China.  Correct place is to put this in Ongoing conflicts in the portal: Current events.
 * The first line of the article says "The 2020 China–India skirmishes are part of an ongoing military standoff between China and India." Standoff is a clear factor in this. DTM (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also see the first line in media coverage - "Chinese media have given little to no attention to the dispute and have downplayed the clashes."DTM (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article may need some light cleanup prior for consideration for ITN, there seems excessive Indian POV and the last 100 edits in past 2 days seem to have come mostly from Indian sources 104.243.98.96 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
 * About the sources... please add as many Chinese sources as you like to counter balance the Indian, or even add sources from other countries. Currently all the big names are there, Global Times, People's Daily, The Telegraph, The Guardian, CNN, BBC, WSJ, South Morning China Post etc DTM (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose we correctly did a blurb for the June 15 skirmish, there hasn't been any clashes since. What's "ongoing" now is a border dispute between China and India which has been "ongoing" for decades and has had numerous flareups. If the actual violence starts again with some regularity then ongoing would be appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose well summed up by the post immediately above, I agree with everything said there. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Nothing much new. Sca (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing: Hong Kong protests

 * Support removal I was going to wait till Monday to kick this off. June 2020 protests is a mountain of unsourced text and even if it had refs none of it is about actual protests. It's all statements from politicians and protestors. If the response to the National Security legislation is what's "ongoing" in the news then fine -- it's not received a substantial update in a week either -- nominate it for ongoing and we'll examine it's quality instead. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There has also been little involvement and no consensus in a discussion to amend the ongoing criteria and omit the criteria that the target article be "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". The target article does not meet the ongoing criteria as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Even ignoring the state of update in the article, I am struggling to find any significant news beyond small updates on skirmishes that are happening. They are still apparently happening? but like a dull roar and seems to be waiting for the final draft of the security law that affects the statehood of HK relative to China. Hence likely why no updates. We should be acutely aware those that once this security law draft is out there, we'll probably be reading this or at least a blurb. --M asem (t) 23:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless someone wants to add information about the US sanctioning Chinese officials today, it's been a few days without an update. The national security law looks like it might come in soon, which will be terrifying and warrant a blurb. Whether the Commonwealth does ship out as many Hong Kongers as they can or not might be attached to that or get its own blurb. But for now, a little quiet. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's dropped off the news. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No updates on the protest or news front, information regarding this has petered out. Gotitbro (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 04:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Glasgow multiple stabbings/shooting

 * Alternative more accurate blurb: A man goes on a stabbing spree injuring six people in a hotel hosting asylum seekers in Glasgow, Scotland. <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;color:red;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;">Ed6767  talk!  17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that's too detailed and suggests that there is some relation between the asylum seekers and the incident, which has not been commented on. Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not even terror-related. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non-terror related criminal violence with low (likely none) fatalities outside of the perp. Unfortunately knife crime has become a serious problem in parts of the UK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the US so not allowed on the front page- that seems to be the ITN consensus. Also, being less facetious, not that important to be ITN worthy <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please show where a stabbing in the US with two victims was posted. This has nothing whatsoever to do with nationality. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realise I'm opposing this? <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , be less facetious. UK bias here is just as strong if not stronger than US bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I did not realize that. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * US bias is much stronger in my experience, although there is a far too great US & UK bias anyway <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment another stabbing in the UK? Thoughts and prayers. Still, if it's true that he was targeting asylum seekers then it'd be yet another case of fanatical right wing terrorism and might be worth a post. Generally I agree with not posting crime blotter, but terrorism comes in more forms than Islamic. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need your thoughts or prayers. You need to save them for all the daily mass shootings.  Police have declared this to not be a terror incident. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if you're in the mood for inflammatory comments... --LaserLegs (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * right?? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. That was just another mass shooting.  As noted, there have been scores of those in the US already this year.  It wasn't meaningful in any sense.  Your "thoughts and prayers" inflammatory comment is just 100% typical though I'm afraid, and you should heed the warnings of those generous enough to give them to you without taking it further.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So much sin, so many stones, even back then and many more since. Oh well --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also find it fascinating that you keep claiming there's some kind of "knife ownership" issue, like it's in any way comparable to the state-sponsored NRA-accredited mass shootings that occur every day? Bizarre at best, completely irrelevant at worst.  In 2019 there were 242 deaths related to the use of knives in the UK.  In the same year, there were 419 mass shootings in the US, and 15,381 deaths from firearms.  It's not really comparing apples with apples now is it?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we outnumber you 5 to 1, but you're right TRM, and my apologies. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, in addition that NOT#NEWS is policy, and NEVENT is a guideline. Just because its covered by reliable sources doesn't make it encyclopedic, much less ITN. Domestic crime events like this should not be our scope of coverage. --M asem (t) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh? I agree that it shouldn't be posted, but I'm seeing no suggestion at all in any of the coverage that this was in any way domestic. &#8209; Iridescent 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think Masem was referring to domestic violence, but to the fact that it is not international. P-K3 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, well the prime suspect was an asylum seeker who stabbed a load of other asylum seekers and a Scottish policeman, so it's an "international" incident whichever way you look at it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With how close and generally free-flowing the borders are there in the UK/EU in general, calling it "international" on the nationalities would make sense, but I'd still consider that a local or domestic crime, particularly as the crime appears to be readily dismissed to have any ties to terrorism. In the US, that would be akin to racially motivated domestic killings (eg gang killings, often) which of course aren't going to get that coverage at all. What I'm saying is we need editors to think about what actually are events that likely will have impact a year, five years, or more down the road, and something like this doesn't have any type of hallmark that it would. --M asem (t) 23:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well that's wrong on so many levels. Firstly we're in lockdown so that hotel was being used to home asylum seekers, not regular paying guests.  Secondly the perp was an asylum seeker who sought to stab several other asylum seekers (from all the around the world).  Third the Scottish police (a different entity altogether from their English colleagues) felt they needed to kill the perp rather than bring him in.  Fourth this will have an impact immediately in terms of protecting Scottish police, asylum seekers in Scotland and no doubt an investigation into the killing of the perp is underway right now too.  It's easy to just dismiss this out of hand, and I agree it's not ITN-worthy, but please don't glibly overlook its cultural and historical impact.  The police in the UK seldom kill anyone (unlike in the US) so this is deeply shocking no matter what the motive/fallout etc.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with TRM on how wrong that is. In both the UK and US, gang violence is treated about the same - the police probably get involved less in the UK, but gang killings in the UK are unfortunately common and are basically never reported on. The recent stabbings and shooting, since they got in the news, evidently are not so dismissable. The number of other 'attacks' is so comparatively less in places like the UK and Australia than in the US that it's hard to write them off in the same way, and hard to argue that they won't open some sort of precedent. This is the first time the Scottish police have shot a suspect dead since 1969, it's definitely going to have an impact. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And for objective comparison on police shooting perpetrators, in the past 12 months, 1,026 people have been shot to death by police in the United States while in the UK (for 2017/18) the figure was 4.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unusual in that the police shot the suspect which is very unusual for Scotland, but ultimately nothing currently to suggest this was anything more than either an argument that got out of hand, or a lone mentally ill individual. &#8209; Iridescent 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the second time ever Scottish police have shot dead a suspect, the other time was in 1969. Yes, they didn't even shoot the Dunblane massacre guy. That's half the news here. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Does not appear to be significant enough, even when looking at the casualties. Gotitbro (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the one who started the article, it is clearly not significant enough for ITN. Edwardx (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milton Glaser

 * Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few places need sources. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed those. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * & Thank you TRM for your edits! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Munawar Hasan

 * Support pretty well sourced. Can't believe it took almost 8 hours for someone to comment on this, I guess this is what happens when it's not about an American..... <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until lead is expanded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man - 2 days later the lead has not been expanded. JW 1961   Talk  16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded &
 * Support as lead seems to be adequately expanded. Alas! the blatant bias continues. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Short article but covers the main aspects well enough. --Tone 17:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Sinnott

 * I tagged one CN, but otherwise looks fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ready now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support when the citation GCG tagged is fixed. It may only be one, but it's to source info on his flagship Fantastic Four run, which is important. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found some sources for that info and added them as citations. — Matthew  - (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go, it's a good bio and has a decent update. Quite an important figure, but not Stan Lee, so I don't think it will get any real blurb arguments. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Good RD nom, a single CN tag but the rest of the article appears to be in fine shape for a comic bio. Gotitbro (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CN tag has been removed. Article is surprisingly well sourced. Sinnott will be remembered for his inks on Fantastic Four, painstakingly bringing Kirby's pencils to the page with unsurpassed vibrancy and precision.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still READY, 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Liverpool F.C. win the Premier League

 * Comment - Do we generally post "mathematically confirmed" or do we wait for the final game?--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The league and everyone involved consider it a win as of now, and that's been the precedent. Radagast (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think tradition is to do it when the team as an unassailable lead, although the last time it was a concern – April 2018 – we posted Barcelona winning La Liga but not City winning the Premier League (although in that discussion it's pointed out we didn't wait for the previous five seasons). As, it's in the news now; the title presentation next month (which won't even be at the final game!) is just a formality. Sceptre (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think last EPL the article wasn't up to scratch when the title was clinched so we held it till the season was officially finished. I don't follow soccer, but if now is when it's in the news, post it now. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is in good shape, I think we should post now rather than wait for Liverpool to play 7 more meaningless games when it would be old news by then JW 1961   Talk  21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the rationales of and  in this discussion, which did not reach consensus for posting unassailable leads. There's also no prose about the actual season outside of the lede.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I maintain my general position described above, for this particular nom I am changing to support due to the unusually long gap between clinching and end of the season and because the article is now in slightly better shape.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Curious how others feel about 's point - "suppose [the] article is rejected now on quality grounds, but a few weeks later when the last game is played, is in good shape. Post or stale?"  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat missing the point. All reliable sources are reporting that Liverpool have won the Premier League.  It's not up to Wikipedia to arbitrarily decide that Liverpool have not won the Premier League, that's not how WP:V works.  The only issue at stake here is the quality of the target article.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if it isn't posted now, it could be nom'ed as ITNR when the season concludes and it would not be stale then.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it won't be news when the season finishes, so it will automatically fail to qualify to ITN. It's ITN now and all RS are reporting  that they have won the league.  Once article quality is sufficient, it must be posted per ITNR. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of "stale, should have posted when Liverpool won" type opposes if we wait. It's not like any of the issues still to be resolved - relegation, European qualification etc - would be mentioned in a blurb anyway.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They might not be mentioned in the blurb, but they would certainly be mentioned in the article - which is supposed to provide full coverage of the topic, beyond the information in the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness is important, but so is being "in the news." It's a question of striking the right balance.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added an altblurb as I think the 30-year wait is a significant part of the story. I would like to see more of a substantial prose update to the article before supporting though.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if the final game is more than a week from now, wait otherwise. I would support adding the 30-year drought as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, the target article is junk. But support the news story being posted once that's resolved, exactly as I noted in the discussion that  links above.  The news story is today, not in a few weeks time when the season concludes.  If, for some unknown reason, Liverpool are disqualified, that will be another news story to publish.  But for the time being, the article needs serious work, or there needs to be some consensus on pointing at a different target.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Altblurb2 preferred. It being significantly event to be posted, but i Oppose original blurb because there are some grammatical issues like typo and punctuation. 36.77.93.31 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support on significance per ITN but maint tags need to be addressed and prose is needed for most of the article, a lot of it is just stats including an undue bulk about COVID-19. Gotitbro (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose That football league is not relevant to many other countries. We do not always need to post the winners of each season of major sports leagues, especially if they do not have a wide international following. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (A) it's ITNR so your personal thoughts on its notability for ITN are somewhat irrelevant. (B) The EPL is the most-viewed domestic football league on the planet. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My country's local media had no mention about it. But, disregarding that, why does the blurb not also provide a link to the article about the championship round itself and not just to the article about the entire season? Also, the lead is too long. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Domestic European football leagues don't have a "championship round" aka playoffs. Teams play each other twice and the team with the best record after all games are played wins the title. So that means a full season summary for this article is the only acceptable update. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your country's local media is irrelevant. And yes, we've noted that the target article is sub-standard. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality- article needs to be reworked so that not everything is in the lead. Agree that now is sensible time to post it, as suggesting that something could happen between now and the final match to prevent this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Once article quality is fixed, consider this a support vote. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until the end of the season, per WP:ITNR (which says 'the conclusion ... of the tournament ... unless otherwise specified') and per the precedent of previous years. The league isn't over yet and there are plenty of other issues still to resolve e.g. relegation, European places etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth reiterating what I wrote in 2018:
 * I think this year's [2018] Premier League posting is a great example of why we should wait until leagues finish before posting. It was originally nominated when Man City's lead became unassailable but not posted, then renominated and posted when the season concluded. In that time a) the season summary went from being a couple of uninformative paragraphs that almost entirely concentrated on City, to a detailed summary of the entire season covering all the clubs; b) the European qualification places were settled; c) the relegation places were settled; d) Man City broke a bunch of team records (most wins in a season, first team to 100 points etc.) that were worth highlighting to readers; e) the individual records (top goalscorer, player of the season etc.) were decided. As a result the article improved massively and was far more useful to readers, particularly those who don't already follow the league closely. The ITN blurb led readers to detailed information about all aspects of the season, not just the identity of the winners i.e. clicking on the bold link led to high quality content and more information than what was in the blurb itself. It was much better to wait. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As its hard to tell and I think relevant to this point, how many more matches are left to be played, and I assume that will include matches played by Liverpool as well? (I can tell this goes to end of July, but can't tell game -count). I agree on the point about potential records to be named with the conclusion of the season that may come about that we should wait - it would be different if it were one week away and no significant records or the like were at risk. --M asem (t) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Every club has seven matches left to play.P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Second dumb question: does 2nd place at the end of the event mean anything here? We're too used to "first take all" type tournament formats in the US here. --M asem (t) 14:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Finishing in the top four ensures qualification to next year's UEFA Champion's League - it makes little practical difference whether you finish second, third or fourth.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's even more important who finishes in the bottom three, as they will be expelled from the league (see promotion and relegation). That is unlikely to be decided until the final round of matches. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it won't be in the news when this season eventually concludes.  This is certainly  WP:IAR  territory as far as that  guidance is concerned.  Given that ALL reliable sources are reporting that Liverpool have won the league, this should be our cue to do the same.  Remember, WP:V applies and it is trivial to verify that Liverpool have won the league.  It's not up to Wikipedia to decide that they haven't.  Article quality is a separate issue entirely.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and don't wait I have to agree that by the time the season is over, the winner will be old news and nobody will care. Imagine if there was no Super Bowl and the same glory as that was given based on points - how big would the news be when a team became unbeatable, and how little would people be reacting to that same announcement 30 games later? If nothing else, posting at the end of the season misrepresents the league: primarily US readers who most likely won't understand football seasons will think that posting at the end means there was a final and Liverpool just won it. But no, they have won it now. Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be fine now that the main issues have been addresses. And post now, its "In the news" after all. No need for formalities just for the sake of it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and run it now- it's the sensible time to do so, as Liverpool winning the league is the most important thing in this article. So we should run it when that fact is the news, not when the final day wimpers round in a month's time. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now that the article has been restructured to remove the overly long lead, and updated. Looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is now very much good to go. Good work everyone involved improving the article and removing the final bar to posting.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see a need to wait another four weeks because this story is in the news now as others have said.  Calidum   17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ATTENTION REQUIRED FROM ADMIN PLEASE. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite not being in any of the suggested blurbs, the posted text ended up being: In football, Liverpool F.C. win the Premier League. "Football" should be changed to "association football". As far as I recall, we always spell out the full name of the code of football being played in ITN, and this adds clarity for readers more familiar with other codes. --LukeSurlt c 07:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this has now been changed. --LukeSurlt c 09:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment going forward, I wonder if the winning teams season article wouldn't be a better target. Also I should apologize for opposing the posing of Alex Ferguson's retirement years ago -- I had no idea that LFC couldn't win an EPL until the winningest coach in league history had stepped aside. I wonder if we should include that in the blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Étienne Cerexhe

 * Comment – Thin. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing about the judicial career in the article at all which would be the stepping stone into politics, which is bare bones as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Really could use some expansion per the above comments. But it probably meets the customary standards for RD (if it were a blurb I'd oppose on article quality). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added as much as I can find, including a sentence on his law specialities. But that's all the decent information I can find (as Google News isn't helping me at the moment). <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Kennedy Sr. (footballer)

 * Support One of the greats of Australian rules football. The nominator said the article is rubbish. That's still true, but it was a lot worse this morning. Several editors have made big improvements just today. Kennedy deserves a lot more content than is there now, but what is there is now much better sourced. Because of his fame in the Aussie Rules world, and now his death, more people will now be attracted to the article and make more improvements. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now; will probably support of the sourcing is sorted.  ——  Serial # 10:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - What sourcing needs to be sorted? There are no citation needed tags in the article. I'm willing to work on it, but I at least need pointers on what the problems are you think exist. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I mis-read the statue tablet as being a load of unsourced sentences, apologies! (No excuse, but it was a long night!) ——  Serial # 14:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support article is long enough and well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis, good to go.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go, six hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment THIS IS READY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I have to annoy the Americans here again to get this non-American item posted? HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Michael Hawley

 * Comment: I find two things rather depressing about this nomination. The first is that it has been listed for nearly three days without any comments at all. The second is that the nom has done a "drive-by listing" here without a single edit on the article to address the issues s/he identified. It would have been nice to have followed WP:SOFIXIT. As for the article itself, I think it is probably near to being postable as long as the "dubious" tag is culled. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Margarita Pracatan

 * Weak support for RD only without a blurb. Certainly well referenced if a little short on content  JW 1961   Talk  22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose marked as a stub which makes it ineligible. Moreover this is never a blurb, a "novelty singer"?  Give me strength. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with The Rambling Man. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I loved her. I watched every episode of Clive James' show during her 15 minutes of fame. However, despite my love and fascination, I know that this nomination just doesn't fly. Sorry! doktorb wordsdeeds 04:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose she was a good sort, but not ITN material (yet).  ——  Serial # 10:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs more fleshing out and has a citation needed tag. The blurb was going nowhere so I have commented it out to prevent further piling on. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mexico earthquake

 * Oppose on quality. Article needs improvement, including expansion and refs. Take this as support when article sufficiently improved. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  The Article's quality should improve later on, this was a deadly and powerful earthquake rocked Mexico on June 23, 2020 leaving people dead & injuring others. AbDaryaee (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Death toll put at 10. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Basic details are there. Brandmeistertalk  20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Haven't seen anything new on this today (6/25). Keep in mind this happened 6/23. – Sca (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there doesn't appear to be widescale damage beyond the initial reports. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tragic for those affected, but the impact seems to have been fairly limited and it's received very little media coverage. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still good to go, Look at titles: "Powerful earthquake shakes southern Mexico, at least 10 dead.", Are these limited impact and little media coverage? AP news, ABC News, National Geographic, CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian...etc!! AbDaryaee (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Stale. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liam Treadwell

 * Support Seems to have been expanded since nom, looks good enough. Obviously would appreciate more details on death but if it's currently unexplained (there's a category for that), the lack is understandable. Kingsif (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. I think we can understand what's happened from the manner of the reporting.  Deeply tragic.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Good to see a prominent bio with a 'good' article on RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Safoora Zargar

 * Oppose. We don't post every step in judicial processes; if this person is convicted of a crime, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This news is trending now in India. As hundreds of organizations including Amnesty International etc have supported her. This should be included in news. And with no offense to 331dot my Comment is, that this is not about all of the judicial process only. Zargar and many other students of Jamia Millia Islamia University were arrested. According to the most of the news channels in India, whole India is focusing on these, as North East Delhi riots affected the national capital of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs)
 * Weak Oppose While it is in the news, I don't believe the level of coverage and importance for this specific step in the process is one of the top three or four articles in the news on a given day. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks significance. Sca (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Bail is insignificant, and the only reason it's covered in some news articles is because of the wider protests (and likely the fact she's pregnant, something which can sell headlines) Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) BeiDou-3 launched

 * Oppose another satellite navigation system? And poor quality article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inconsequential and no article. Even the main article here could use some work. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not against this, but the proposed bold link has CNs, is heavy on jargon, has tense problems and many single-sentence paras. If this were a truly groundbreaking system, or if this was a very recent development, then I could overlook those shortcomings. But this is an article that's been around for 14 years. It must be better for the front page.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose nth launch of a similar satellite to complete the second part of an existing working nav system... not really ITN material unfortunately.--M asem (t) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, Oppose on quality This is only the fourth global satellite positioning system launched, and the first in four years. However, article has too many citation needed tags to post as of right now.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Serbian parliamentary election

 * Support I spotted one CN, but in a sea of otherwise very good referencing and it seems to be noting a claim that is referenced elsewhere. Article does a good, if overthorough, job of describing the background and issues. Aftermath is entirely opinions of various non-Serb Eurocrats. There's actually not a single mention from any Serbian in there. But a very good election article by the standards of ITN nominations.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good ITN nom. Though would wait a bit, so that the results become clear in mainstream sources. Gotitbro (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support seems a good option, with the various criteria met (obviously room for improvement, but not problematically so). I'm neutral as to waiting a day or two. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it is a nice article - besides the one tag, the only source I think is missing is for the "first female and openly gay PM" statement. Kingsif (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Opposition boycott makes it especially relevant. Might wait a day or 2 for the final results but it's a really good candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- regarding the suggestion to wait before posting this, please note that this election took place two days ago and most reliable sources already reported the results yesterday. I don’t see any merit in waiting even longer.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Thanks for noticing the article. I think the significance of this event can be seen in the statement of a political scientist Florian Bieber, who said said that Vušić's party beat Russia's ruling party United Russia “to the largest ruling party majority in Europe after Belarus.” The opposition boycott and the lowest turnout since the establishment of a multi-party system in Serbia give specificity to these elections, especially for European politics.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle and added image. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose have we ever had a smaller country's election results on the front page. They're right wing but call themselves progressive. Feels creepy to me. 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:4578:1E01:D3FD:33D2 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Steve Bing

 * Lots of referencing needed. Stephen 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still lots more referencing needed. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Pierino Prati

 * Support Looks good already. Ref 2 supports most of the prose. If English articles cover some of those points they could be added, but it's fine as it is.130.233.3.21 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see his death mentioned in the prose of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's now in the lede.130.233.3.21 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the oppose but there should really be a personal life section in this kind of article, about him, where he was born, schooled, did he marry, did he have kids, what did he do after football etc. That's where I'd expect to see his death noted too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose going back to marginal oppose. There's literally nothing about his personal life which is a clear gap for me.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready to go now JW 1961   Talk  22:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Welder

 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment lead needs work, what else is there appears alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a new (fairly brief) lead paragraph. Cheers, gnu 57 16:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. G2G. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joel Schumacher

 * Oppose Quite a few unsourced statements and the Filmography is also unreferenced. Needs some work.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Support Looks good now. P-K3 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as the "Collaborators" table looking like OR. Someone like Wes Anderson this can be easily sourced, but I have never seen such an equivalnce made for Schumacher and this would need to be sourced that he had such collaboration. -M asem (t) 18:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I almost deleted it when I took a peak at the article. I will now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see this on RD but as noted above a lot is unsourced, even whole sections. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment  Hey, I am on vacation until Thursday, but I will get to working on it during the night whenever I am at hotels. The current state of his article is a tragedy. - Jon698 talk 7:05 24 June 2020
 * I have spent the past few days working on the article. Can you review your stances on it? - Jon698 (talk) 22:43 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, but might not really be a "recent" death by the time its posted. So should be posted now. Gotitbro (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * June 21 is the oldest death in the ITN template right now, so there’s still time for this one. P-K3 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Holtz

 * Posted Stephen 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angela Madsen

 * Support only a couple of days late, and well sourced except for one sentence.   ——  Serial # 10:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anna Blume

 * Support article is in good shape, notwithstanding link rot issues.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per Hawkeye7 JW 1961   Talk  21:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nice article, tragic loss.   ——  Serial # 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Manchester shooting deaths

 * Oppose This looks like domestic violence and more likely looks like two drunk people accidentally shot themselves and died from their wounds (aka Darwin Award winners). I see no reason why we even have an article on this. --M asem (t) 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because someone opened fire in a car park full of people? Why does it look like domestic violence to you (seriously)? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the other articles reporting on this (BBC, Guardian) and none of them talk about anyone opening fire at a car park. They said the shootings happened away from the rave. Only one source suggests even a third-party is involved at this point. --M asem (t) 19:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Manchester Evening News is being less conservative (tactful?) on details, but none of those say it wasn't an attack, just they're waiting on more details. There were two parties, which may be where you're confused - it didn't happen at the BLM one, but at the illegal rave later. With a murder inquiry, it seems unlikely they shot each other. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just say the way the BBC and Guardian are reporting it are drastically undercutting any "seriousness" of the event compared to how the MEN is covering it between its two stories. Even still, a random shooting at a rave where there was clearly drugs and alcohol involved still would be a domestic crime and the type of thing ITN usually doesn't cover. Barring anything unusual in the reasonings for the shooter, this is not the type of story for ITN (in contrast to the stabbings below which may have terrorist-related reasoning). --M asem (t) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I'm not saying this is being treated anything like the stabbings - a lack of media coverage can only be blamed so much on foggy details. But I think our definitions of domestic must differ. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment In which country did this event take place? It's not obvious from the proposed blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Manchester is in Korea. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's in New Hampshire. Twit.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  21:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're struggling to know which "Manchester", then either (a) assume it's the actual Manchester, not some parochial colonial copy or (b) click on the link. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't expect global readers to be aware of every Tucson-sized burg on the planet, which is why there is a convention for this. It should read Manchester, England. This business with the neighborhoods is for big cities like London and NY.    GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out the country in which an ITN event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, it's the New Hampshire one. My bad! PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And here I was thinking it was the one in Ing-land. – Sca (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now While mass shootings with guns are rare in the United Kingdom, this is at least the fifth multiple-casualty attack in the UK since 2017 (with the other four being terrorist attacks), and the second mass shooting in that neighbourhood since 2018. While there is no number of minimum deaths necessary for ITN, I do not believe that two deaths meets notability for a country with a history of multiple-death attacks like the United Kingdom, and I do not believe the fact that the weapon is different is itself notable.  Furthermore, the BBC no longer appears to be featuring the story, indicating a further lack of significance.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shooting at a drug-fueled party surprises nobody, not least the police who apparently knew of this going on and did nothing. I guess laws are only for people who will comply. There used to be a list of cities that were considered notable enough to not require the usual ", Country" description. I can't remember if Manchester was on it, and I can't find it at the moment.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes it's unfair that events that happen in one place are treated differently than they would be were they to happen elsewhere, but unfortunately "shooting in Moss Side"—an area that's been the frontline of mob wars for decades—falls squarely into the dog-bites-man category unless there are particularly exceptional circumstances. &#8209; Iridescent 11:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it comes down to whether it was a targeted attack (relatively common) or a random mass shooting. Nearly half of the mass shootings in the UK have happened in Moss Side, yes, but when the complete total is five (four with fatalities), there's some liberty to say it's still rare. Kingsif (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Does not seem significant, for the deaths or place. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Zeev Sternhell

 * Support. I was sorry to hear of this. It is true that there are two citation needed tags in the article, but at least one of them seems superfluous. I'll try to add some material myself later. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Significant historical figure. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support article looks satisfactory for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs some work with refs in a few sections, seems fine otherwise. If someone can fix that it'd be good to do. Gotitbro (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - the referencing has been much improved since the nomination was made. It should be reconsidered, or at least the objections made more specific. It seems much better referenced to me than most articles we post. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No comments at all? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings

 * Support I also changed the hooks for tense and grammar, added links. Kingsif (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly major incident and article is acceptable. P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait  – BBC says police were not "treating the incident as terror-related." Three fatalities is comparatively few. Unless these factors change, this event doesn't seem widely significant. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The police were not. They now are; apologies for including an older link, I've corrected it. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, changed to 'wait' - Let's give the story some time to develop. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Terrorism of this sort gets to the main page.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Treating the incident as terrorism-related" does not mean yet it is terrorism. It is only to allow law enforcement to evoke special powers to resolve the matter much faster than domestic crimes. We can't treat it as a "terrorist attack" yet. --M asem (t) 14:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, suspected terrorism of this sort gets to the main page.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  14:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose knife wielding maniacs going on murder frenzies is an all too common occurrence in the UK but their society is too crippled by incompetence to pass meaningful knife control legislation so all we can do when it happens is insult the victims and the country where the tragedy took place. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Get some new material. P-K3 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gun wielding maniacs going on shooting sprees is an all too common occurrence in the US but their society is too crippled by incompetence to pass meaningful gun control legislation so all we can do when it happens is insult the victims and the country where the tragedy took place. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You had to go back six years to find one that was actually posted huh? Did you read the hate and bile that was spit in the Isla Vista nom? Give it a look -- I'll bet you a coke no one rushed to the talk pages of anyone denigrating the US to advise striking their hate filled remarks. "American bias" though right? LOL --LaserLegs (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Take this somewhere else. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hilarious, I spat out my coffee. The suggestion that three notable attacks over three years is somehow an "all too common occurrence" is actually hysterical when contextualised with just the six months covered here!!  Thanks for the lulz. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per . Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I strike my support per 's persuasive argument. I rushed to judgment. I don't exactly oppose, but I am going neutral. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support terror attack, murders, unusual and noteworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- not supporting or opposing yet, but can someone offer me an argument for why the media bias of 3 rich world lives~300 developing world lives deserves to be represented at ITN? For example, Boko Haram killed 81 people in a single village last week and I don’t think that would have been considered here.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC) My real objection is to the concept of news rather than its application at ITN.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the article? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t fully understand the point you’re trying to make, can you elaborate? There are far more editors from the UK than from Nigeria on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. This results in systemic bias we should strive to fix, not accept as is.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making his point for him - there is no article because WP editors write more about what interests them. English language WP is going to be dominated by people from Anglophone countries, so this nothing burger gets an article and the BH attack doesn't.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a reason we have NEVENT, that we shouldn't be writing articles on every little crime that occurs until we know that crime has a larger impact. This is meant to help to fight the bias of this nature. --M asem (t) 19:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren’t suggesting this is a “little crime” are you? It is not common for a group of people in a park to be randomly stabbed and the counter-terrorism unit to be called in. P-K3 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the larger scheme of world events, to Bzweebl's point, yes, at this point. It may turn out to be more than a minor crime in the long run which then an article would be appropriate. But given that the culprit was caught and believed to have been working alone, this sounds like a very isolated case, at this point. We have to be aware of the global scope WP runs on, and that we're not a newspaper. Something like 2017 London Bridge attack has long-term effects that become clear very soon after the event, something like this does not. --M asem (t) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it's been declared an act of terror and the individual known to security forces. ITN can't wait for "long-term effects" as they may be more than days afterwards.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that there is a problem with bias towards incidents in developed countries in the sources we get our information from, and therefore in Wikipedia itself, I also don't think the comparison is quite the same; the Boko Haram insurgency is an ongoing conflict, over a long period of time, whereas this is a single incident. That's not to say that I don't think that the specific killing you mention from last week wouldn't be suitable for ITN - I almost certainly would have supported its inclusion, assuming there were a sufficient number of reliable sources - and quite obviously, it is a tragedy of a grand scale; indeed, by number of lives lost, many times greater than this event, as you rightly point out. It isn't, however, quite a like-for-like comparison in terms of its context, I don't think. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a great point and I thank you for bringing it up. The context of these two events are very different, and that unquestionably affects their notability even if the incomprehensible tragedy of both remains unchanged. My remaining objection to posting this nomination and other similar low-casualty terrorist incidents in the United States and Western Europe is that I don't see how the fact that they take place outside the context of any broader conflict or insurgency is enough of a reason to grant them significantly greater notability without any additional factors that contribute to long-term importance, as Masem describes above.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which terror attacks took place in the US? And spontaneous acts of extreme violence are obviously more notable than ongoing trends in killings in a war zone, I don't understand why that would be a consideration.  It's like saying we should be posting that a thousand people a day are dying of Covid 19 in Brazil. We don't because it's just "normal" at the moment.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. Upon reflection, my objection is really to the concept of news rather than the application of it here at ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. I would vote to post an incident in which 81 people were killed in a heartbeat. But as already noted there is no article for it, and it wasn't nominated here at ITNC at all. So it is really a red herring per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Three people killed in a stabbing with possible terrorist intent" somewhere in the world is a ho-hum story. If we are to suggest greater significance BECAUSE of the location, it should be exceedingly rare there. Three notable attacks over three years is not that rare.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My prior comments notwithstanding, I'm going to flip to neutral as well. The premeditated terrorism angle is now more firmly substantiated.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, but subject to change if someone can offer a reasonable answer to my question above.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Changed to neutral per Naypta's response above.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM already answered. The way to counter systematic bias is to write an article about the Boko Haram attack and nominate it here. P-K3 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't oppose on a pure hypothetical. If the article had existed, and if the article had been nominated at ITNC, then, and only then, would we be able to judge the community consensus on whether it was going to the main page.  I'm afraid this opposition is invalid and should be disregarded.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I appreciate your suggestion, and I apologize to TRM for the implication that his response was not reasonable, I just didn't fully understand it. However, I think your suggestion may be based on a misinterpretation of my question. My main interest was not in comparing that specific attack to this one, but in making a larger point that far more tragic terror attacks against civilians occur in the developing world on a regular basis and these cannot all be notable enough for inclusion on ITN, but posting this particular attack would suggest to me that they are.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, unless these developing world stories are created, nominated and rejected, your opposition is based in a crystal ball. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, many dead. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Terrorist incidents of this nature are almost always posted, and it is on the main pages of international media such as the NY Times and Le Monde. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the limited space, I don't see how this event - tragic as it is - is amongst the most important current news stories in the world. JezGrove (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only angle that is noteworthy in this is the terrorism angle. Stabbings are otherwise very common in some countries. As a matter of legalese, we would have to use the "suspected terrorism" language, and I'm as uncomfortable putting "suspected" items up for the same reason that we don't put up "planned" or "expected" items. The London Bridge attacks were qualitatively different in that the choice of target and shouting made the intention clear. In this case, we have a random park and someone shouting "unintelligible" things.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, as per above, terror incident with deaths on multiple international pages of media.- Mg27127 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Grim though it is, I don't think it is unusual or large enough to merit ITN status. It's very different in significance to, for example, the Manchester Arena bombing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the deadliest terrorist attack and the first suicide bombing in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings is the threshold for ITN entries, then we should almost never have anything on ITN, surely. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from things happening in other countries, ? In any case, that's not what I said - the Manchester bombing was notable for the (i) death toll, (ii) means and (iii) location. This attack doesn't really compare on any metric. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies; upon rereading it, my comment came off stronger than intended. What I mean to say isn't that your comment is unreasonable; rather, that a tragedy on the scale of the Manchester Arena bombing may not be a useful benchmark, in my view, simply because same scale is so unfathomably large. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose A tragedy of local or national, not global importance. Nowhere near the top stories of e.g CNN and Washington Post by now. Even BBC has it seventh on their front page. User38453838 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting "BBC has it seventh on their front page" from? Of the six stories currently above the fold on their main front page, at the time of writing the first two ("American named as second victim of Reading attack" and "Town in shock as tributes paid to victims") are both about this, ahead even of the announcement on pubs reopening; of the seven above-the-fold stories on BBC England, the first are about this. &#8209; Iridescent 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC does some awful location-based forwarding that makes comparing article procession very hard. I ran into this recently where I couldn't find anything corona related there and someone here pointed out that I was looking at BBC TV, when I had manually typed in bbc dot co dot you kay in the address bar. Probably what's happening here.130.233.3.21 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Provisional oppose unless there's something to indicate lasting significance. While the "not in the news" arguments are obviously bogus, at present there's nothing to indicate that this is a "true" terrorist attack as opposed to a single mentally ill individual claiming terrorism as a motive, something that happens frequently enough so as not to be particularly unusual. &#8209; Iridescent 10:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not particularly notable at this point. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic crime. Some reports suggest terrorism though do not signify the impact. Gotitbro (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. No evidence to show general significance. Three fatalities is comparatively few. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Belmont Stakes

 * Oppose Yeah, this isn't even the most important horse race in the US. Note that horse racing already returned in the UK with much more significant races, so the idea of posting it as 'horse racing reopens' isn't valid, either. Kingsif (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kingsif. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Support as it's updated and evidently ITNR (one of those "backdoor ITNRs" mind you) although not marked as such.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Neigh, neigh. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m open to supporting as this is a Triple Crown race but the article would need a prose summary of the results before I could do so. P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the first time that the Triple Crown races will be in a different order since 1931; the Kentucky Derby will be in September, and the Preakness Stakes in October.  It's the first time ever the Belmont has been first(it is usually last). I think that adds some notability to this. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment needs a prose summary of the race to be considered (which is a silly custom here at ITN) but I have no problem posting this if updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Kingsif, not even the most important thing going on in horse racing right now. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What would that be?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Royal Ascot, also June 20, most important UK horse race (arguable with the Grand National), not attended by the Queen for the first time ever. But I don't think I'd put that in ITN, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the Royal Ascot considered more important than the Epsom Derby? The fact that it lacks a Wikipedia page doesn’t suggest to me a high degree of notability. B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Royal Ascot doesn't exist? (The Derby is a big but still run-of-the-mill good-for-betting horse race, AFAIK) Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it doesn’t. The lede of the Wikipedia page for Epsom Derby (and to a lesser extent the fact that it’s ITN/R) suggest to me a higher degree of notability.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To not kill a point, since we could just as easily argue for posting of Newbury last week (there's a lot in horse racing right now), the Triple Crown article calls the Royal Ascot the most prestigious long-distance races in the British flat racing season, so it's probably the ideal comparison to Belmont. Seems we should wait for the Kentucky Derby and Grand National, or post all of this week's horse races. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I still think the Belmont was the most notable of all the recent horse racing events, your point is well taken. Thanks for engaging in this discussion.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per other sports, only top leagues/franchises are posted. Gotitbro (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an American Triple Crown race, one of the top three races in the US. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Much as it pains me to support a sporting event, the update looks sufficient for me and it's at WP:ITNR. —Cryptic 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not ITN/R. The Belmont Stakes is ITNR iff the Triple Crown is won. That hasn't happened here. The next race, the Kentucky Derby, is ITN/R whatever happens. The Preakness Stakes will be the last Triple Crown race, but it's not ITN/R, even if a horse wins the triple crown. Would be hilarious if a horse does win the US triple crown, then Britishers shoot it down crying "US biazzz". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR does not say if the horse WINS the Triple Crown. It says "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" and it is still. So Justice Gorsuch supports this nom. greatcaesarsghost votes Oppose.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most prestigious horse races in the United States. Article quality is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we post this and a horse wins the Triple Crown, we'll end up posting all three, which seems somewhat like overkill. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally, these three races occur within five weeks; this year the other two races are much later. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This would seem to be ITNR as it is "part of a Triple Crown", being the leadoff race. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as I felt this nomination was worthy of posting and would have liked for it to receive consensus, that particular argument is pretty silly to me.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How's that? 331dot (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoever originally decided on the wording at WP:ITNR could not have possibly envisioned that the Belmont would ever be the first race of the Triple Crown. As the guideline header states, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should this be an exception? What is the benefit to keeping this off the box? 331dot (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're interpreting the listing at ITN/R differently than I am? I'm pretty sure it means that we only post the Belmont if a horse wins the Triple Crown, not if it is one of the three races in the Triple Crown, which it always is. I apologize, I thought you were making a legalistic argument that because a horse could still technically win the Triple Crown this is ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We've posted the Belmont if a Triple Crown is at stake, which is not always the case normally. However, it is this year because it was first(which has never happened before and I think is notable in that regard alone).  I respect the difference of opinion on this. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR is about planning for foreseeable events. The order of these races is long-standing and firmly set, and this listing was very clearly written with the understanding that the Belmont is the third race. The clear meaning of "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" means a horse won all three races (or possibly won the first two and contended for the third). Applying this entry to this year's race is not in line with ITNR's intent.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent is to post this race if it is part of a Triple Crown. This year is an unusual situation not likely to be repeated where the Belmont, for the first time ever, is the leadoff race. We post the Kentucky Derby as the leadoff race for the TC every other year. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support now that article has been expanded. P-K3 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Despite the sophistry above, this is indeed an ITNR nomination, and the article is more than sufficient for posting. Changes to ITNR should be suggested there, not here.130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kingsif and many others. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Look; it's not up for debate whether this will be posted or not on significance. This is ITN/R. Any opposes in that sense will be discounted, and such concerns should be taken up on WP:ITN/R and not here.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interestingly one of those dubious ITNR entries with no evidence of community support too.  One of those "sneaky backdoor" ITNRs! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't say it's not up for debate when there quite plainly is a debate. The "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" qualifier, to me, says that it's only ITN/R if it's the third race and a horse has won the previous two.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's almost certainly the point, but unless someone can actually find the community discussion which both added the Belmont Stakes and the Triple Crown caveat, we're somewhat stymied on a technicality here, regardless of the common sense. Worth a new thread at WT:ITNR if you ask me.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, we should go back to the wording that was removed here, which - unlike the current - isn't actively misleading to people who don't follow horse racing closely. —Cryptic 14:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true if the item is ITNR. However, if we do not have consensus agreement that an item is covered by ITNR, we must allow and weigh arguments of significance.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just checked the ITNR archives and discovered this which ironically I closed. The proposal was to "Add Belmont Stakes iff a Triple Crown is on the line" and found no consensus.  So I wonder when it was added and with what consensus?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I discovered that modified the previous wording around noting a Triple Crown winner to including the Belmont Stakes by name in this edit which appeared to not reference any community consensus, moreover they suggested it was a bold move and could be reverted.  Definitely needs discussion.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was initially added by here, removed, and then readded by me afterwards as TRM notes. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The opposes are unconvincing to say the least.  Calidum   15:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Sufficiently updated and ITNR. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Attention needed can we get an uninvolved admin to make a call on this ITNR debate? There are many !votes in both direction that could be thrown out once a decision is made.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very scant coverage compared to the real news out there. – Sca (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT1. Narrow consensus in favor of posting; whether this is actually ITN/R is under discussion on the talk page there (and arguments saying that this is just ITN/R no rationale needed were given slightly less weight), but a compelling argument was made here that because it's the first race of the series, there is added notability.  Spencer T• C 01:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Conviction of Vital Kamerhe

 * Comment not sure yet on postworthiness but article quality for Kamerhe isn't anywhere close. I would also not include the Congo article as a target, it's not a "relevant" target in this case. --M asem (t) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The one Reuters news sources says that "high-level corruption is endemic" in DRC, and that seems to be the case in these two articles as well: Corruption in the Democratic Republic of the Congo & Corruption Perceptions Index. Though big news in DRC, "corrupt government is corrupt" is not super noteworthy. Awsomaw (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not only is $48 m a lot, but there is a difference in getting caught and not getting caught. Thank you for your input, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose parochial politics. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, the article is nowhere near an acceptable level. On the merits, this seems notable as the most high profile politician there to be convicted of corruption(convictions for which are rare there at least right now). 331dot (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support based on the Rappler precedent. This is not "parochial" politics but a major long-running political scandal in one of Africa's largest and most important countries. However, the current angle is wrong. It's not the corruption that is significant but the political implications. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I could be convinced of that being a reason to post this, but we have to make that clear in a well-written and cited target article. At this point we don't even have a target to judge.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. Neither of the linked articles conveys this.130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but corruption in Africa is hardly a news story, being caught doing it may be of mild interest, but this is not something I would expect to see in the top 100 stories in the news of 2020. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump rally

 * Oppose and call close matter of domestic politics that is at best dealt with the COVID-19 banner. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vic Gilliam

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per MOS:LEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO. A one-sentence lead is insufficient.  It should at least highlight key activities and roles of his life. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the concern of Bloom6132 looks like it was addressed JW 1961   Talk  11:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Jon698 (talk) 21:11 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicolas Joel

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, proper tense, and long enough prose length. An important person who served as the manager of a famous opera house. - Jon698 (talk) 22:11 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ready to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 10 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ... as it was in the beginning, 2 days ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Sachy

 * Oppose. Under cited, poor English, formatting problems, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Facebook acquires Mapillary

 * Oppose: Source makes it seem like routine business news, and though I am not big on tech, the Wikipedia article about Mapillary makes little noise about how big and important this company is supposed to be. There's not even a price mentioned in the source. It's worth noting that the update on this is one short sentence, while there's a whole article on the Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, a huge and complex horizontal merger that would meet In The News notability. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere close to scale of something like Disney/Fox. For tech nerds, we know this is Facebook trying to complete with Google but that's not ITN level. --M asem (t) 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not interesting, and not mentioned in either article either, which would be a basic requirement for even considering it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment routine sports, routine elections, routine awards shows ... almost everything we post is routine and banal. Working in private industry is how a great many people earn a living so dismissing business news automatically is a bit silly. Weak oppose for now because the Mapillary is pretty thin and there is only a one sentence update about the acquisition. Flesh it out and I'll see about supporting. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Routine" awards shows recognize achievement in a field. "Routine" elections are about choosing a government or head of state. This is just a routine business transaction. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 'Large company buys small startup for undisclosed amount' is uninspiring. Facebook has bought lots of other companies over the years; nothing in the article or the news sources makes me think this one is particularly significant. This transaction is getting no coverage outside the specialist business pages and many of those stories are regurgitated press releases (e.g. the US News link above is largely a copy-paste of the Reuters story). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a routine business transaction that does not set any sort of record(like value of the acquisition). 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Holm

 * Comment The filmography needs sourcing for sure, that will be the long task to get that sourced. Some places in the article need sources, but that should be easier. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I've filled out most of the filmography using the BFI citation, there's a lot of work not on there (which is fine for now), and definitely enough films/tv shows/awards nominations to create a separate filmography article if someone is so inclined. PotentPotables (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know most of our celeb bios are in poor shape but I am really saddened by how badly Holm's is here. I don't know why actor articles get passes like this on BLP that would not fly for many politicians and just speaks of a need to stress better sourcing for them across the board. --M asem (t) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment appears to be in the wrong section, it should be in the Holm section. When you move it, feel free to delete this message. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes this was an EC that I pasted back into the wrong section. Fixed now. --M asem (t) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose There is still too much unsupported by sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to Support (of RD only) following the work done by several. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the article isn't bad, assuming the referencing is sorted out we could consider a blurb. Seems old Bilbo is headed off to the undying lands --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, and certainly nowhere even close to a blurb by any means possible. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just finished citing the filmography. I agree he's not blurb-worthy, doesn't rise to Christopher Lee's impact even with his best known role in LOTR. Kingsif (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He was a fine actor (certainly superior to Christopher Lee) but I agree he’s not blurb-worthy. Looks well-referenced enough for RD now. P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment most of the awards section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've worked on getting refs for the awards. Some are more difficult, but a lot more than there was now. PotentPotables (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll go and post, the unreferenced part is now tiny. --Tone 09:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carlos Ruiz Zafón

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jules Sedney

 * Comment I'm not opposed to it, but the article just went from a couple of lines to a minimum article and requires some serious copy editing, and I'm not really the best person for that job. I'm not against the idea though. KittenKlub (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added some more material, and given the article some copy editing. Should be in a better shape now. Joofjoof (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's nominate a pragmatic politician.KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Brief, but referenced and meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) UN Security Council Elections

 * Oppose for now WP:ITN/R is clear that they should be posted in 1 January. If you want to do it differently, you can't try and invoke ITN/R. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is clear from ITNR. Here is the exact wording: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 January) rather than when the results were announced (during October). This is because the elections are not usually heavily competitive, and 1 January is in the middle of a very slow news period every year." This year there were multiple heavily competitive elections and a slow news period when the results were announced. Additionally, that note seems to be referring to a usual practice rather than a consensus-based policy.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Not all that competitive, as there were only seven candidates for five spaces. Nevertheless the article is in decent shape, much better than previous years. It would be nice to get some prose into the 'day 2' section, but that's not required. I wrote that footnote on ITNR, which was intended as a guide to convention, not a hard and fast rule. We're in the middle of a slow news period right now, without having to wait until January, so I think it's fine to post early as a one-off. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting, though I’d maintain that two close races with hard-fought campaigns, including one that went to a second round of voting, is “heavily competitive” by Security Council standards.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vaalserberg is a very tall mountain by Netherlands standards. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for posting now, per above. To the extent this is "news," it is now and not in January. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl JW 1961   Talk  14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support that this is a slow news cycle is not a reason for posting, but these elections were more competitive than usual with Western Europe and Kenya and Djibouti, and the article is in decent shape. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and somewhat significant nom for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kirk R. Smith

 * Weak support article looks fine, but I'm uneasy with the death being a one-sentence paragraph in his career section. Kingsif (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two sentences actually. I've now placed them in their own section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment some bare URLs in there, otherwise okay. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  14:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: His career section looks like a rather close paraphrasing from the provided source; maybe it's an example of WP:LIMITED but the whole paragraph reads that way to me. I'm not opposed, but I'm not able to support the nom either.  Spencer T• C 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * alright, I've reworded it. How does the section look now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerns resolved, no need to pull. Best,  Spencer T• C 19:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , not seeing the above comment as I had an old version of the page loaded. Let me know if I need to pull &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Astrid Gjertsen

 * Oppose for someone who was more than 90 years old and entered public life 53 years ago, this is a tragically weak article, pretty much a stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support still pretty bland but much better than when I first reviewed it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. 1400 characters is a stub, and stubs shouldn't be on RD. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ; I have concerns over the small size of the article as well – especially given she was named the 9th most important Norwegian woman. — &thinsp; J 947  [cont] 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support; in an ideal world there would be more but it's probably enough. — &thinsp; J 947  [cont] 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment   Some edits have been made and it is now above 1,600 prose characters. I also have some more references for additions to her career. Opinion on its current status? - Jon698 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's quite enough for RD given how little there is on her parliamentary career – and what is there leans towards WP:PROSELINE territory. She must have had an important career before the scandal, but I don't see much on it in the article. — &thinsp; J 947  [cont] 22:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Smallest articles I've seen on RD have been just over 2k. There is some more content for sure- she changed the laws on opening or closing hours, but Google Translate's Norwegian isn't good enough to explain it properly, . <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – in light of concerns mentioned above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewed my stance, and it's regretfully still oppose, given the comments describing this as "[b]are" and "still pretty bland". This is most evident in the 2-sentence long lead, which doesn't adhere to the MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Hey, after some work by Joseph2302 and me the page is now over 2k prose characters. In her early life section the situation of her marriage has been expanded. In her career section I have added some of her actions during her tenure as minister while Joseph2302 expanded on her resignation and conviction. Can you give me your opinion on the article right now? - Jon698 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since The Rambling Man and Joseph2302 have changed their stances could you review your stances? Are there any further comments that you wish to make on the article? - Jon698 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Bare, but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I helped add more stuff, doesn't look like there's much more about her in online, available sources. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Meets RD standards.P-K3 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Kennedy Smith

 * Oppose doesn't seem to mention her death? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added 2 sentences and sources re her death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I've seen this quite a lot in the news today. Very sad. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  15:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine and meets notability. All looks good to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD, blurb discussion closed): Vera Lynn

 * Support blurb and please, can a passing admin protect it. Kingsif (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Adding reason for support of blurb: Aretha got one. Vera Lynn was definitely on par with Aretha. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced, including the discography. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This source has a fairly comprehensive coverage of her discography, I don't have the time to add it all in now, if you want to. Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I was gonna nominate this myself but it looks like I've been beaten to it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. The article is in good shape and generally well referenced. I don't think a few unreferenced entries in the discography should prevent posting of such a comprehensive article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as blurb is gaining more support than I expected: she was a popular entertainer with a long career, but did not revolutionise her field or have major impacts beyond it. Doesn't meet the Thatcher/Mandela threshold IMO. She died in old age and whilst tributes have poured in, her death has not led to significant events (like George Floyd did). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "a few"? It's practically the whole section.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So just remove it! I've seen far less significant people with much shorter articles posted very quickly. They were people from one particular country of course. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but I am rather concerned about the rather rambling structure of the article. It's rather ironic that the notable aspects of her career (circa 1939 to 1950) receive considerably less space than the "honours" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb' - highly significant person from WWII and later, easily blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RD only. (and also oppose for now on quality per TRM). Once the referencing issues are sorted out. She's something of a household name, but like Kirk Douglas and Daniel arap Moi before her, she's not at the level we would generally blurb for. I know some people don't like the Thatcher/Mandela test, but I personally think it's a good one and it's not met here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The discography can't go up like that.130.233.3.21 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - It's Vera Lynn! We don't just blurb politicians around here, I hope.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  11:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD when the discography is cited inline or gone, oppose blurb (every culture has its beloved icons). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb simply because she was 'Vera Lynn', a household name in the past 80 years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb An idol of a generation, and known to most others. Performed just last month, at 103! Extraordinary lady. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's remarkable that she had an album in the charts just a month ago – a successful career of over 80 years. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs the discography sorted and references (separate article perhaps?), otherwise support RD only as she definitely doesn't meet the Thatcher/Mandela test - and the support above shows the inherent problem with Wikipedia. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD once discography is cited. Not quite blurbworthy but certainly a notable figure and fondly remembered.  Jip Orlando (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per most other supporters. An icon for many Britons and "We'll meet again" is an iconic song for many worldwide. <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;color:red;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;">Ed6767  talk!  12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose until the discography; RD only after that: she just isn't at the level of a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD (once final sourcing issues fixed) The article does not give any impression of why a blurb is merited. "Household name" is not a good reason for a blurb, we need to show top of the field/etc. Just being a key idol for post-WWII while important doesn't make for that importance. --M asem (t) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not Thatcher/Mandela, mistakes of the past do not mean they need to be repeated. RD is fine with usual requirements. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when that section is cited. Iconic and hugely transformative figure, at the top of her field, and a household name internationally, which should be sufficient for a blurb. The "Thatcher/Mandela test" is far too restrictive and should not be used. Davey2116 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose blurb I don't quite think she is quite Little Richard level, unfortunately. I think I would also oppose a blurb for Olivia de Havilland when the time comes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's still not clear what the Thatcher/Mandela test is supposed to be. A more practical test is to compare with the blurb which would be displaced by the new blurb.  That would be Pierre Nkurunziza.  Did he pass the Thatcher/Mandela test?  I suppose not but how do we know?  What I can tell you is that his article only got about 5k views yesterday which is small for an ITN blurb and so demonstrates that he is no longer in the news in this sense. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If their name is Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, they get posted as a blurb to ITN. Simple.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it helps, Lynn got 500,000 page views yesterday. A few short of Nkurunziza's total. Then again, one day in May this year, Lynn had 100,000, so we can't compare. Kingsif (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear what the test is. It's when there's substantial coverage of the death itself, not just standard obituaries of their life, so much so that we can have a Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article and a Death of Nelson Mandela article.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or a Death of Carrie Fisher ... no, wait. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why that one was so controversial at the time and is generally regarded as a mistake now.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or rather, it shows that the "Thatcher/Mandela test" imposes far too high a bar on the coverage of the death. Under that test, the deaths of Prince and Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been posted because there's no Death of Prince or Death of Stephen Hawking article; but the coverage of those deaths, while not enough to merit separate articles, was very much on par with the non-death blurbs we normally post. That's why I think the test proposed by Andrew above is good, i.e., does the death blurb exceed the blurb it displaces. Davey2116 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying there has to be a separate article, just that if the level of coverage and reaction to the death means there plausibly could be one, that’s a good indicator of the standard. P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My reason for supporting a blurb here in Wikipedia terms is that Aretha Franklin had a blurb, and Vera Lynn easily matches her stature and success to meet the blurb criteria of industry impact. If you also consider 'wartime entertainment' as an industry or at least a field of work, Vera Lynn is undeniably the very apex of such and is still the standard for comparison to other singers in the field, like Katherine Jenkins. (In less policy-based reasoning, at least in the UK, the news has overtaken both the COVID-19 news and the 80th anniversary of the Appeal of 18 June, with Lynn's songs basically the only music played on the radio all day, and it seems obvious because it's Vera Lynn). Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The death of Pierre Nkurunziza does not reference the Thatcher/Mandela test because the reason it was posted was that it was a change in a country's head of state. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the death of a sitting head of state was blurb-worthy as default? Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not codified, but it's a defacto standard. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no Thatcher/Mandela "standard" but I use it as a short hand for my criteria (which is very high). My criteria is no more (or less) valid than anyone else's, and someone else might use the same short hand in different ways. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Building on this, given the disputes in the thread above, I've started Wikipedia talk:In the news discussion. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD only – Elderly singer dies of old age at 103. Historically compelling but, sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing this as widely significant after so many years. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (when sourced). There is no such thing as the Thatcher/Mandela test, we have posted a number of less iconic figures over the years, and Vera Lynn is iconic. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as very much in the news. She at least deserves to be on RD. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IAR support blurb if and when the sourcing issues are resolved. Under normal circumstances I'd oppose "elderly person dies of old age" in every case other than current heads of state (and yes, I'd have opposed both Thatcher and Mandela), but this is a unique case; Vera Lynn was the last person still alive who played a significant part in the Second World War, and as such is getting greatly disproportionate news coverage; at the time of writing she's the lead story on literally every UK news site (she's even the top non-financial story on the Financial Times website), and is above-the-fold on all the Aussie and Canadian news sites I've checked. (She's even on the front page—albeit not the top story—on the Irish Times website, and Ireland didn't even participate in the war.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If a blurb is posted her role in the war should be mentioned, “singer and entertainer dies” isn’t much more information than an RD entry and doesn’t really convey the significance. If the news coverage is disproportionate, that’s a good sign a blurb may appropriate. P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb if the discography refs get sorted JW 1961   Talk  15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, oppose blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article does a poor job of explaining why we expect this person to be one of the five or six most significant people to die this year. The proposed blurb doesn't even try to. —Cryptic 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added an altblurb proposal with a bit more impact. It may be unusual to mention the fact about the single, but I don't think an artist has ever had a single re-release over 80 years after the original and hit the charts, still in the artist's lifetime. It's also a testament to her enduring popularity and success over that time, and still in her lifetime. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on article quality. Once referencing issues are resolved Support RD / Oppose blurb. We have turned down more significant entertainment figures for blurbs because they weren't Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher (a ridiculous standard, but there we are). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and discography should all be referenced. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once up to standard. Definitely top of her profession in her time, and still making the news even last month. As others have said above, the Mandela/Thatcher test is meaningless. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb- never heard of her & not a world-transforming leader. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A major Second World War cultural icon who beat out the likes Bing Crosby to be the most beloved entertainer during the war. A British icon .  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb If taking the most recent Little Richard death as precedent, I don't think Vera Lynn is notable enough. Aretha made it, but more recently Little Richard didn't make it. Awsomaw (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD as sourcing has been addressed. Blurb discussion should continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb- the meaning of the “Thatcher/Mandela” standard continues to escape me as those are two individuals of drastically different importance relative to one another, but if Little Richard doesn’t qualify for a blurb then a fortiori Vera Lynn doesn’t either.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , hopefully my reply helps explain the "Thatcher/Mandela" standard? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The notion of a "Thatcher/Mandela" standard has been misconstrued here, I think, into some level of "supernotability" that doesn't really exist. As I have interpreted it, it's about the magnitude of response following the death. When Thatcher and Mandela died, there was MASSIVE response. Other deaths that have had major outpourings from society in one way or another include Prince, Bowie, and Carrie Fisher. It's not that the person who died is somehow more important than other notable people who died, but it's about the coverage. What I see for Vera Lynn right now is every publication has their own obit article for her, which are mostly the same thing just written by different people. But what is there beyond the obits? For the five deaths I've mentioned here (and a number of others that are escaping me at the moment), there was lots and lots of coverage. With Lynn, all I'm seeing beyond the obits is this one piece which is more about "We'll Meet Again" has taken on a life of its own. That to me is not a deep enough celebration or examination of Lynn's life to merit a blurb. That's how I'd codify this "standard". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They literally stopped reporting on COVID-19 in the UK, and barely bothered showing Emmanuel Macron visiting London for the 80th anniversary of a turning point for France in WW2 (somewhat ironically given Lynn's own support for it). The overwhelming majority of songs on the radio were Lynn's, and she got two new reflective specials on TV the same day. The government briefing opened with a tribute, and replays of the recent Queen's Speech that referenced her abounded. Apparently, similar responses in Australia and Canada happened. In short, I think you're somehow just not seeing the lots and lots of coverage that is out there. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are currently six articles on the BBC website. There are even four in The Guardian.  I daren't look at the tabloids. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail's front cover is "Queen 'very, very sad' over Dame Vera Lynn's death: Her Majesty sends 'deepest condolences'", and I'm surprised there's not a mention of the war. Kingsif (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb; I don't see how she has the same global significance as most figures who get blurbs when they die of old age. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If users aren't seeing Lynn's global importance (I'm not going to be snarky about the world war thing), what about a blurb like "Iconic wartime entertainer and life-long military fundraiser Vera Lynn (pictured), the oldest person to have a charting album and single, dies at the age of 103." Guinness WR? Or the fact she was the first artist not from the US to have a #1 in the US? (In-depth tribute/career article in The Guardian) Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb clearly someone super-notable as an entertainer whose death has been publicly mourned by the Queen, our future King, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, Sir Paul, Sir Cliff etc etc etc. I despise "long career = super notable" claims, but this is different, and the tributes are testimony to that.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It seems the supports here are all going the IAR route, which is fine if there is consensus. She rather clearly does not meet the standards we have set. I'm seeing a strong parallel to Bob Hope. Hope was also a beloved "national treasure" sort, commanding national prime-time audiences across six decades. But he was certainly not a "transformative world leader" in his field, nor was Lynn in hers.   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good one. Bob Hope died about 18 years before we had RD.  If he was nominated now, I imagine it would be blurb all the way to the bank.  It's like pretending that if Larry King died, no-one would try to blurb it.   Try again! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Larry King is no Nelson Mandela ... I'd oppose, even if it were pointless. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True. I'm not sure why Larry King should have a blurb in particular. No doubt he will get one, because of reasons, but if we are to uphold the principle of blurbs for old-age deaths being very rare, then he shouldn't really get one any more than Kirk Douglas or Vera Lynn. His reach hasn't been international - I've heard of him myself, from across the pond, but don't know really anything more than that he was a talk-show host. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment thank goodness for RD. Do you remember when this was the kind of debate that happened for every single death of a person with a Wikipedia article?  Wow.  No applause required of course....!  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per comments by Kingsif, The Rambling Man, and Voice of Clam and others. Comparable in stature to several of the musicians posted as blurbs. --Inops (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know her through WWII, of course, just through Pink Floyd. But in a very balanced discussion like this, let's defer to the judgement of the majority of UK editors the way they occasionally defer to US editors about US icons. I trust them that this is a very big deal.  Plus, we need a new picture, plus the oldest blurb is more than 10 days old. If nothing else, young editors might see it's a blurb, click, and learn something about a fast-disappearing generation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the unusual level of coverage highlighted by Iridescent and Kingsif. If the Prime Minister is leading the tributes, that’s a good sign it’s above the normal RD levels. I prefer the altblurb which explains her significance. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb comment if we are going with a blurb, the current altblurb is far too long + detailed for a RD. I have provided alt2 to try to capture her relevance to WWII which is what I glean as her key importance in what we can say in as few words as possible. --M asem (t) 22:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment IAR blurbing makes it essentially a number's game. US wins out for now, which isn't that big a deal since the rest of the world will have heard to some degree of whatever is huge in the US or the UK. I wonder how Europe/America will feel about it once South Asia gains the numbers to ensure everything Bollywood gets to the main page. On the other hand, if prime minister's tribute is going to be the standard, that would be almost all notable deaths in Nepal, and there are 100 other countries even smaller. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be support but not consensus for blurb posting. Blurbs are supposed to be rare and given for "major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field," however it is not guaranteed even then. Compared to the other noted death of the same date, Jean Kennedy Smith, is Lynn clearly more notable in meeting that threshold? It seems Lynn was a major figure in the field of British music, but one could say that Smith was also a "major figure" in the field of the Irish peace process and similarly deserves a blurb. FWIW, Google has 47M results for "Vera Lynn" versus 60M for "Jean Kennedy Smith." There have also been other notable individuals including heads of state who have been in RD without a blurb, and it should be clear that Lynn had more encyclopedic value (i.e. notability) in order to be posted. Based on both lack of consensus and questionable order of notability, it would be better to be conservative and refrain from posting a blurb in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should always err on the side of not not blurbing old age deaths because that's what RD is for. There might be a slight majority in support, but with the amount of opposition it's not going to fly. Someone should put it out of its misery and close the thread. I say this as a Brit myself, and while there has been the usual tributes and coverage, that will die down fairly quickly, I just don't see this as the major all-encompassing death that would dominate the headlines for days, like Thatcher or Mandela would. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See, I'd probably listen to blurb arguments for Kennedy Smith, but I have to say I wouldn't support them (based on the fact half her notability is 'Kennedy', which isn't really anything she did. Lynn, on the other hand, had a 97-year career all her own). Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Floquenbeam is very diplomatic, but sort of assumes that ITN is comprised of US & UK editors. If that were the case then yeah, but Wikipedia is a global work. UK icons should not be posted per se, and neither should US icons. They need something more. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You too are making an assumption, that Vera Lynn is purely a UK icon. Your assumption is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - HiLo48 is correct, think more Commonwealth than UK and you get a better idea of her area of influence. Mjroots (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You might have a narrow view of the Commonwealth. For example India is a member of the Commonwealth, and a brief look at an Indian newspaper shows no coverage. Same goes for a Nigerian newspaper, etc. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just saw this, of course a blurb. She's Vera Lynn! Her songs helped win a war. The short blurb should do, although the alternate (by removing "and life-long military fundraiser" for brevity) is a better summary of her historical importance. Not sold on having a photograph but maybe for a day so readers everywhere can either honor or discover her. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, the "test" is a "yes" answer to the question, "could an article on the person's death and/or funeral be a standalone article?" Abductive  (reasoning) 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Muboshgu. I'm a yank, so feel free to rake me over the coals for this if you wish, but I'm just not seeing enough global coverage or general significance to music at large. Though I would also like to add I think "tests" that come up in these sorts of discussions should be ignored, especially not Thatcher/Mandela, which, in addition to being 7 years old, has been violated enough as to be (rightfully) meaningless. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lynn's fame is for far more than "just" music. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb This does not rise to the level where blurb is needed, we have RD for this. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb a British icon whose deaths was covered in newspapers in many countries. If she were American, I'm sure she'd have been posted by now, but unfortunately the American-centric bias of parts of Wikipedia is one again displaying itself. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stats As usual on such occasions, our readership doesn't care what ITN thinks and has flocked to the Vera Lynn article in large numbers, so that its readership was greater than all other ITN items combined, including the pandemic and the protests. The blurb about Pierre Nkurunziza was read by comparatively few readers again.  "There is nothing as stale as yesterday's news". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the popularity section, please see WP:TOP25. This is WP:ITNC.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ITN is not popular; it is routinely stale and dusty because its primary process is based on personal opinions and this tends to obstruct postings so that its productivity is now pathetic.  The only part which functions at a proper pace is RD and that's because it was reformed to eliminate the peanut gallery's pontification.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realise that Vera Lynn actually was posted to the main page, don't you? Please find the popular pages at WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew is agreeing with you, TRM. I'm not sure what the argument is about.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be something to consider that a blurb for Lynn wouldn't be bumping any event out of the box, but a much less newsworthy death with a 100x less trafficked bio. Kingsif (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb An internationally well-known figure in music and politics (just because she wasn't as well-known in the US, doesn't imply the case is the same for everywhere else), was still generating important news coverage merely weeks ago (ironically for reasons related to TRM's signature), and has knocked all COVID-19 and international politics coverage off the majority of UK broadsheet press today. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On a point of order, the point about broadsheet coverage doesn't appear to be true. Vera hasn't made the front page of the Times or the FT at all, and is featured on the Telegraph and the Guardian only with a banner and a picture. The main stories are all still about COVID-19 or politics. The tabloids have mostly dominated their front pages to her though. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A standard I've always found helpful is whether the death in question is making headlines outside the country they came from. I'm not seeing that here, and I have generally seen it when blurbs are justified. FTR I checked the Sydney Morning Herald, the NYT, Al Jazeera, and The Hindu, and this death hadn't made it to the homepage of any. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I think The Rambling Man and Flo make pretty compelling cases for why this should be upgraded to a blurb even if some editors (including myself honestly) are unfamiliar with her. I would note, however, that Vera_Lynn is probably too short at the moment.  Calidum   15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, oppose blurb. If Little Richard didn't get a blurb last month, I don't see why Lynn should get one now. (I would argue both should get one, but we should be consistent.) My concern about the quality of the update in Lynn's article still stands as well.  Calidum   15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Per ModestGenius. While very popular, was not revolutionary in her field.  Spencer T• C 16:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Elderly singer/entertainer dies of natural causes. Not even significant or revolutionary in her own field. 2601:601:1001:E120:682F:942D:C968:EBD (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to log in.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Opppose blurb This is what the Recent Deaths section is for. "Old woman dies of old age". Never heard of her before this week. Chrisclear (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is no excuse, etc... - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an excuse - it is implicitly saying that she's not so well known ("household name") as other people. Also, to what does the "etc" in your comment refer? Chrisclear (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do do we only have blurbs on people you have heard of? Lynn is a fairly well known individual with, as has been seen, obits and mentions of her death in papers around the world. Just because you have not heard of her does not make her any less notable, or any more or less deserving of a blurb - and I say this as someone who has opposed a blurb. If we only !vote based on ignorance then we don't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tariq Aziz

 * Support - I got an edit-conflict nominating this one. Everything seems fine but I still get the feeling that this won't be posted because of hello hello - the rampant WP:GEOBIAS here. #BrownLivesMatter Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? RDs suffer less from that than anything else on the main page, all we care about here is the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, looks ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks decently referenced JW 1961   Talk  20:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support a dreadful article but what's there probably scrapes past the quality threshold needed, now I've spent 15 minutes trying to remedy some of it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - his date of birth seems to be identical to the Iraqi Tariq Aziz. Coincidence or mistake? Recent refs do corroborate it, but they could just be lifting the info from us. Also, the "Early Life" section is unreferenced so that should be fix before this is posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready assuming nobody reverts my rather bold trimming and rewriting. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - just in case it wasn't clear above, the early life section is still unreferenced, and I still think stronger referencing is needed on his DOB. Anyway, this would be almost off the bottom of the list now so probbaly a dead duck. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rayshard Brooks

 * Support blurb I don't think RD is appropriate since the article is about the killing, not the individual. However, the killing, the ensuing protests, and today's charges make this notable enough for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct the article is actually entitled the Killing of Rayshard Brooks, but I think this still falls under R.D. criteria. The R.D. tag could be removed if there is enough consensus. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess the current "Ongoing" riots needs to subsume this event too as the two are intrinsically related now. Maybe we take the ongoing back to a bumped blurb, taking the latest police murder into account?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I think I agree with you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support this too. Maybe something like
 * Protests break out across the United States and elsewhere following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.
 * If we're going with this, then it'd be good to have a section in the protests article about Rayshard Brooks. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just the thing is that the George Floyd is a little too old to be in the news. I obviously would be ok with keeping the George Flyod part but what if we made it about the officers involved having warrants issued? Ex:


 * The officers involved in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks were issued warrants on June 6th.


 * P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD only Not independently notable from the George Floyd protests in Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that is the actual point. The Floyd protests were dying down and now we're back up and running because of more overt criminal activity on behalf of the US cops. The stories are intertwined, so that's why I'm suggesting the "ongoing" gets bumped back up to a blurb again to cover this.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am open to both! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to an RD in cases like this - the article is literally about a recent death. It just doesn't get an autopass if the quality checks out the way a preexisting biography would.  (On that note, I haven't looked closely at article quality; I have entirely too many protest articles on my watchlist to keep up with already.)  I definitely oppose the (now-removed) alt blurb though, since the protests - obviously - didn't break out in response to this killing two and a half weeks after they started. —Cryptic 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note An RD would be stale, as he died on June 12, unless we IAR it. I'd support bringing a tweaked blurb back though, per TRM and others above. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last RD is also from June 12, so not (quite) stale yet. —Cryptic 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, missed the last entry as it was on a different line. However, even so, an appearance would no doubt be fleeting. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – This ugly event is part of the larger story of anti-racism protests in the aftermath of George Floyd. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is just a weekly occurrence in America. Unruly/criminal black doesn't co-operate with police, ends up dead, media makes a fuss about it. We don't need a blurb for each one of these. George Floyd was a unique case, but Brooks isn't special. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are racist, anything people of colour do is unruly... Absolutely pathetic rationale. Looking at the warning about some of their PA's on their talk page... We have a 'swole alpha-male' that is here to teach all the nerds a lesson seemingly. Even going as far as telling people they have small penises because he does not agree with them or how he would bully them had they been is school together... Maturity of a 12 year old at best, and even a lot of those know better. How on earth does a shit stirrer like that avoid being blocked or banned on this site? What a joke. 2003:D6:2714:37EA:C03F:D51F:D872:84B2 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, unemployed white people arm up, wander into a Synagogue, Walmart, garlic festival, whatever go on a crazy politically motivated murder spree with terrifying regularity. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this falls under the the George Floyd protests currently in Ongoing. In truth, the subject probably fails WP:BLP1E --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as they don't have a biographical article, it's about the killing. In the news/Recent deaths says that RD should be for biographical articles. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Malformed, stale, erroneously dated RD nomination. Reasoning is exactly the same as here. Reformat as a regular blurb if you'd like, but "violent drunk gets shot" probably fails the notability test.130.233.2.200 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not an RD, and not significant enough to be a blurb. Sadly US police frequently kill suspects, so we could hardly post every one as a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Thorne

 * Oppose with regret, missing lots of references. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cite the red links, scroll back. Sources for the yellow, green, brown, blue, pink, and black...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Poor Willie Thorne, his hair's all gawn. Perhaps I aught to chalk it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Much improved, I think everything is referenced now.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved now, and it's now well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The "Performance and rankings timeline" seems to be unreferenced, other than the rankings. If that can be sorted, then it's otherwise good to go. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The events all link to their own articles which are cited. Obviously not ideal, but possibly satisfactory.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This has, sadly, been a long standing issue with these particular graphs. However, as stated, they are implicitly cited to the articles themselves. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - someone did a lot of work on Mr. Maximum. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - "Performance and rankings timeline" section is orange-tagged but I'll vote weak support based on comments above by and .  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. OK, I'll strike my oppose based on the reply to me above. Ideally someone should take the refs and put them in the relevant section, but we can IAR for the time being. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.

 * Oppose on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to spotty referencing; "political life" section has only 1 ref, "sports patron" section has none, and a cn tag in the "personal life" section also gives me pause. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mohammad Asghar

 * Weak oppose While referenced, article doesn't have much about what the subject accomplished in his political career. What's there is mostly election results and controversy, so at present, it's a tad unbalanced.  Spencer T• C 18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike McCormick (pitcher)

 * Support - article looks decent. - Indefensible (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article in good shape JW 1961   Talk  22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bombing of the Inter-Korean Liaison Office

 * Support story but oppose article(s) but once the "merge" has been resolved and a substantial improvement in coverage, gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Fairly wide coverage due, apparently, to the 'explosive' nature of the event, but in topical context seems just another pyrotechnical publicity stunt by our friend Kim Jong-un. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I truly doubt anything will come of this. Perhaps we can post if there's further escalation, such as troop movement.--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. North Korea is known for loud saber rattling, and that's what this is. As WaltCip suggests, maybe if there is further escalation. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It's a relevant story and whatever you think about NK saber rattling it might have global implications. Article is not great, though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fundamentally flimsy crystalballery. Nothing's going to happen. Nothing ever happens. Even with the infamous Singapore summit, nothing got done, and the Hanoi summit was even more worthless. I'm waiting to see boots on the ground enter another country before we can say there's any actual global implications. --WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 331dot. And WaltClip, whose analsis is damning. ——  Serial # 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to get scatological about it, 54129. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with Inter-Korean Liaison Office as target article. This story is clearly encyclopedic because it would result in a significant update to a Wikipedia article regardless of ITN, so provided a decent update (which there is), I'm not swayed by the arguments that there needs to be "global implications" as suggested above. The dramatic and politically motivated destruction of an encylopedically notable building seems significant enough on its own.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, controlled demolition for political grandstanding. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the significance of this. P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Madigan

 * Weak support one unref'd para in there, the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed that concern, hope it's all satisfactory now JW 1961   Talk  11:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support fully satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good now. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While referenced, his political career section only features information regarding election results, and doesn't include information about what he accomplished as a politician.  Spencer T• C 19:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe he achieved nothing. I'm pretty sure under Wikipedia's current notability guidelines, such individuals just have to sit in the office considered notable to make themselves notable rather than actually achieve anything of substance.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While true, something like that for me wouldn't have sufficient depth to meet the 3rd ITN RD criteria of being "of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page". That said, some have died early in their political careers, such as ambassadors Bernardita Catalla and Du Wei (diplomat) (both of which were rightly posted)), and thus a case-by-case approach is reasonable.
 * The Political views section seems to contain the information you are seeking. P-K3 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Woops I must not have scrolled down far enough, thanks for pointing me the right direction.  Spencer T• C 01:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Maria Ressa conviction
Wow, thanks for including my article in the nom! (People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler) I wish I had more time to work on it tonight... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, thanks for creating it! Watching your Rappler interview now :)  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is a non-zero chance I will become the third person convicted of cyberlibel and the first in absentia. Lucky me—quite the exclusive club! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow I totally missed that part of the story, I was watching an old interview. I hope there will be change in the Philippines soon and you have the option to safely return in the future.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment what's there is (mostly) fine but in this case the article would benefit from some background about the cyberlibel law and the disputed article in question. Rappler might have libeled Keng, and Ressa is being held to account. There is an incomplete WP:CFORK to People_of_the_Philippines_v._Santos,_Ressa_and_Rappler which if expanded would be a better target. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added background about the cyberlibel law to the beginning of the arrest section, and there already is information about the article in question in that same paragraph. I agree that the case would be a better target if expanded, but I don't know of any reason why there would be a problem with using Ressa's article as the target.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, People of the Philippines v. Rappler, et al. was expanded and is now the target. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not familiar with the Filipino judicial system: is Ressa out of appeals and this is the final judgement? In the past we've posted sentencing, but I'm not sure if this is the notable event for this story.  Spencer T• C 19:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The case will be appealed. I understand both positions on this, as right now is probably when the story will receive the most news coverage but if it is not a certainty the verdict will be upheld then it could make sense to wait in some cases.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a way for us to hint at the "persecution of the press" angle without BIAS? That seems to be the story here. I would support posting now rather than later, but there are a few CNs.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb that vaguely tries to do that. Note that although this is the second conviction, the notability of the event is largely because of her fame. I fixed the CN tags.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment- I may be slightly overreacting, but the fact that this nomination has not received any !votes in nearly 24 hours (notwithstanding the constructive comments above) while four other nominations have been resolved is suggestive of the subtle (though unintentional) ways that systemic bias affect ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't overreacting at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's some bias derived from the lack of clarity for foreign editors. Speaking for myself, I would not support a short article with CNs. Separately, I also refrain from meaningless votes, such as opposing an article with no support (as in this case). This is more of a "wait" vote.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah completely agreed, I had no problem with your comment. My “notwithstanding” was meant to be interpreted as “aside from” rather than “despite.”  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Although I admittedly am not super well-versed in this subject matter, this seems to be a fairly notable event, as it's drawn articles from not only the New York Times and AP (as linked in the nomination) but also BBC, CNN, CBS, and plenty of other news sources, and "basically [killing] freedom of speech and of the press," as the nominator mentioned, seems to be notable enough for ITN to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the basis that the finality of the case still hinges on the appeals court. Will support nom if this is being brought back after the appeal is heard and decided upon. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree . I edit in the area of Philippine law extensively. Cases drag on for years. This is when it's getting a lot of attention. There is a chance that the case will never be back in the news. For example, Duterte could lose and a new Congress could repeal the law, rendering the case moot and academic. If Duterte remains in power, this case is very unlikely to be overturned on appeal. See Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court approves of this law. It will first go to the Court of Appeals, where it is almost certain that Judge Estacio-Montesa's ruling will be upheld. Actually, I'm concerned the CA will find Rappler corporately liable to. Then, the SC will hear it, and they won't be sympathetic. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I'm satisfied with the article now. The timing issue here is a blind spot for ITNC that we must be conscious of - we often have consensus for significance, but opinions on timing are so split that no one event garners sufficient support. The way to handle this (IMO) is to consider the possible outcomes (as noted by Psiĥedelisto) and (unless the latter events are clearly preferred) error on the side of posting sooner rather than later.    GreatCaesarsGhost   14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am ambivalent about this but would note that neither blurb is very good. It is the effects rather than the conviction that is potentially ITN-worthy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at ALT2. I spent all night expanding People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler, and hope that this will be posted sooner rather than later. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is about to get stale. was posted by  after a single vote in support. People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler has had a lot of work done on it, and, much to my surprise, even made it the bold article, which I was not expecting at all, I just hoped we'd both be bold. (Pardon the pun.) (I hope it's not against the rules to ping previous closers.)  closed  after three yes votes which took only a few hours.  closed  after two yes votes.  closed  after two yes votes as well. I don't usually come to ITN, in fact, had  not basically invited me, I probably would stick to WP:DYK which I know best. However, given that I'm here, I just want to say, this is a WP:GLOBAL project. By population, Philippines has ⅓ the American population, and this is the biggest story in the country right now. It seems like we are not remembering that, unless I'm missing something major about how ITN operates…which is possible, this is my first time. That's all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The standards are different for RD and blurb nominations. RD is more or less automatic assuming that the article quality is up to scratch. A couple of supports with no opposition and the posting admins own review being positive is generally enough. However, blurbs have a higher bar and require a clear consensus that I am not seeing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thank you for that explanation. Excuse my ignorance, turns out I really was missing something major about how ITN operates. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is my first time participating in ITN, and I got here due to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. I agree with the supporters above that this is notable enough to be included in ITN. As the second successful cyberlibel conviction in Philippine history, one of the convicted being a well-known journalist who is critical of Duterte, the case being covered by several local and international news outlets, and the trial finishing in a quick eight months instead of being very lengthy like 3 years, I think it passes my own standard of notability and significance. The article is also well-written and well-referenced.
 * I prefer Alternative blurb II to be used in the ITN, though it might be less neutral, so I'm also fine with the first Alternative blurb. It might be better anyway for the first Alternative blurb to be used, as I don't want to see another stupid social media post, this time calling Wikipedia "delawan" (Filipino for yellowtard). The main blurb is too dull and downplays the significance of this event, so I would oppose using that. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt 1.  Spencer T• C 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb wording I think that the currently worded blurb makes this sound like a typical trial conviction, whereas most of the rest of the world sees her conviction as a violation of human rights, and that isn't represented at all in the blurb. While it is controversial content, choosing not to include the controversy in the blurb is itself biased, as we legitimize the conviction and the government by normalizing it.  Perhaps a neutral way to reference the controversy would be to add "In a Philippine court case about the freedom of the press," but perhaps another editor could word that better. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems Stephen changed it to match with the main blurb, instead of alt 1 which is the consensus formed here. Can't blame him though, because he based it on Main Page/Errors (permalink). But it would have been better if they had consulted us first. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 China–India skirmishes

 * Comment - has been going on for a month already. If it is possible to improve the article further (and if enough people agree on the notability of the event), then I will support. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  09:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support - RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  05:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Agree with nominator. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support article has some of the usual bad grammar and puffery, but overall not terrible. Would be nice if the update could be expanded a bit. Oppose any blurb with the phrase "hand to hand combat" or which excludes the reported Chinese deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Relatively minor compared the main stories of the day. Sort of an 80-pound gorilla. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - But wait a bit. New developments show that at least 10 Indian soldiers have died Breakfastisready (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article could use some improvement but looks decent. Added altblurb3. - Indefensible (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, although article might need some work as per LaserLegd. I'd go with Alt Blurb No3. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel given that this has been ongoing for a month and this incident is only but part of the cycle, that this feels it should go to ongoing, not necessary posting this blurb. Not that I'm against this blurb for posting, just that it feels like we should have had this to ongoing sometime ago and this would have been covered under that. --M asem (t) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The key distinction is that this is the first time there have been actual deaths among the casualties since 1975 apparently, which is what merits the blurb as it is a major escalation. Otherwise it would be unworthy of mention as there are other conflicts currently with more deaths that should have priority for Ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As the article is now showing at least 25 deaths, with possibly many more than that, this is ITN worthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- there have been several escalations of border tensions in recent years that may have approached the ITN threshold, but this seems to clearly be the biggest incident yet.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted adapted version of blurb 3.  Spencer T• C 19:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) SCOTUS rules on Title VII for gays/transgender

 * Support Article is pretty good and it's a relevant topic in US politics. Looks like a good candidate to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support pertaining to a single country is perfectly admissible per WP:Please do not #2, article is decent but short. I added a CN tag need a ref for the rightists who tried to justify legitimizing firing someone based on their sexuality. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And those concerns have been addressed admirably. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note for posting administrator This will put the Floyd protests to Ongoing per our earlier decision. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: could the blurb be rewritten in a form that makes sense to non-experts? Most of our readers won't know what the 1964 Civil Rights Act is, let alone what 'Title VII' means. I don't feel familiar enough with US law to suggest an alternative. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Duh, thanks, Altblurb de-USifies it. --M asem (t) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Could '​In a landmark case' be removed? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's removed, and per Sandstein, "people" instead of "individuals". -M asem (t) 17:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ...but if companies are people, that means...  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Due to the surprising nature of the decision - everything I had been reading suggested it would be 5-4 the other way - its topicality in Pride Month, and its significance (some activists are saying it is a bigger deal than gay marriage).-- P-K3 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt blurb. It's country-specific, but landmark SCOTUS decisions often have worldwide impact. Suggest "people" rather than "individuals". (Also, pleasantly surprised to learn of this from ITN/C.)  Sandstein   16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is a landmark civil rights decision by the Supreme Court, and is in my opinion on par with Obergefell v. Hodges in terms of importance, which was nominated and posted on June 26, 2015. Phuzion (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I should have added that I support the wording of the alternative blurb. Phuzion (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per above. Nihlus  17:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb; while only technically about the US, this could have ramifications elsewhere internationally. Seems fitting for ITN. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the rationale above! TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, maybe shortened to "LGBT" or "LGBT+" for space considerations if needed. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Historic decision. Davey2116 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Oppose Internal political legal decision with no significant ramifications outside of the United States. For most of the country it simply codifies existing state and local law. We don't customarily post domestic political and court cases of this sort. Are we going to start posting court cases for every other country? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did note the country and concern about additional "country to protect LGBTQ employment rights issue" as a concern. But as a note: only 21 states had some form of LGBTQ employment protections, so no, this wasn't really codifying existing law. --M asem (t) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those 21 states represent at least 2/3 of the population. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But half of all LQBTQ people in the US live in states with no employment protection. Whichever way you try and spin it this is a significant ruling.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support How many people live in Burundi? Maybe we should make a rule that editors shouldn't oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country. This argument applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Not of international impact, and only affects a minority of people in the US. Susprised this was posted within three hours of nomination too. That's normally too little time for consensus to form, except in very obvious cases. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We've agreed a number of times that there is no minimum time an item must soak before posting. If you disagree, I suggest starting an RFC at WT:ITN --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Would normally oppose internal politics from a single country, but this is on the front page of most news sources over here as well, and we have posted such issues before (i.e. Brexit vote). Issues over and above a simple ruling that lead back to items such as supposed right-wing loading of the Supreme Court. It is unlikely to have major ramifications outside the US but given the influence over world politics, especially in an election year as it related to DT's authority, I think this is worth posting.  Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support! – Very major. This "add the words" debate has been going on for decades. (I speak as one who formerly worked for a U.S. state's Human Rights Commission.) The ramifications transcend U.S. borders, as this long overdue decision may spur change elsewhere, though alas not everywhere. (At least it will nullify various incomplete state human rights statutes.) – Sca (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose per AO. No international significance. It's hardly on the front page of most news sources either - that is still dominated by the coronavirus. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you participate here when you affirm that ITN is a silly place with no purpose and advocate for it's removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the alternative? Banedon (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Participate in a part of the project that you think should exist? Continue your efforts to remove ITN via consensus? When you comment here, given your past stated positions, I'm forced to conclude that you're only interested in sabotaging ITN and that your comments should be dismissed as such. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And leave you guys to be silly? Sorry, I'm not going to do that. It's your prerogative to believe whatever you want though, and you can be sure I've drawn my own conclusions about you based on what you wrote above. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above supports. Notable decision that is in major news outlets. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose as per AO. Not of international significance, violates WP:CSB. --Varavour (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting that WP:CSB states, “this project concentrates upon remedying omissions...rather than protesting against inappropriate inclusions.” P-K3 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting confusion Americans supporting this might know, but as a non-American, I still have no idea what this is about. I'm not opposing the posting, again because I still have no idea what this is about. (Maybe I would if I did.) The US-centrism here is in using local political and other language that is not clear to the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Workers can no longer be fired simply for being gay or transgender. That’s basically it. I concede there’s some jargon in the original blurb but I don’t see what is confusing about the altblurb.P-K3 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. Surprising ruling, yes, but has little to no relevance outside of American law. — Goszei (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. This is a catastrophe for anti-homosexuals around the world, who rely on financial, "moral", and legal support from US politicians and religious leaders. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lumbi

 * Support: Quality quite good by standards of Wiki's African political biographies. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noel Kelly (rugby league)

 * Support I don't know anything about rugby so no idea if he was someone people would have heard of but the article is well sourced. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He meets notability requirements so doesn’t matter who’s heard of him :) P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Australian rugby league follower here, just commenting for the record. Kelly was well before my time, but that's a very solid and significant career record he has. Anyone who followed the sport in the 1960s would certainly have heard of him. - dmmaus (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sushant Singh Rajput

 * Comment needs references in Television 2008-2012 and Filmography sections, will support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD but I oppose the addition of the image. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Polish invasion of Czech Republic

 * Oppose, call for close per the article's AfD entry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - International event which meets notability for encyclopedic coverage. Voted keep on the article's AfD entry. Has sufficient referencing. Added altblurb. - Indefensible (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose because it's basically a "disaster stub" without deaths and very light on details. The AfD is going to end in a speedy keep and people who want to support posting this should do so. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose far better suited to the comedy section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe suitable for other sections of the Mainpage. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not. It's an international event, is in the news, and certainly is not something that happens every day. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting impact unless there are major diplomatic implications/protests; for now, DYK seems a more optimal place for this provided it meets the necessary criteria there.  Spencer T• C 02:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

 * Oppose I've been updating the Hong Kong national security law article, which is related and in the protests navbox. In today's news: the British accuse the Chinese of torturing their diplomat. Announcement that the HK police are going to start 're-educating' residents. BBC expects law to come in this month. I don't think it's gone stale. Kingsif (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The ongoing item is about protests, which I've demonstrated is stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait, per Kingsif. In addition to the national security law being enacted later this month, July 1 is just around the corner and the 2020 Hong Kong legislative election is scheduled for September.  This issue isn't going to die away anytime soon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose An update on the 12 is not stale, and that's only one sub-article of a massive topic that is clearly in the news. This repeated attempt to remove this is getting tiresome. --M asem (t) 06:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * June 6: wall of unsourced text. June 7: Nothing. June 8: Nothing. June 9: Nothing. June 10: Nothing. June 11: Nothing. June 12: A one liner about "dozens of people". This is the exact opposite of "regular updates". I'm just following the guidelines supporters ignoring them has become most tiresome. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose very much still in the news, very much still of interest to our readers. If lack of content is a problem, WP:SOFIXIT.  Main page exposure apparently is used to update and maintain articles so the quality is somewhat secondary to the "in the news"-ness and "what our readers are looking for"-ness.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SOFIXIT.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A) Quality is king; what is in the news or of interest to readers is secondary. B) When we show a very long term event in Ongoing, we need to quickly show why the item is STILL listed. If it's difficult to do that in the main article because of WP:BALASP or WP:RECENT, the sub-article makes sense. But then the sub-article needs to be maintained. C) I don't understand how we can argue the article is fine and still demand that LaserLegs FIXIT. D) Main page exposure can help keep articles evergreen, but is not used to showcase articles that need help. Quite the opposite.   GreatCaesarsGhost   11:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A) when deciding to post, sure, but seldom after posting. B) It's obvious why it's listed, it's in the news still and people want to find it. C) Only Laserlegs is saying it's NOT fine, so SOFIXIT is perfectly apt D) I'm afraid that argument is somewhat out of touch. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Still going on, still significant, still in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - valid item to keep in Ongoing as protests are still happening AFAIK. The main article linked, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, seems pretty good in terms of referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The current bold link is only good for a general background of the event in the broadest sense. It is receiving updates, but the particular ones discussed here are not found in the article (or if they refer to Cheng, that happened last year). The in-article links to various timelines are poor, and a single inconsequential sentence on the 12th cannot carry the entire Ongoing entry. This is preceded by 15 paragraphs without any references whatsoever. Using such an article as a basis for keeping an entirely different article on the MP is rubbish. Either the bold-linked article is timely or it's not; Or the daughter articles are referenced or they're not. It can't be a bit of both. The article for the Security Law is better, in that it is the catalyst for the current protests, and includes timely and referenced updates. Perhaps that's enough to keep this in Ongoing, but this is becoming a game of whack-a-mole. How are we supposed to make sure readers see the daughter article that they are "supposed" to see and not the utter trash that we wouldn't post in a million years?130.233.3.8 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there was opposition to putting the security law article up. Would you suggest that goes in ongoing instead? Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That opposition was because the law was not yet enforced. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  04:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose very much still in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:SOFIXIT - RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  04:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Still receiving significant coverage, and if the article were to be updated every few days with new developments it would become bloated and unencyclopedic anyway, so we shouldn't be so strict on the "continuously updated" requirement.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we're done with this particular timesink, suggest closure/withdrawal. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Kirvan Fortuin

 * Weak support it's brief, what's there looks alright though. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Choreographed works strikes me as an 'ography, which we usually require to be fully referenced. I don't know if a self-published website would satisfy that, and I'm not in a position to evaluate the quality of it because the whole domain is down for me right now.130.233.3.8 (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - the choreographed works section is unsourced save for a citation that appears to be self-published. I'd support if an independent source can be found. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to expand the references to their choreographed works - however some sources are Facebook/Youtube/Twitter which I haven't used in the article but I'm unsure how to get additional verification.--Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I went to post this, but unfortunately it is now stale. Sorry &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ali Hadi

 * Oppose It's a stub and AFAIK the Iraqi football/soccer team isn't particularly high profile. It's not something most people would care about outside of Iraq This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose just because it's a stub, the "profile" of the team is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't mind short articles on RD but this seems a bit too short. I agree with the two !votes above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricky Valance

 * Support Decent article and well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per Ad Orientem. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready. Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a 54-year gap in the Music Career section - it would be nice to know what happened between 1961 and 2015. P-K3 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief paragraph, but the sourcing could be better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Much better, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * been ready for 16 hours. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lebanon protests

 * Weak Oppose Large scale and sometimes violent protests occur every day all over the world. ITN can't cover even a fraction so we have a fairly high bar for this topic. While undoubtedly notable, I don't think these rise to the level we look for at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with above. Significant for Lebanon, but worldwide-wise probably does not meet the threshold. El_C 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh I was impressed by the flaming silhouette photo, but lost a lot of interest at "Hundreds". Not even hundreds in each city. Hundreds across Lebanon, a land of over two million unemployed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. Not quite notable enough for ITN in my eyes. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The spectacular collapse of the Lebanese pound might almost merit ITN on its own. The suggested blurb is not good though. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all; I don't think we generally post financial news on here, either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COATRACK just like the Hong Kong nothingburger no update in the last several weeks mentions the size of the protests. Financial issues are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic which already occupies the box with a gigantic banner linking to mediocre articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are protests all around the world [china noise] right now, and there's already protests in ITN. No. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article documents ongoing non-specific misery in Lebanon, and popular reactions towards. The update is under a section called Coronavirus comes to Lebanon which only contains a few points about coronavirus. I would be open to a blurb about the LBP's dramatic fall, if that had actually happened. Instead, it's trading at the peg (1500LBP/1USD) which it has held for 9 months. Retail-facing currency exchange gives approximately the same. In short, routine protest attributed to an event that never happened.130.233.3.8 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lino Esterino Garavaglia

 * Oppose – per MOS:LEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO. A one-sentence lead is insufficient. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Please review your position or make further comments. —Jon698 (talk) 08:20 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your updated lead makes it sound like he only became bishop in the 1990s, when in fact he was consecrated in 1986. Also, what's with the bizarre terminology?  Bishops don't get "elected" (they're appointed), nor do they "enter the diocese" (also inaccurate, since he was already there as its coadjutor).  Was this just crudely translated off one of the existing foreign language versions? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry it is 4 a.m. where I am. I did not translate from the Italian page and instead translated Italian news articles about him. The "elected" part is just a force of habit because I usually edit politician articles lmao. —Jon698 (talk) 09:49 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. My apologies that my question came across as kinda brash.  It's just that if this had been translated from other language Wikimedia projects, it would have required attribution per WP:TFOLWP.  Striking my oppose now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak oppose in light of TRM's comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support short but sourcing looks sufficient. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it reads like a very brief CV, could use some copyedit/expansion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I have made some edits to the page. How does it look now? — Jon698 (talk) 20:32 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely better. Sources need publishers or works (e.g. newspaper/magazine etc) to be added though. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. — Jon698 (talk) 20:58 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support okay, it's much better than it was, still a CV basically but more comprehensive and reasonably well formatted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to me.130.233.3.8 (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William S. Sessions

 * Support - Article is good and well sourced. As RDs go, it's among the better ones This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks adequate. Former household name. – Sca (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good with well sourced.AbDaryaee (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Brewer (politician)

 * Support - short but sourcing looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above JW 1961   Talk  20:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Perfecto Yasay Jr.

 * Oppose – twelve outstanding "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the 12 cn tags are taken care of. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - tags have indeed been taken care of. Good work . Pinging who had similar concerns to mine.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I just cleared out the citation needed tags. Please reevaluate. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable. I'm not sure about "bureaucrat" in the first sentence which carries negative connotations. Might "civil servant" or "administrator" be more appropriate?—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) United States imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court

 * An important development. ITN-worthy. El_C 05:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - doesn’t the US already have a law authorizing it to invade the court to save any possible American war criminals (or something along those lines) ? RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  05:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! The Hague Invasion Act of 2002.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is yet another Trump Execute Order so while it technically enforced by the US, it is still part of Trump's own personal conflict, and at this point has zero impact on anything. --M asem (t) 05:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. At least until the US drops a Navy SEAL team in The Hague or something. Juxlos (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Apart from anything else, these are sanctions against ICC officials and not against the ICC itself as the blub suggests. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are against the court's personnel, and not any particular persons. Added an alternate.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This is Trump pandering to his brain dead base, however, should the State Department actually try to enforce one of these, let's revisit. Right now it's just more empty words. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks like just another action from Trump to appeal to his populist base. Electioneering is not news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Feh. Bah humbug! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dennis O'Neil

 * Oppose for now. Article is not in dreadful shape but there are some noticeable gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if you could point out the gaps, I'd be happy to add sources. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added cn tags where I think claims need sources and I tagged the entire bibliography section which is essentially unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Question: I would like to assist with this - Can someone point towards the bibliography section of a comic book writer that is adequately souced, that we could model the O'Neil bibliography after, in hopes of making his article appropriate for RD? KConWiki (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 942 articles in Category:American comics writers; I'll try to find one with a good bibliography. Admittedly, I know very little about comic books. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks PCN - I know something about comics (and from that knowledge I formed my opinion of the significance of Denny O'Neil) but one thing I have never really pursued is the appropriate citations for a comics bibliography on WP. There are numerous that I have looked at that do not have citations, so I am pursuing opinions here about what is needed for a good bibliography citation. Thanks for all you do WP and thanks for your interest in O'Neil. KConWiki (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosa Maria Sardà

 * Comment – Stub. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now has selected filmography with citations, and some more referenced info throughout. PotentPotables (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, it is true that the article needs some improvements (like find a better photo). Nevertheless, Sarda was a very popular and recognized Spatnish actress and TV personality. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: has been extended/updated, in particular by Alexcalamaro, and seems adequately sourced (although I have not checked in detail the mostly Spanish language sources). The current picture is poor, per Alexcalamaro, but good to have one at all. Perhaps some of what looks like a discussion of her importance from the 2018 El Pais article could be worked in by a reader of Spanish? Overall it seems quite satisfactory. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PostedStephen 02:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet

 * Support decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  12:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: the content that's there is good, but it's also incomplete. There's no mention of what he did as PM or why he left the role - the discussion of his career stops at 2016. Add a referenced paragraph on his term as PM and I'll support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to the above, it seems that this politician was removed in the course of a coup. I think depth of coverage demands that something be noted about that.130.233.2.72 (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Even if it isn't comprehensive, it's certainly adequately referenced and isn't bad by the standards of African political biographies. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - references are adequate. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claudell Washington

 * Support I don't see any issues; everything looks referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosita Fornés

 * Weak support some claims in "Early life" section are unsourced; other than that I don't see any major referencing issues. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pau Donés

 * Support satis and updated, but would be nice to expand if possible. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs improvement, discography in particular is not fully referenced. - Indefensible (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - refs have been added for most of the discography and some more sourced info added. PotentPotables (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support referencing looks fine to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. You could get rid of the "Compilations" section anyway, we don't usually list them. Black Kite (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Olof Palme assassination verdict

 * What exactly does this mean in the grand scheme of his assassination? What's the notability aspect of this? --WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Palme was the Prime Minister of Sweden at the time and the assassination remained unsolved for 33 years. Until now and the case is officially closed. Brandmeistertalk  18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He is also one of the great and habitually remembered figures of the social democracy in Europe. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Engstrom has long been seen as the prime suspect. Today's announcement closed the investigation with him still the prime suspect. No further progress can be made because Engstrom died 20 years ago and there is no more evidence to examine. I don't see how today's news changes anything. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this is not a conviction, nor is one possible per Engström's death, nor does this radically change anything per Modest Genius. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per rationale brought up by and  above.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ending the investigation is the story, not implicating a man who is dead for 20 years, but Assassination of Olof Palme is an orange tagged disaster so I cannot support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The argument for Engstrom is weak, and there is no direct evidence pointing towards him being the murderer. Hey  mid  (contribs) 22:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - what happened 10 June wasn't a verdict, but rather a decision of the prosecutor to close down the investigation. Notably Swedish media reported heavily on it, with Aktuellt dedicating its entire 10 June program to the decision. But a better blurb would be something like: "The investigation into the assassination of Olof Palme is closed down, after 34 years." - As per the notability, the Palme assassination is one of the most high-profile murders of the entire Cold War era. --Soman (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - But it should focus on the conclusion of one of the longest investigations. Which is notable and historic enough for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(Approved) Ongoing consensus: George Floyd protests

 * Complete support - The story hasn't slowed down much, if at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support automatic ongoing when it rolls off. The various subpages are all getting regular updates. Kingsif (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support And thanks for the nomination. Event in the news, articles updated regularly, etc.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - not much to say that hasn’t been said here. Per all above. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  09:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support It can be automatic as ongoing when blurb rolls off per reason above. 182.1.233.250 (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support obviously but it could be a while the rate of blurbs has slowed to a COVID-19 crawl. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving to ongoing whenever it rolls off. That could be several days away, but the protests show no signs of going away within that time. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joseph Rizzo

 * Nom Comment Joseph Rizzo, who died June 1, but apparently the death was not announced until today, was the brother of the notorious Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo, who has been in the news again, now that his prominent city statue and mural have been at long last "deprecated" as part of the George Floyd protests.  Joseph had been appointed city fire commissioner by Frank when he was elected mayor.  There were plenty of news stories about him in the local press back in the 1970s and 1980s. 73.81.116.68 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Pierre Nkurunziza

 * Oppose on quality. But I would probably say that we should support a blurb on this to avoid any bias : the death of a sitting elected head of state regardless of size should be mentioned as a blurb even if this is not going to be major news. --M asem (t) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A good ITN nomination but the article needs work, especially referencing issues. Gotitbro (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the issues have been addressed. Though the article is a bit short it should suffice. Gotitbro (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support, per Gotitbro. Nkurunziza was long-serving strong man and profoundly changed Burundi. He was also an important player in East African politics. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently on quality but would definitely support a blurb with some work. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support article improvement is impressive, blurb is certainly the right move here. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support blurb in principle due only to being an incumbent. Oppose on quality per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle of being incumbent state leader. Issues can be fixed later. --Varavour (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we can't fix issues later, this is a WP:BLP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't BLP only apply to living people?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not post articles with multiple orange tags. No-go. When fixed, blurb is a standard practice for heads of state who die in office. --Tone 21:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that Tone, I was only questioning whether BLP applies to the recently deceased. In any case, WP:BDP, which I presume TRM is referencing, suggests that it does.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP usually applies for up to six months after someone dies.  Common.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per multiple orange banners which must be addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb i think is more relevant to include this in RD instead because there are issues on quality. I Support it to include in RD. 180.244.147.63 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb As a relevant figure, he shouldn't be mentioned only in RD, but his article needs a lot of work.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, died young in office, posting as blurb is the consensus. Note also that Burundi has a population of 11 million. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's tagged and shoddy. You support this??? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting it on the front page will spur improvement. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, good one. Something to remember next time anyone  complains about the quality of any nomination here! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - I have substantially rewritten the article and hope other users might add to it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb now that article has been rewritten.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Added a bunch of CN tags. The article relies heavily "Dictionary of African Biography" which is behind a paywall so I can't check it. The Burundian Civil War section is all backed by a dead BBC link. Lastly (but not critical) "military coup was attempted" should be reworded "an uprising as attempted" since that's how we brand coups around here. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through the article. I replaced the tags with citations, fixed the BBC ref, and replaced coup with uprising. Dictionary of African Biography is a book, but you can find the relevant pages on Google Books.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks for fixing the tags :). Weak Support Blurb only because the election was past and he was a lame duck, but we've posted every other sitting head so why not. Article is good enough for the box now. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Numerous citation needed tags, also a number of unsourced sentences that aren't tagged as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's good to elevate African stories on here.-TenorTwelve (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. The article was a mess at the time of nomination, but the improvement since then has been impressive. The current version of the article is more than sufficient and the death of a sitting head of state is certainly significant enough to justify a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manuel Felguérez

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support On quality and significance as a national artist. Gotitbro (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - references look solid, looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Dunne

 * Support I was tidying up this article up to nominate, I have some more references on hold if you need them while you're using the page leave a note on my talk page and I'll add them - good work on all your referencing  JW 1961   Talk  23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – well referenced; looks like it meets requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hubert Gagnon

 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ready to go JW 1961   Talk  16:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short but well-sourced, looks fine to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Bey

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above JW 1961   Talk  13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - references look solid, looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Thomas (gymnast)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above comments JW 1961   Talk  13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 13:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Statue of Edward Colston

 * Support Article vastly improved from when I swung by earlier. It may seem like a small event within all the protests, but it's in the UK, where this sort of thing never happens (apologies, it's the 'spree shooting' argument). The Brits toppled a statue and threw it in the sea. It's unique and all over the news because of how shocking that is. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really doubt the notability of this single event. A statue got chucked, what repercussions (if any) will that have? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sufficiently significant an event in itself for the main page.  However, the reference to "Protests and riots break out across the United States...." should now clearly be changed to add "...and elsewhere" as this is a global protest movement.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)   PS: Blurb subsequently updated.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've been bold and tweaked the blurb. Let's continue discussion of this nom here please, Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing to oppose alt blurb.  It is the global protest movement that is important here.  We are in danger of placing undue weight on the toppling of a single monument which, while unusual in the UK, is simply not that important in the overall scheme of things.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support while it is not more significant to include this in the ITN section, because this is a part of global protest movement that happened in US, It's unique and because of how shocking that is and no other incidents happened other than UK itself. 36.77.95.159 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support updating the BLM protests blurb, per Ghmyrtle. While I'm on the fence as to whether the statue deserves its own blurb, the event clearly demonstrates that the protests can no longer be considered a US-only thing. The main blurb should be updated to reflect this. <i style="color:black">Rami</i> <i style="color:red">R</i> 07:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's a parochial story but it is rare as rocking horse shit to see an event like this in the UK, reminded me of when I watched Saddam's statue being pulled down and jumped on. Target article is well updated and in a good state.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - normally local news. Now part of a bigger context.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Leading item in UK news sites. Propose merging with existing Floyd blurb. Alt blurb added.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support the ALT blurb if it was bumped to the top story (ie. Support and bump). Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One of dozens. —Cryptic 09:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are all in America and somewhat underlines the point of the newsworthiness of this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Local news that's not significant or notable enough. Clearly a DYK stuff. Guy in the Mall (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how this is local news when this occurred as a result of a protest protesting an event in the United States. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Black Lives Matter campaign is global, and predates George Floyd's death. The campaign against the Colston statue is also long-established in Bristol - for at least 25 years.  So, it's disingenuous to link the toppling of the statue too closely with recent events in the US - the two campaigns have come together and of course are related to each other, but the toppling did not occur simply "as a result of" the US events.  It's more complicated than that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is more complicated than that, but it's a safe bet to conclude that this statue would not have been toppled and tossed into the harbour in this fashion were it not for the sad events in the US. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I would call destroying a statue and vandalizing another(the Winston Churchill statue in London) a riot. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a news story of purely local interest dealing with a non-notable statute in a provincial city. There's an analogy to the painting of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan in Washington DC and is only part of a notable news story. Would we be having this discussion if a similarly anonymous statue was pulled down in Boulogne, Hamburg or Baltimore? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the statue is not notable, then you should propose the deletion of the article and also ask the BBC to stop covering it. This statue has a long history and efforts to remove it did not start with the BLM protests, but did end with it. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that does not follow at all. I note the article for Statue of Edward Colston was created only yesterday and I very much doubt it would have met the WP:GNG if it had not been pulled down. As it happens, I do think that an article on the subject (as opposed to an entry elsewhere) is premature and an example of WP:RECENTISM. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sources from years past already cited in the article. WP:BEFORE doesn't get much easier.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The statue is clearly notable - not only because of yesterday's events, and not only because many Grade II listed buildings have articles, but also because of the controversy that has developed about the statue over several decades. But that does not necessarily mean that this story is sufficiently notable for the main page.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This sort of jaw-dropping mentality is exactly why British and American Wikipedians won't see eye-to-eye on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I am a British Wikipedian but I am also very conscious of WP:BIAS. What is your point? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. This is not a local story, it is related to the worldwide protests even though efforts to remove it are not new.  I learned something about this subject and believe others will too. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't see why the pulling down of statues in Boulogne, Hamburg or Baltimore would not be remarkable. The relative population of the locality isn't really the issue here, it's the significance and unusual nature of the event. In the context of the overall protest movement right now though, I can see the argument that this isn't the biggest thing going on, and there'd be a question over whether this story replaces or complements the protest blurb. Events in the US have probably been more significant than events in Bristol. I definitely support update to the protests blurb to add "and elsewhere" though. The protests (and borderline riots too) in countries other than the US have reached ITN level in their own right.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This sort of stuff is a big deal. Imagine if Nelson's Column got pulled down. The outrage there would be staggering!--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Scale and significance matter. A statue in Bristol does not equate to Nelson's Column.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the felling of this statue made the news is proof as to its significance. And it's a good article. What more is needed?--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everything that makes a national news goes on the main page here, obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Brigade Piron.Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Seriously - this is part of the Floyd protests which are still up (and will go to ongoing), and mostly symbolic compared to the actual intent of the protests. In the States, numerous Confederate statues have been vandalized and taken down as well. And the fact that everyone was clear that the BLM Mural (which was a much more significant message in the larger picture) was quickly accessed as part of the protests at ITN (appropriately) but we're treating this as something special? BS. This wasn't the first major overseas even in support of the protests, won't be the last, and to try to call this out over a bunch of things that are more central to the core of why these protests are happening in the States right now is detracting terribly. --M asem (t) 12:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BS? It is something special as adequately demonstrated above.  And just because it wasn't in the US, it doesn't mean  it's not central to the core of the issue at hand.  That really is BS.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is BS that its losing focus on what this event is relative to the protests. It's great that it may be a quality article and in the news, but it is a part of the protests and a small aspect of it. We've not posted other separates of the protest, just as we've not posted other parts of the COVID situation. This feels like extreme bias judging by the comments, not seeing the forest through the trees of how this looks int he biggest picture of the protest event. --M asem (t) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and unusual story in the news, and a decent new article to highlight. P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I was all ready to oppose this, but then I remembered the primary purpose of the MP is to direct readers to quality articles. This is a very nice article, better than many we post at ITN. The significance is fine; my only concern is that the blurb make clear this is distinct from the Floyd protests, such that it is not a duplicate post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Amakuru. Interesting but passing episode in the much larger gobal story. AFAIK, Edward Colston isn't a headline name. (If Oxford got rid of its Cecil Rhodes statue, that would be significant.) – Sca (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose really? We snow closed the painting of "Black lives matter" in enormous letters in the American capitol but are seriously considering the destruction of a 100 year old statue on the English coast? Really? Come on --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tangential point: Bristol is not on the coast. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – UK-bias within a global event ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * However, a blurb update to mention that the protests have become a global event could very well be warranted... but mentioning a single statue in the UK is not appropriate here, regardless of article quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That change ("...and elsewhere") was made earlier.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed that update, then. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all there in the template's history. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment What about a blurb that states "thousands of idiots break COVID-19 lockdown restrictions to commit vandalism?" Would that help get this posted?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only appropriate response to this insufferable drivel: ok boomer. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as you snowflakes washed your hands afterwards, the virus won't get you! Good.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They were all just collectively testing their vision to make sure they weren't suffering from symptoms.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Age discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is logically invalid. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Singling out a single event from this very long list doesn't make much sense to me. The fact that this instance is farther from the epicenter of the event which spurred all this, to me, makes the case even weaker, not stronger. The current blurb on the protests has already been altered to reflect the global scale. I would strongly oppose further altering it to the Alt blurb here, which would by its wording make THIS the primary story and not the broader movement. Kenmelken (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose meh. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly an unusual event for the UK, but Kenmelken has convinced me this is just a small part of the bigger story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea is that you treat it like an individual event in the UK, as it is still that unusual and shocking thing and a story on its own. Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cyclonebiskit and Kenmelken. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chiranjeevi Sarja
*Comment needs references in "Early life" section and the filmography, will support when these are fixed JW 1961   Talk  19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now fixed, good work updating refs JW 1961   Talk  13:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose still lacking refs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Refs have been added now. M4DU7 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SupportLooks ok. P-K3 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fine, but the career section needs to be expanded and the death section reduced (pretty big in relation to the overall article). Gotitbro (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment pinging as his concern regarding refs has been addressed by M4DU7.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reche Caldwell

 *  Oppose  I've tag a few unsourced statements.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw oppose after citations added.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the cn's remain to be fixed JW 1961   Talk  13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now it's fixed - good work on improving  JW 1961   Talk  20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - I have replaced cn tags with references. Pinging and .  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Aria1561 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet the requirements. Sad conclusion to a life. - Indefensible (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Clayton Bailey

 * Comment Very nearly stale, unfortunately. Some CE and tense things need changing. Awards and honors and Public collections are bereft of sources.130.233.2.170 (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now stale. Black Kite (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rupert Hine

 * Oppose – prose is almost completely unreferenced, coupled with unsourced discography and producer lists. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bloom6132. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see this on RD but the layout needs reworking along with a whole host o refs, a table or two will be good as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George V. Murry

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support meets the requirements JW 1961   Talk  11:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 14 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - indeed, ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay, y'all, it's been about a day. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 11:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Black Lives Matter mural in Washington, DC

 * Oppose and close- Though I have no doubt this nomination was made in good faith, I don't believe this mural is a major a global story that is worthy of being prominently included in an update to the Black Lives Matter page.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose riots are already mentioned in the second blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good-faith nom that has no chance of passing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Part of the protest story -- BUT if we can get a good larger free shot of it, that would be a good replacement image for ITN box --M asem (t) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pandemic has made US billionaires $565 billion richer

 * Oppose Unreasonably precise figure, attributed to an entire class of people, based upon findings from a single WP:INVOLVED institute. We didn't post the severance package of We co's CEO, despite it being black-and-white contract details. We certainly can't post the result of speculative accounting. Borderline agitprop, and covered (such as it is) by the banner.130.233.2.170 (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above IP's comments. – robertsky (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like an ideal candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not in the news. May be so, but smacks of POV. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not helping your batting average, CI.--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Doubts on reliability of Surgisphere data

 * I know we have an encyclopedia handy and that the article's just a click away, but the blurb really needs to do a better job of explaining the significance here. —Cryptic 10:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest amend blurb to highlight that retracted articles influenced WHO decision on hydroxycholoroquine. Maybe After prompting the WHO to cancel drug trials, unreliable Surgisphere data studies are retracted. Paul W (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above and that the article is 85% about the controversy and 15% about the company, completely undue weighting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with the above. The corporate article might not be the best target. Better perhaps re-nominate with a smaller update to the drug's article.130.233.2.170 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not in the news. Polemical. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The original studies weren't big enough news to be an ITN blurb, so retracting them isn't either. This is a very small part of the COVID story. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Science is always a WIP, and the retraction of the articles does not necessarily mean hydroxychloroquine isn't dangerous for COVID patients anymore. Frankly, the layers of nuance to this story make it not really newsworthy from a headline standpoint.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose This is not a "major scientific scandal". It's as minor as minor as a scientific scandal can be.  That it received any attention at all is because it involves COVID. 73.81.117.22 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is really more part of the COVID situation rather than separate at this point. Should any person or organization be convicted on crimes associated with it (doubtful) that might be separate. --M asem (t) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcello Abbado

 * Support as what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above JW 1961   Talk  13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Solid work as usual, .  Spencer T• C 20:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Tripoli lifted

 * My conversion to prose was reverted, so it's back to proseline. I'll let others decide which format is more suitable. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

[[File:Ongoing conflicts around the world.svg|thumb|Ongoing armed conflicts, as of May 2020.

{{legend|maroon|Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|red|Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|orange|Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past calendar year}} {{legend|#FFD300|Skirmishes and clashes, 10–99 deaths in current or past calendar year}}]]
 * Oppose – Possibly significant in the Libyan Civil War, but without broader import. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be more of an ongoing situation, like the wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere (pictured). Having skimmed the article, it seems that there's been a shift in the balance of power as Turkey is now providing military support for the GNA.  But the war goes on and the article seems to need a lot of work.  Many of the proseline date entries don't give the year and this makes it hard to navigate if you're coming to the article cold. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending an explanation of broader significance. If need be Libyan Civil War could be added back to Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Notability seems clearcut to me: UN-backed government fully recaptures Tripoli, 14 month long battle for capital city ends.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Bzweebl. Clearcut.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- An altblurb suggestion: In the Libyan Civil War, the Government of National Accord recaptures Tripoli and agrees to a ceasefire with the Libyan National Army, ending a fourteen-month battle for control of the city.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The GNA didn't really 'recapture' Tripoli though; most of it was never lost, just the southern suburbs and the airport (if I'm understanding the article correctly). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait The LNA wasn't really defeated at all - it seems like they are pulling back to negotiate for peace. . THAT would clearly be postable.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds the target is a prose line disaster. Write three paragraphs about the "Siege of Tripoli" and I'll support easily. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Crime blotter. The article does not indicate the significance of its many proseline entries. It is not clear to a naïve reader why these details are important.130.233.2.170 (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a potentially significant change in a major and long-lasting conflict. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Readd to Ongoing: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

 * Would have nominated this but the article has an orange banner currently, so not sure it is ready to be posted. - Indefensible (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The two tags are size related. The first one is length but I get 103k prose length - that's probably the max we'd want and yes, a split is needed but its not too long. That tag could go. The lede thus actually seems right for those, but that could be reduced. Annoying, both tags appear to be "drive-by", no talk page discussion (until yours just now) on these, so I'd say that we can remove that or understand that those have little do with quality in contrast to the usual sourcing problems. --M asem (t) 19:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I think we kind of have to at this point.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Probably the best target article for 'a lot of things building in Hong Kong'. Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - now it is time to add this.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The orange tags are only indicating that the article may be too lengthy, but this isn't a quality issue or a verification issue. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, support China's legislation being a blurb if/when it happens. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged for quality and not one single update provides any meaningful stat about the size of the current protests. "The mass march on 24 May in Causeway Bay was the largest protest since the beginning of the pandemic" tells me nothing. However important you think this is, if it doesn't meaningfully inform our readers it has no place in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again, as explained several times before, the protests have grown so large, the updates are in the summary-style sub-articles, and may not always filter up to the top article. As long as the structure of the summary style is clear and appearent to help readers navigate to where they need to go (which they are in this case). --M asem (t) 02:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The length is a problem, as the reader will be confused why this is exceeding long article about an exceedingly long event is in the box now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two of the last three blurb noms are for Hong Kong, and another two lower down, with the general response being 'HK should be in the box, but as ongoing'. It gets nommed for ongoing, and your argument is that readers won't know why it's in the box now - for such a complex situation, one article may not be so obvious, but it's the main article tying all the current events together. To make it clear why the protests have picked up again, we'd need about four blurbs. Can you see a circle? Just stick with the easy option - article with lots of relevant subpages (that are right by the top!) to ongoing. A reader will see 'Hong Kong protests' in ongoing and think 'ah, so the HK protests have started up again'. Kingsif (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - article may be too lengthy, but quality and significance are not issues here. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  02:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing. The orange tags deal with editorial rather than sourcing issues, so OK to post. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Quality is always an issue. The recurring unrest in Hong Kong is a very significant in international politics, but this article's length, at 19,000 words, is obviously OTT. A good copy editor knowledgeable about the topic could shrink it by half. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just at the edge where some split is needed, but its not demanded. (I had 103k of readable prose). I dunno if it is more a copyedit moreso than a reflection on what's more important to be at the top level wth months now past for some of onset events and pushing details to the sub-articles, but its far less the type "quality" that we'd be worried about with other ITN candidates (poor sourcing, etc.) --M asem  (t) 13:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "knowledgeable about the topic" – meaning one who could judge what the salient events were. We don't need to see every incremental detail of this long saga. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. Not here, somewhere else, we need to work on some type of system for when we get stuck in this type of "hyperreporting" mode (where editors are documenting details without thought to longevity, as to at least collect sources) so that editors go back to trim down to more essentials. These protests, the COVID pages, the Floyd protests, and many many more articles need this 20/20 hindsight fix. I would not penalize a topic at ongoing ITN for not having this done while it is actually still ongoing news in reality but it is a point to keep in mind as you say. --M asem (t) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this story is "important" or not because this WP:COATRACK of an article is too busy giving WP:UNDUE weight to the agitators and not enough describing actual protests. Even the much lauded "sub articles" don't describe a single actual protest march in detail, but they do go on and on about various MPs, international response, and public statements from agitators. The article(s) are complete turds about something that's largely a non-event and these sorts of "hyper edits" are what's going to make it nearly impossible for me to crowbar this shit off the main page when every time I try POV warriors who otherwise ignore the box pop up out of the floor boards to exclaim "Keep - VERY IMPORTANT, updated yesterday, still in the news". Every single time without fail. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment Should have waited to see if this develops into a continuing protest rather than base it on a single event. Gotitbro (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 31st anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests

 * Oppose People in Hong Kong hold vigils every 4 June. Nothing remarkable here. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that this year the protests are notable in their own right. For comparison, there is no article for the 3rd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, or the 27th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. This suggests that there is something different this year which should qualify it for posting to ITN. - Indefensible (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose OTD is the place to commemorate things that happened "on this day". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This nomination is not for a commemoration of something that happened "on this day," it is for a notable event which occurred today. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid in the big scheme of things it's a commemoration. The  ongoing may work.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Part of the Hong Kong protests, which, I think, is fair game to bring back into Ongoing.... --M asem (t) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If you're still looking to get this to a blurb rather than the protests in ongoing, it may be better phrased as "In Hong Kong, protesters hold a Tiananmen Square memorial event, in defiance of a police ban and in protest of new laws being imposed on them by China." Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Added "event" to the blurb. Support this blurb over the other one, though I’d abstain from taking sides on this event. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all. China's response should be a blurb, if/when it's finalized. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tiananmen Square is more remembered this year than last because of the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong and the United States. Suggest Ongoing instead.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Norilsk diesel spill

 * Support Nice article, if only a light update. Adding Pravda source to nom.130.233.2.170 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Suggest mentioning climate change in the blurb as a factor for the melting permafrost.--WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Great job. Good article. Well referenced. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That's an article about the city, not the oil spill. It has only one sentence of content on this event, with no more information than what's in the blurb. The article doesn't even mention permafrost or the cause of the accident. I do think this is an important enough event to merit a blurb, but we need some actual encyclopaedic content about it, not a one-sentence mention in a much more general article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support iff 2020 Norilsk oil spill is the bold link. That article is short but informative and meets our minimum criteria. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the details in the article. The Norilsk article seems the best place for this currently as it provides lots of context about this unusual place – notable as the mostly northerly city and also one of the most polluted places on the planet.  The article also gives details of the previous spill in 2016 which turned another river red.  The river system does not seem to be well covered on Wikipedia currently but I have made a start by creating Ambarnaya. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on principle - massive oil spill by all means - but Oppose that this probably could be expanded more than just beyond the current paragraph. Reading the BBC article alone gives more details to be added. --M asem (t) 13:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also corrected title, it is diesel oil, not fuel, which spilled. Doesn't affect newsworthiness, just precision of story. --M asem (t) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually weird, BBC is the only one calling it "diesel oil", many others calling it "diesel fuel" but we can go with "diesel" until more details are known. It's obviously a heavy petroleum product that is bad for the environment. :P -M asem (t) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note, diesel is just diesel. It can be called either "diesel oil" or "diesel fuel", but it's all the same stuff.  See Diesel oil, which redirects to Diesel fuel.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Only in America. In many parts of the world, "diesel fuel" means distillate, and "diesel oil" means fuel oil, which I think is what is meant here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Target article has a few referencing issues, and as noted by Masem, the single paragraph update is a bit weak. I'd still support it, though, if the referencing issues were fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment More than a paragraph about this event in the city's article would be UNDUE. A separate event article (which seems to be suggested) would be fine, as well. But we have a very decent article about a little-known locale in the Anglosphere, containing a thorough suitably-referenced update reported by RSs. I can't see the oppose angle to this. I am unsure what refencing issues there are because no one has placed any CNs and spot check looks good.130.233.2.170 (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 placed some tags and I resolved them all so there are none now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have separated it into a separate article, 2020 Norilsk oil spill. The WWF is calling it Russia's second biggest spill, so it seems that it's worthy of a stub. Previously the content was spread across sereral articles - those of the city, the main river and the company. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That separate article was created by cut/paste of the existing content without any attribution and that's a copyright violation, contrary to WP:PLAGIARISM. I reverted but the content has been put back.  For ITN purposes, I reckon that the Norilsk article is still best because it is a substantial article with lots of good context. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't claim the text I copied over as my own work. Copying from one article on Wikipedia to another related article on Wikipedia to create a new article is pretty standard, it happens every day and is well with the rules AFAIK. It could be misconstrued as plagiarism, but we're all writing under Creative Commons here and the same references were kept in place. I'm sorry to have brushed you up the wrong way, I hope we can work together resulting in one central article that befits the gravity of the incident. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew's right, a pure copy/paste is a  violation of the Creative Commons licensing which  requires correct attribution and when your edit  introduces a bunch of text from another article and you don't allow that attribution to be determined, that's bad.  It certainly  is not "well within the rules".  If I reuse text from other articles (even if I'm normally just about the sole author), I add something similar to what you find at Talk:The Boat Race 2019 by way of attribution, i.e. permalinks to the  article from which the text was  taken and the version of the  article it was inserted into.  Just plain manners if nothing else. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Points taken. I have added attribution in the edit history, and on the talk page as suggested. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment right we have a buggers' muddle now, a stub article about the event which is an unattributed copy/paste, no blurb which incorporates that article, and virtually the same text in the "parent" article which has various !votes cast.  Messy. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The stub is now better attributed (see above), and has additional material. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The target article should be one about the oil spill, not a general one about features of the locality (its "cold, dark, and long" winters, for example). The Norilsk article contains one (1) paragraph about the spill. And as noted, the new, separate 2020 Norilsk oil spill article is a stub. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support iff 2020 Norilsk oil spill, as suggested by Modest Genius is the bold link. The article is short but concise, and continues to evolve. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the oil spill article the target, which is good enough to support for this. --M asem (t) 18:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment marking as ready but I'm not convinced that image is offering anything about the actual story really. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Shame that the pictures of the oil-flooded rivers are all copyrighted. I agree that Putin staring at a monitor isn't a great main page replacement image. --M asem (t) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The picture shows Putin holding a teleconference about the matter and so is directly relevant. It also seems quite topical in that such videoconferencing is the new normal now and it is interesting to see them being done in Russia too.  They released the picture under a CC licence and we should encourage governments to do this as we are not spoilt for choice – it's quite hard to get good pictures for our articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support The List of oil spills shows that in the last fifty years since 1970 there have been ~40 as large as this, (1) including ~20 of such spills as large in the ninteen-seventies alone. However, such large spills have become less frequent, with only five other spills so large since the year 2000: the Prestige, the Tasman Spirit, the Jiyeh power station, the Deepwater Horizon, and the Sanchi. DougEMandy (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC) edit links DougEMandy (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dont think anyone is pointing out the largeness related to others here. It is a large spill; what is unique is that it was primarily inland, not from a tanker or other waterway issue, and a result from permafrost thaw (as currently being evaluated) from climate change. Even if it was a spill because a worker accidentally knocked out a support beam, we'd still be reporting on a spill this size. Its in the news. --M asem (t) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Removing ready. Although there is consensus to support posting an item, article needs some more expansion: while it has the minimum three paragraphs, they are not fully complete/well-formed to meet minimum criteria. A reaction session may also be worthwhile.  Spencer T• C 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's currently 450 words of well-referenced prose (8 paragraphs with 15 sources), plus an infobox and animated image. That easily meets our minimum length and quality criteria. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Given the seriously remote location of Norilsk, in Russia's far north, I question whether a diesel spill there has broad significance. This isn't 75 mi. from New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico. – Sca (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The size of the spill is comparable with the Exxon Valdez oil spill which also took place in the far north and was thought to be a big deal. Also, it's not a one-off as Norilsk is routinely generating huge amounts of pollution of various kinds.  Putin seems to think it's a big deal -- hence the state of emergency and imprisonment of the plant manager.  As the Arctic thaws and opens to up to further exploitation, it seems sensible to highlight the consequences as they occur. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Note, though, that Norilsk (69 N. lat.) is farther north than Valdez (61 N. lat.), and more remote from main sea routes. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also add to what Andrew has said by saying I think there is broad public interest globally both in human-caused environmental disasters in the Arctic Circle (and maybe the blurb should mention the event occured within that), and the effect of climate change on Siberia's permafrost, similarly to the global interest in the endangered rainforests. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that gives me an idea of an image though... --M asem (t) 23:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone beat me to it: ESA satellite imagery here would be good. There's the animation in the article, looking for a good still though, as they actually caught the red-ness of the fuel in this. --M asem (t) 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. A major disaster, both because of its size and of the connection with global warming. The article is currently of sufficient length and quality for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – major news event, and the article appears to be adequately sourced. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - waiting for the image to be protected at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And done. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Abdelmalek Droukdel

 * Comment article is satis but depends if we consider a French government "claim" to be sufficient. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Adequate RS documentation. In journalism, "claimed" is notorious as a weasel-word verb implying doubt; changed to NPOV "said." – Sca (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There have been many erroneous reports of death in the fight against AQ and associates, and for the purpose of being conservative with the facts we should pass on this. Droukdel's entry at the UN Security Council still uses present tense, as does a number of other sources, both sympathetic and antagonistic towards him. All sources seem to be relying on the French press release. Absent confirmation from AQ, we should at least wait for a third party confirmation.130.233.2.170 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Jay Friedman

 * Weak oppose lead is incomplete...! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sentences to the lead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone else wants to improve the article, please remember to use US English. 73.81.117.22 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article appears up to standard JW 1961   Talk  19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Shaukat Manzoor Cheema

 * Weak support well referenced but barely past a stub article JW 1961   Talk  13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) British Hong Kong citizenship proposal

 * Oppose This is just a country declaring its intent and not doing anything yet. Let's post the actual law passage if/when it happens. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it is approved, it is still something that affects two countries on a very specific matter. A kind and fair gesture, but I doubt it has a place in ITN. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even if the UK did start work on it right now, I doubt that a single country’s taking action against the PRC is notable on its own. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  04:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose- the UK is not just a random country when it comes to Hong Kong obviously, and if this were to happen it would be a major geopolitical event. But it hasn't happened yet.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would be better to have 2019–20 Hong Kong protests in the Ongoing section in my opinion. While it does have an orange banner currently, not too concerned as it does not seem to be tagged for insufficient quality and can probably be addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support adding something about Hong Kong to Ongoing. Between this, and the previous revocation of trade status, we have a story which is notable and encyclopedic but lacks a blurb worthy event. Seems suitable for Ongoing.130.233.2.170 (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We generally don't post if-then's to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Wolfson, Walt. Mere int'l rhetoric at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Politicians frequently announce things they 'intend' to do, then don't. This offer is a small part of a much bigger story; we should wait to see what happens if/when China imposes its proposed law on Hong Kong. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable ITN if actually does come to pass, but intentions are not ITN. --M asem (t) 13:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Suggest closure. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: COVID-19 pandemic

 * Oppose as premature -- it's likely we'll see cases rise, particularly in the developed world. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - many countries are yet to reach the peak. India itself is still showing no signs of an end to this nightmare, after a two-month long lockdown. I know that even India is considering lifting the lockdown, but that is because a lockdown is simply unsustainable for too long. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - COVID-19 is still a major unprecedented global pandemic that is hitting countries hard. India had its "highest single-day spike" -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The reason "Above COVID-19 at BBC was an article about vegan seafood" is the case is that you're looking at the website for BBC Television, not BBC News; at the time of writing the BBC News website has twelve stories above-the-fold, seven of which are about the coronavirus. &#8209; Iridescent 08:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent, 7 out top 10 stories on the BBC relate to Covid. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support COVID-19 will still be prominently featured in the box, in the Ongoing section. This change simply removes the myriad of links to poorer quality articles and frees up space in the box for an additional blurb. Opposes based on COVID-19 still being in the news don't make sense because we're not removing the story from the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is in no way over, it has hardly reach its peak in many parts of the world.BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that this is a nomination to add the article to Ongoing. Apologies for the BBC confusion; for some reason I persistently get a redirect to their .com TLD site no matter what I type.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no point in adding this to Ongoing if we're keeping the banner. COVID remains the overwhelmingly dominant news story in almost every country, so the banner should stay. It's not as if we have any other pressing nominations to put in the space instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - You're kidding, right?--WaltCip (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I still support the banner over Ongoing due to the unprecedented nature of this story and how, contrary to the OP's opinion, it is still dominating the headlines.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-closing comment - I would start supporting this around the end of the month, but right now this has no chance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohsen Ibrahim

 * Support Thorough, AGF on the references. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 15 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready, 24 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting! --Tone 20:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ghulam Murtaza Baloch

 * Oppose Stub. Needs expansion. P-K3 (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor Suárez

 * Support - added 1 cn tag, but seems acceptable. Good work on the updates. - Indefensible (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad – I just forgot to use the AP source again. No tags remaining now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlo Ubbiali

 * Comment References are in order and the <1.5 kb of prose that is already there is very good, but it gives so far no information about the subject beyond birth, death, and CV. A few sentences about family or education or life outside of motorsport and I could support.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose support What's there is ok, but per the IP, it could use a little more detail. This individual lived for 90 years, there must be something else to say apart from the 11 years of his racing career.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems he lived a very quiet life after retiring as a professional racer, the Italian article does not have much else to add either. There are a couple of awards he won late in life related to his career, which are noted in the article. The only other thing I can find seems to be that he took over his father's motorcycle shop after being a racer, but the source is a blog. - Indefensible (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough – I don't want to hold up the posting if you've looked and there's nothing more to go on.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wes Unseld

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims for a BLP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Refs have been added, should be ready to go now I think. - Indefensible (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No refs for the career stats, and there's a fair few facts in the infobox that aren't mentioned and referenced in the body. Stephen 02:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The basketball-reference.com ref covers all or almost all of the stats I think. Other items such as the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award have dedicated articles linked which are supported by refs. - Indefensible (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arrogate

 * Support that article should be nominated at WP:GAN. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Munir Khan Orakzai

 * Oppose - either there are not enough sources or they are incorrectly positioned. References generally come at the end of each sentence/paragraph they support. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  15:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough now. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  14:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Article needs copy editing. Most sentences begin with the pronoun "he" and the article reads in a somewhat stilted manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a couple of unreferenced sentences, and barely beyond a stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Unreferenced material has been removed. I hope that clears way for posting. Guy in the Mall (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While referenced, article appears to list mostly election results; a resume in prose format. Would like to see more information regarding what he did as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan.  Spencer T• C 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David McAtee

 * Oppose Article is written as an event, not a BLP; there only a single sentence (first under Incident) that contains any information about the subject's life. As such, the suitable route is a non-RD blurb.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never thought of In the news as specifically requiring a BLP—it's not written explicity, and there's a horse (Arrogate) currently posted on RD. Still, Wikipedia has no firm rules, and a BLP restriction isn't firmly written to begin with. Closely tied to the ongoing George Floyd protests, for me this is at worst an WP:IAR to post.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The horse's article is a BLP (per the non-human exceptions at RD), nearly every article posted to RD is a BLP; I can't imagine you thought this was a coincidence. The rare exceptions have articles with a wealth of personal knowledge about the individual, as opposed to a COATRACK like this. While there are no firm rules, there is established practice and guidelines, and this cleanly fits into one of those - a non-RD blurb.130.233.2.170 (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine you thought this was a coincidence. WP:AGF. Earth-shattering scheme, indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - while this may qualify for RD without having to break any rules, I think it is already covered under the "Deaths" section of the George Floyd protests entry, which is currently posted. (It may be beneficial to move the protests link to Ongoing soon.) Otherwise, all of the other related deaths which are similarly given their own article, e.g. the Death of David Dorn, should also be posted to RD on the same basis once they meet the same level of quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Imho, RD is to highlight notable individuals who have died so people who might not have heard about them yet are intrigued to read the article in question. Per WP:ITNRD: In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb. (emphasis added). With all due respects to McAtee, I think we can agree that he was not someone who would have had an article about his life's work. He is only notable because of how he died. That means it could be considered as a blurb but ITN-worthiness seems lacking compared to Floyd's death which sparked the protests. Regards So  Why  06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Silver Donald Cameron

 * Support looks reasonable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed some link rot, otherwise okay.130.233.2.170 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Myroslav Skoryk

 * Oppose - not ready yet per above. - Indefensible (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still not ready nearly 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)