Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2021

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

(Attention needed) Balkan Wars tribunal convictions

 * Comments/!votes, anyone? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I am fine with either blurb. The photo is wrong, though, I think. The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals is not in the same building as the ICC, as far as I know. I've changed it to the only photo we have of the Residual Mechanism.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting war crimes convictions from an international body. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The caption in the image is incorrect though, this isn't the ICC, but the successor body to the ICTY and ICTR. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed caption. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Significant moment in the prosecutions around the Yugoslav Wars. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not clear what the significance of this is. Surely there should be a linked article, for example to the prosecutions, rather than just links to the individuals concerned, if this is a momentous and newsworthy event? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A conviction for the actor of a mass genocide is clearly something worth posting in the main page. I've removed an irrelevant sentence in the Franko Simatović article.--ϗ (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gordon Brooks (photographer)

 * Comment I've added two citation needed tags. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs some more source. --ϗ (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack G. Downing

 * Support Everything checks out and the article is a decent length. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Donald Rumsfeld

 * Got edit-conflicted nomming this, but I was using Twitter and DailyMail as the sources so you can have it haha. In all seriousness the article needs to be duly updated and has two cn tags to be fixed, but otherwise this looks adequate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose borderline blurb for me (as a non-yank). But article needs work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of blurbing this. He's an important name tied to US's activities in the Middle East, but I can't see that close to the Thatcher standard in terms of impact of the death; half of the US is going "good riddance" from looking around various forums. --M asem (t) 19:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair half the UK had that reaction to Thatcher's death. I'm not sure there'll be street parties to celebrate Rumsfeld's passing like there were for Thatcher, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Black Kite, notability need not be positive for blurb purposes; I still think it's lacking in Rumsfeld's case, though, but I would have blurbed McCain if we didn't. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only - not quite notable enough for a blurb IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb for now. Rumsfeld influenced so many things that affected people outside the US that I kind of feel maybe he's internationally important, but is he important enough for a blurb? I'm open to being convinced. —valereee (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, obviously. I don't see anyone proposing a blurb. BD2412  T 19:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, no blurb. — Goszei (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, quite a few CN tags. Support RD only when that's fixed. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CN tags. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, not a head of government, not head of state, not sufficiently significant. Chrisclear (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good Riddance, RD only if ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb - Article of sufficient quality. His influence on the Iraqi and Afghan wars and the shaping of the post-9/11 reaction had undoubtedly a world-wide impact, but still a very US-centric figure overall Abcmaxx (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Not notable for blurb. Albertaont (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I oppose most blurbs for "major figures" including this one but consider that Rumsfeld was more consequential for US foreign policy (and as a result, for millions of people outside the USA) than HW Bush who we blurbed. Rumsfeld was at Fords side as the Vietnam war ended and also really kicked off the US use of special forces and drone warfare that continued unabated through the Obama years, as well as pushing for continued US "leadership" in the global security framework following the collapse of the Soviet Union. You're unlikely to find a more transformative post-cold war military commander and in terms of lives touched he's infinitely more consequential than most (if not all) of the dead heads of state we robo-blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a Rumsfeld Doctrine, he's been a character in multiple motion pictures including W._(film) and Vice (2018 film) and an Errol Morris documentary The Unknown Known and for anyone paying attention to world events between 2003 and 2006 was certainly a household name. I'd actually say he satisfies User:LaserLegs/NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose woefully inadequate sourcing. And oppose blurb as we wouldn't do it for any non-American politician who wasn't the country's leader. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are quite a few citation needed tags to be dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurbing of RDs is not limited to just heads of state, Rumsfeld is certainly significant enough - one of the most prominent names of the post 9/11 conflicts (the blurb might need some reworking). Some cn tags but not significant enough to hold this. Gotitbro (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Chrisclear, and I'll add a ??? to indicate bafflement. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Electoral history of Donald Rumsfeld is its own page, and is unsourced. Does this affect the nomination? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No only the bold article (and even then, it's iffy) CFORKs are used all the time to bury poorly referenced content. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD He was a significant figure in the global War on Terror and the Iraq War. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Rumsfeld was the most notable and influential Secretary of Defense in recent memory. He was a household name in the United States during his six years in the job, regularly appearing in media, often daily. After Bush, he was the public figurehead of the Iraq War. I expect the notorious Secretary of State Henry Kissinger will get a blurb when he dies, another cabinet level official who was and still is a well known figure. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kissenger's still alive? Wow. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Practically unknown outside the United States. Not a head of state or head of government. Steelkamp (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Donald Rumsfeld was in fact very well known around the world for his role in the invasion of Iraq, among other things. I don't know if I support a full blurb, but he is a globally recognized figure. Kurtis (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak support blurb Per Thriley. Probably the most influential cabinet level official since Kissinger Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm a bit surprised that this is even considered for a blurb. 'Secretary of Defense' equates 'Minister of Defence' in most countries and this is a relatively low-ranking position so that its office-holders get blurbs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this should be blurbed(though there is a case for it) but I don't think that controlling the guns and troops is a "low level" position. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that but, as we usually consider the death of a head of state or government for a blurb, any other position is 'low-ranking' in this particular context.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD Per Rambling Man. Article still has CN tags, and needs a bit of work. I was trying to remember who the Secretary of Defence is over there now. Had a vague feeling he was a general, but maybe that was Trump's secretary. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that would be Lloyd Austin. And you are correct, he is a general. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I see is working furiously to make the Rumsfeld article presentable, so it will probably be up to scratch soon.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, neutral on RD. Not a head of state or government, which we generally require for blurbs.  Sandstein   12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, as he wasn't a transformative politician, just a government minister who spent a lot of time on TV. Neutral on quality for RD - there are a few cn tags, but that's a long article and I don't have time to read it in detail. I'll leave the quality assessment to others. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – A household name two decades ago, not now. Mr. Rumsfeld was nearing 90; he died of 'natural' causes. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD There are a couple of cn tags that have to get fixed --Vacant0 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A RD-worthy death but the wikibio needs some clean-up. Too many {cn} tags, not to mention the [needs update] and [clarification needed] tags. --PFHLai (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD While there are a lot of CN tags, some of them are WP:Skyblue, and others are for sections with reasonable citation. It's close, but I think we can post this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support both some of the arguments cited here are insane to me. Rumsfeld is not almost unknown outside of the US, the US Secretary of Defense is not a low ranking position, and blurbs arent only given out to heads of state/government. Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the top blurb with a picture in September ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200919201703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Rumsfeld was one of the most well know/hated figures in US politics with regards to the Iraq war, I cant believe its even a question whether he should get a blurb. Meanwhile Senator Gravel is listed in RD, and hes mainly notable for a Twitter account using his name. And next to him is a South African cricket manager. Acknowledging someones death isnt an endorsement. I dont like him, I imagine most here dont like him either, that isnt a reason to try and hide behind the amount of [clarification needed] tags in an article.  jonas (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, wait on RD - Ginsburg was blurbed but looks like that was pretty contested, so not sure it was the right decision. Can be posted but someone should clean up the citation tags beforehand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper so should rank quality over timeliness. - Indefensible (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD and possibly blurb, pending additional citations where they are needed. Rumsfeld was a very significant political figure known around the world for spearheading some of the US's most consequential foreign policy initiatives. Kurtis (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Banedon. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD Rumsfeld was a highly notable figure in what's arguably the most influential country in world politics. 1779Days (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are still a bunch of {CN} tags, particularly in the section on the Nixon era. This problem with missing citations needs to be resolved before the RD nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, first it was ancient former leaders of countries, now it's ancient former members of cabinets? Stop. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Lots and lots of citations, and no they are not WP:SKYISBLUE. Also oppose a blurb, if this is ever fixed up. He was significant around the time of the Iraq war, but principally as the underling of President Bush. He wasn't transformative in his own right in the Thatcher/Mandela mould. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Amakuru says, article still needs fixing in terms of references. --ϗ (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I have addressed the remaining CN tags. Pinging . AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AllegedlyHuman, you've fixed quite a bit. Yes, there are no more CN tags, but if you look hard enough through this very long wikibio, you may find more to fix. For instance, the "Affiliation history" section could use more refs. There is also a [needs update] and a [clarification needed] in the "Retirement and later life (2006–2021)" section. (Why are numbers missing in front of " & nbsp; "million?) --PFHLai (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bill Cosby sexual assault case

 * Oppose In the news and all that, but this was overturned on a technically (he had made a deal in 2005 with the DA before giving his testimony in a different trial; the DA then later reniged that deal in convicting him on the charges that sent Cosby to prison, which is what the court ruled today). For all purposes, there's no issue that Cosby's "crimes" still exist, he just couldn't be convicted on them. This is not like he was completely cleared and rendered innocent (particularly given all the other civil suits against him). --M asem (t) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose previously convicted people have their convictions overturned all the time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were a case where it was a high profile person who's been contesting their innocence all this time, the courts continually ruled against them, and then finally got everything dropped from legal technicalities and ruled fully innocent (eg such as the results of Flowers v. Mississippi if Flowers had been a more high-profile individual) that might be a reason, but fully agree otherwise such reversals or overturns are commonplace and usually set the grounds for more legal engagements. This is not one of those times to post this. --M asem (t) 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A technicality.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Especially since the hook as phrased implies a level of innocence, when the Supreme Court just ruled the state is bound by the sweetheart deal it had previously offered him. Morgan695 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT's opening sentence is: Bill Cosby was released from prison Wednesday after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his 2018 conviction for sexual assault, a dramatic reversal in one of the first high-profile criminal trials of the #MeToo era. Other sources have similar wording. The hook should not be worded in a manner that is not reflective of the sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just a technicality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Extremely reluctant Support We posted his conviction. Technicality or no, that conviction has now been overturned. We labeled Mr. Cosby as a convicted sex offender on the main page. That is no longer accurate, whatever our private opinions of the man. I encourage re-opening the discussion. (I am no longer active on the project. If someone wants to communicate with me please do so by email as my notifications are turned off.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nearly every report considers that he is absolutely guilty of those crimes but made that detail that he couldn't be convicted on them. He's still facing numerous civil suits that that deal can't erase. As I pointed out above, this is not like where a person who was long believed wrongly convicted and years later finally got the conviction overturned. --M asem (t) 02:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I actually think it's quite interesting; it's in the news, the article is of good quality, and sources assign significance to the event. I'm sure our readers will be interested to know about it too, certainly as much (or more) than many of the things that hit ITN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Article updated, and whether it's a technicality or not, it's *in the news*. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Overturning of a conviction and sentencing we posted on ITN. Nuff said. Disagree vehemently with the overturning, but notable for ITN nonetheless. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I agree with the overturning of the conviction as the prosecution's actions rose to the level of misconduct (even though no one is doubting that he is still guilty), but I don't think this should be blurbed regardless. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurb does not state the country in which Cosby was convicted. Chrisclear (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there another Pennsylvania elsewhere? But also, this was a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not the Federal one, so I'm not sure if it matters. He was convicted in a State court as well. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  07:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are places named Pennsylvania elsewhere, however this is not particularly relevant. Presumably if an ITN item relating to the High Court of Chhattisgarh (population about double that of Pennsylvania), we would include the name of the country as well as the state. We should include the country in which Pennsylvania is located, just as one would expect for Chhattisgarh. Chrisclear (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of other places called "Pennsylvania" but I have proposed an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Chrisclear never fails to show up and complain when the United States is not explicitly mentioned in a blurb, no matter how obvious it is. We shouldn't indulge him.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious to many Wikipedia readers who are not from that one particular country. Chrisclear (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should be. Just like we refer to Northern Ireland as "Northern Ireland", and not "Northern Ireland, a country within the United Kingdom...". Actually, Northern Ireland is less sovereign than Pennsylvania is. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure to what your first word "it" refers when you stated that "It absolutely should be". Are you asserting that it is obvious to non-Americans the country in which Pennsylvania is located? Chrisclear (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is as obvious to non-Americans where Pennsylvania is as it is to non-Britons that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why somebody couldn't simply click (or mouse over) the hyperlink for more information. Alt blurb sounds a bit redundant IMO. But I suppose it doesn't matter either way Belugsump (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seems weird. You don't see, for example, blurbs which reads as: "In the United Kingdom, riots erupt in Northern Ireland" -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree on the idea that the majority of non-Americans know the country in which Pennsylvania is located. (A related question - just how many of the USA's fifty states are non-American Wikipedia readers assumed to recognise? If less than fifty - which ones are they not assumed to recognise?) To include the country name in a blurb is not 'weird', and it's not redundant. It's actually the de facto standard for blurbs for events that take place outside the US. (Eg. the third blurb on the frontpage: "In Saskatchewan, Canada,") Yet for some strange reason this de facto standard does not exist for blurbs relating to the US. Chrisclear (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose sentencing should not have been posted in the first place, and overturning the conviction is equally not noteworthy. Banedon (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We shouldn't just post it to "correct" our mistake of posting the sentencing originally. That's not the point of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't post that he was convicted and not post that the conviction was tossed out, as a BLP issue. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was tossed out on a technicality, and therefore this isn't making the front page of many papers, and so isn't ITN-worthy. Posting this would be just trying to right our great wrongs for posting in the first place. Nobody is going to remember that we posted this years ago, and the news for this event doesn't meet the ITN threshold. If Wikipedia wants to apologise for posting the conviction years ago, they can do that somewhere else. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People will not see the distinction of it being a technicality. If I were Cosby I would be pissed about this not being posted. This is not a RGW issue but a BLP issue. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what Cosby thinks, nobody cares. Wikipedia has no mandatory requirement to post this kinds of stories, claiming BLP is ridiculous, the main page is not a biography of a living person, the details of this sordid affair are covered in the Cosby article.  If you want to create a "corrections" section, feel free to propose it.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that even if such a thing existed no one reads them, just as with such sections buried in newspapers. If Cosby was aware of this, he might be very interested. We announced to the world that a man was convicted of a crime and aren't telling anyone it was thrown out? This is a travesty. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I point to the case of Flowers from above: if was absolutely clear that this ruling completely made Cosby innocent in the eyes of the law and that he had never had committed any potential crime, then yes, there would be a BLP issue to not present it that way. But the story here is that Cosby got a deal to avoid being convicted before giving incriminating evidence in a separate trial. Even if the DA stuck to that deal and Cosby was never convicted, the testimony he gave in that prior trial would have ruined his reputation as there was potential criminal acts described. He is now "innocent" by rule of the law, but nowhere near considered innocent by the bulk of RSes talking about the matter, in addition to the fact he's still facing numerous civil lawsuits related to all this. So no, for ITN, it's not a BLP issue not to post this, since that would require us to make sure we post followup actions on every individual we mention in a conviction/sentence at one point. Some might be appropriate, but this is not required. Clearly our mainspace pages have to be up to date and track these to be BLP compliant but thats a separate matter. --M asem (t) 13:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Violins for Cosby. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Whether it should have been posted or not, it was, and as a WP:BLP issue this resolution of the case should be posted as well. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Conviction overturned, so he's innocent now. Like Cardinal Pell. Article seems to be in good enough shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above arguments about BLP. (And can we please stop closing ITN threads quickly? It's not like writing "closed" ever stops anyone, you know...) Levivich 09:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose' per Masem. He is absolutely right. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Conviction was big news, release on a technicality is not.  Sandstein   12:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - We have to apply WP:BLP consistently.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reason we published Cosby's original conviction is because he was a public figure - non-celebrities being convicted of similar crimes is rarely big news. This technicality impacts his personal liberty, but, as per Masem, this does not change the reality of what he did, nor will it change perceptions of him as a public figure. WP:BLP does not force us to post things to the Main Page. --LukeSurlt c 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there needs to be a discussion at the BLP noticeboard or somewhere to decide whether it's actually a BLP violation to blurb a conviction but not the overturning of it, becasue I for one am not buying it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't want it corrected if we told the world you were convicted of a crime and it was later thrown out? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a "correction" as the blurb was correct when we posted it. I would feel differently however, if it was a miscarriage of justice. This blatantly is not. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cosby's actual criminal acts and the state's prosecution of them are of discrete interest to the encyclopedist, and I believe you are conflating the two. The real notable story is that he (might have) raped a bunch of people. BLP properly precludes us from phrasing it so directly, so instead we say he was accused, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, etc. The weight we give to legal outcomes in the BLP is a choice, taken against all other information available. Our BLP of O.J. Simpson implies he committed a double-murder for which he was not convicted. The successful prosecution and imprisonment of Jack Johnson is treated as racist persecution. Both of these are accurate reads of the historical record, which nonetheless disregard legal outcomes.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Conviction overturned on a (dubious) technicality. His name was not cleared. Story has been blatantly hyped due to his former popularity, but it's not significant. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Need to brainstorm a better blurb.  My understanding is that the court ruled because it found the government broke a deal involving Cosby's right against self-incrimination.  This is a bit of a bigger deal than some kind of legal trivia or 'technicality' and anything we post should reflect that. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wikipedia's voice and Front Page was used to describe someone in a way that is no longer true. BLP demands that we follow up on this in an equal manner. Whether the conviction is vacated on a "technicality" makes no difference; virtually all vacations are on technical grounds, and our adherence to them is what makes the system a legal system (and not merely a system of popular moralism). Criminal convictions are something that is considered "factual", and are thus different from civil judgements (at least in the US). Presumably, there will be no further criminal proceeding in this manner (Double jeopardy, similarly related to the "technicality" under discussion here), so there's no need to worry about having to post about Bill Cosby ad infinitum because we posted about him once.130.233.213.61 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this is the crux of the matter. How he is perceived in the public eye is irrelevant as to the status of his conviction. As far as the legal system is concerned, Bill Cosby is a free man. WaltCip- (talk)  14:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So? His article has been updated. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a BLP matter as we are under no obligation to post an overturning of a conviction we previously posted if it's not due to questions of actual guilt; that would be righting great wrongs, which we are not supposed to do. Contra 331dot, this is universally recognized as being on a technicality in the sense that Cosby is not actually innocent of the crimes. (I'm glad technicalities work in our liberal justice system as process is important, mind you, but Cosby himself admitted in court to the crimes.) I'm leaning oppose on this because of it, but Cosby's release might be of interest to certain people so his release might be ITN-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The BLP argument makes no sense. We are not obligated to post a new blurb about a subject because we posted a similar blurb in the past. Who is monitoring all the old blurbs?!  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a similar blurb. This is the final resolution of the case, which threw out the conviction. We told the world that a man was convicted of a heinous crime but aren't going to tell people that he is an innocent man(from a legal standpoint). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were arguing this nom on the merits, we could debate that. Instead you are making multiple factual arguments that are untrue: 1. that Cosby is legally "innocent" 2. that not posting something at ITN could be a BLP violation, & 3. that if we do not have a policy obligation, we at least have a moral obligation (to a suspected serial rapist) to post a future ruling in his favor because we posting a ruling against him prior. These are plain balderdash.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He may be morally guilty but from a legal standpoint his conviction was vaporized and never existed, and the US legal system presumes innocence. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to (nor is obliged nor "per BLP" etc) publish a story relating to this. This is not the travesty.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see any sort of BLP issue. No untrue fact regarding Cosby was ever posted. And, even if there was a BLP violation, why would that mean we owe him positive news? If we posted "bill cosby is a stinky poo", would we have to post "bill cosby smells good" 3 years later? Nohomersryan (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP matter. Unlike gossip, civil judgements, hearsay, popular perception et al, criminal convictions are factual statements as to the legal status of living persons. The questions "Is Bill Cosby a sexual assailant?" can only be answered in one way, and it is in the exact opposite way in which Wikipedia told the world that last time he was on the Front Page. Had the conviction never been posted, a simple update to his article would suffice. But instead, Wikipedia exercised editorial discretion and elevated the then-conviction to it's most outside-facing page, a page that gets many more hits per day than many RSs and has global reach. Was Bill Cosby's case so important to get posted to the Front Page then? Then why not now?130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You say it is a BLP matter, but your argument does not answer why failing to post would violate our BLP policy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   10:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no way this is the end the matter, I've already seen various articles about "outrage" etc. As per others, it was a technicality rather than being absolved of responsibility and there is no obligation to have a "1 good news = 1 bad news"; what if he gets another trial etc.? Will we then have to blurb every single time he is court, rightly or wrongly? Would set out a problematic precedent. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't about good news equals bad news. He won't get another trial on this matter, per the court decision(the dissenters said he should, but the majority disagreed). The problematic precedent here is that we will post when people are convicted of a serious crime but not when their legal status changes to innocence as far as the legal system is concerned. It's no different than doing it on the article itself. I won't contribute anymore to this discussion as it is clearly fruitless, but this is not a good day for ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Somewhat parochial US legal drama. Seems like local news to me. --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – After a couple of days, posts running about 3:2 against. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although I disagree with the verdict (pun intended), I think we have reached the point where we can lower the curtain on this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Goolam Rajah

 * Support Article in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdur Razzaq Iskander

 * Support, I was just going to nominate it and someone else did it. I have cleaned up the article and updated it. Good to go in my opinion. I'd be expanding it timely as I get access to new sources. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  10:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Sacchi

 * Support Comprehensive enough and everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Reid (baseball)

 * Support No issues with coverage or sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems adequate. Marked ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Delia Fiallo

 * Comment "Telenovelas" sections needs a lot more sourcing. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs more source. Otherwise subject is notable enough for display in the Recent Deaths. --ϗ (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Jacob Zuma sentenced to prison

 * Weak support He's very high profile and was president for a long time so this is very significant, and the article is in a good state. However, more detail could be given and this should be given a dedicated section either under his article or that of the Zondo Commission (which could possibly be mentioned in the blurb as well).
 * Support prominent former head of state sentenced to prison, a post-Apartheid first. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Shorter sentence, but meets the Mandela standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support a former national leader being sent to prison is unusual enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual for a former head of state to be sent to prison.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. It's my understanding that the yellow tag(long lead) does not prevent posting, but if I am mistaken, please revert. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a section called "Rape", so I took a look. First paragraph is unsourced, second is not backed by the refs provided. That's where I stopped reading. I know we established with the Kenneth Kaunda that outrageous BLP violations are no reason to keep such an article off the main page, but if anyone cares, the whole article really needs a detailed audit. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Zuma looks like he's smiling in the pic, which doesn't match the nature of the blurb. Something like File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi and the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr. Jacob Zuma, during the Joint Press Statement, at Union Buildings, in Pretoria, South Africa on July 08, 2016.jpg or File:Jacob Zuma, 2009 World Economic Forum on Africa-1.jpg might be better.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 14:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply used the image that was offered with the blurb. If you are able to crop one, it could be switched. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Mr. Jacob Zuma, during the Joint Press Statement, at Union Buildings, in Pretoria, South Africa on July 08, 2016 (cropped).jpg or File:Jacob Zuma, 2009 World Economic Forum on Africa-1 (cropped).jpg?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the latter, but would like to hear other opinions. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a smile to me, just exposed teeth. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That picture is cropped from File:Malcolm Turnbull and Jacob Zuma in Jakarta 2017 11.jpg. In my opinion, he's clearly smiling for the camera while shaking hands with Malcolm Turnbull.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, he doesn't look overly happy, and the current image is better than either of those proposed. Stephen 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have swapped in a different crop of the same 2009 pic. (right) --PFHLai (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Taliban insurgency

 * Oppose No blurb specified this event, and therefore it is not significant yet as the war happens in 20 years now. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read that it's nominated for ongoing... It's not supposed to have a blurb, which has nothing to do with its significancy. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Properly nominated for ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The war has been going on for literally 20 years.Pyramids09 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for withdrawal assuming Biden doesn't balk on the September 11th date (although who are we kidding?). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing today's war map with one year ago it looks Taliban has much gains (almost turned over Nuristan. Not sure if Afghanistan still have enough time to wait until 9-11. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sooner the US gets out of this mess the better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it's a bit late for this one. Mlb96 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Talking about Kunduz it might be a bit late. But I read from a news, quoting an Afghan media bearing a similar name with Dawn News which I cannot verify, that in Paktia and Ghazni it's deteriorating very fast, in Ghazni the government controls only three district-seats now. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I made that comment when the proposed target was "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)". Which, to be frank, I thought was a joke nomination because it started 20 years ago. I've struck that !vote because it's not relevant anymore, but even with the new target, I still oppose because the section for 2021 in the article is empty. Mlb96 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted a blurb when Trump surrendered to the Taliban, we can't be surprised when they retake the country. Posting this to ITN will not help the people of Afghanistan. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the 2021 section is completely empty and that's the part most readers will be interested in. After that's fixed, I think it's worth posting. The only thing that can save Afghanistan right now is Massoud rising from the dead Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs, while I do think we can post when they take Kabul, inevitable though that may be. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Taliban taking over was a fait accompli years ago.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2021 section is empty: to be added as Ongoing, would need evidence of signficant updates at least every few days. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Menelik Shabazz

 * Comment I've added 3 citation needed tags, marked one user-generated source (which is needed to back up two quotes), and one permanent dead link (the only info needed from that is for the "Hackney Picturehouse", the rest is elsewhere; probably fine). Uses x (leave me a message) 21:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as the rest was fine. Uses x (leave me a message) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tigray War

 * Support very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the section about mid-2021s conflict needs expansion, and tone needs resolving to fix the tag on that section. If what's in the article is all that can be said about the event of recapturing the city, then that's not ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Major turning point in this ongoing war. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has an orange tag, as factual accuracy is disputed in the section "After the capture of Mekelle". This issue needs to be resolved before the nominated ITN blurb can go on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per Nice4What. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article now has two orange tags ({update} & {disputed}). Both need to be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Greg Noll

 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Legendary American iconic pioneer dude, and I've read worse posted. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lauren Berlant

 * Oppose per now Interesting bio, but there's a lot of work to be done. Willing to support it when the article is fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading . It’s now fixed up as far as the issues that jumped out to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support article meets RD requirements. you did a great job!  _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Elephant & Castle railway station fire

 * Oppose and wonder why we even have an article for this WP:NOTNEWS thing before it is clear that it actually is "fairly major". There are, as of now, 2 injured. So what (for enwiki, not for those people). House or shop fires with a few injured people happen all the time all over the world, this one gets some more attention because it is in a major Western city, but WP:NOTNEWS. Extremely premature ITN nomination. Fram (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article for the fire itself, we just have an article for the station.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have such an article, Elephant & Castle fire, it just isn't linked in the ITN nomination and the author not included in the nomination here. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because the separate article for the fire did not exist at the time the station article was nominated. It wasn't created until 18 minutes afterwards. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, but an ITN nomination for something which doesn't even have an article is just weird. A "disaster" which isn't even worth a separate article is definitely not ready to be nominated for an ITN blurb. Fram (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, naturally. Small fire in big city. Absolutely bizarre nomination.  ——  Serial  16:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , not that bizarre when you consider WP:Systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a fair point,, and very true. ——  Serial  17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose only three source - are you sure this article should exist at all? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it should exist, railway stations are generally held to be inherently notable. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the fire. I won't question the station article at all... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Under control after two hours, thankfully only two injuries - this isn't a major enough incident. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Thanks to the brilliant efforts of firefighters, this fire remains a local news item. This blurb may be better for ITN at Portal:London transport than ITN on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It definitely belongs at Portal:Current events – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fortunately this is no Notre Dame de Paris fire. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, suggest snow close and AfD for Elephant & Castle fire. It wasn't even a fire at the station itself, it was in a car repair centre located in one of the viaduct arches. Disruptive for passengers and those working in the burnt-out premises, but two minor injuries and some cancelled train services is local news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Stefan Löfven/2021 Swedish government crisis (again)

 * This was nominated previously a week ago, but at that point he had not resigned and consequently people here seemed to think we should wait. But now he has, and there is no longer a normal Swedish government; he instead leads a transitional government. I can say from following the Swedish news that this is a big event. It is unlikely to be quickly resolved. &mdash;ajf (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until Andreas Norlén finds a new prime minister and the government change actually takes place. The resignation is indeed a step forward from the no-confidence vote but a transitional government is not really a government change unless the crisis deepens as in Belgium and Spain in the recent past and we decide to post this on other merits (probably to ongoing). A transitional government is like an acting president and that's not what we post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. Let's wait few days. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril's comment. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/wait – Naming of a new PM would be more informative than the bald fact of Löfven's resignation. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait for the new PM to be named, as was the consensus last time... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the same reasons and propose a snow close. Technically, the very same thing happened after Lofven lost his majority in the 2018 elections, and he stayed on as interim for four months, then he got back into the full-time job because no other candidate could supersede him. It could take the same amount of time to find a new leader - if at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Western North America heat wave
And wildfires apparently... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article may need quality improvements. I just removed some opinion from the lede.  Support on significance. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm in the middle of it, but people are inconvenienced and have to stay cool for a few days. (It's dropping tomorrow). If there were a significant number of deaths or other disasterous issues (like wildfires) associated with it, that would be different. --M asem (t) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that we now have at least 100 deaths reported (Canada and Arizona) then as long as the deaths are properly documented in the article and the blurb nominated, this is appropriate to post. But the article is not at this point yet. --M asem (t) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those Arizona deaths were from June 12 to 19. Hot in the desert, sure. But not seemingly part of this late June deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, now we are getting more death reports tied to the weekend heat wave that clearly put this as a disaster/catastrophe, which is the reason I would support posting related to the deaths following article improvements. I would not support posting just because we broke tons of records, because, as others below have said, this can be anticipated to happen routinely with global warming. --M asem (t) 02:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that but that adds to the postability of this too. --M asem (t) 02:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support for posting a blurb focused on the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada, but otherwise I agree with Masem. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. A heat wave in summer? What a surprise. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Far be if from this user to support a mere U.S. weather story. However, keep in mind this isn't your usual U.S. summer heat – records broken all over the PNW, many in cities such as Portland that don't normally get very hot, and which aren't equipped with universal home AC like the usual U.S. hotspots. So let's wait and see how many North Americans (Canadians too) die of causes related to the heat. – Sca (talk)
 * PS: In my town, the temp at noon (18:00 UTC) was 95F (35C) and the high was forecast at 102F (39C) today and tomorrow. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there is a reasonable number of deaths or other catastrophe associated with this, then this is reasonable to post. We may not know that until tomorrow, since I know news stations have been alerted everyone to this since mid-last week. --M asem (t) 19:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's hope we don't get a rash of wildfires. – Sca (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If this graph continues till fall the West US would continue having it's worst 21st century drought ever right into peak wildfire season. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment posted 2015 India heat wave, 2015 Pakistan heat wave, 2019 European heat wave. Not posted 2018 North American heat wave (snow closed with 4 opposes in under 4 hours and sent to AFD) - same heat wave in Canada also snow closed. I don't see any obvious pattern, but some recent heat wave post/non-posts for context. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First two had hundreds of deaths attributable to the heat wave, so clearly those made sense. The EU heat wave was still dubious IMO and I think an example to remind us when you put it against these other examples that we should avoid simple flat out temperature records (barring things like from UN's world average temperature assessments related to climate change). --M asem (t) 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN doesn't need to post everytime the weather changes in North America. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is much more than "the weather changing in North America". Records are being obliterated and people are now dying. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Heat wave deaths skew to the second half. And obliterated is almost an understatement, Portland, Oregon (broke by 9°F) literally almost reached the 10.4°F margin of recordbreaking record for an Earth heatwave (centuryish periods of record only, obviously if a station has only been recording a few years or decades then raising the all-time high by 10.4°F in one heatwave becomes easier, it broke the June record by 14°F but June records are based on a sample size of only a week or 2 of the calendar where the record could realistically be, compared to the month or 2 for all-time records. Oh shit, the all-time record is now where it shouldn't be (the previous record was twice in August and once in July (all 107°F) and now it's 116° in June). Oh snap). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until impact becomes more clear and article becomes a bit more fleshed out. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read this and this. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This heat wave is notable for breaking all time weather records by a huge margin "The dangerous heat wave enveloping the Pacific Northwest is shattering weather records by such large margins that it is making even climate scientists uneasy". The temperatures reached now would likely only have been reached before in the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia recognizes that climate change is a thing, we don't deny it. But we should not feed into panic/fears about it but wait for actual published studies on it per SCIRS (in a similar vein as per MEDRS). That these are record breaking temps absolutely should be documented, but if that's all we're getting, we should avoid this type of fear-mongering in this area on ITN. --M asem (t) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad parts of the article should just be edited into a dry tone that sounds like an encyclopedia instead of very informal English. Would linking to that still be bad as other weather extremes are posted all the time? i.e. hurricanes, floods, tornadoes etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that the part explaining sigmas like I'm five has already been removed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Things like hurricanes/etc. have direct and immediate impacts on human life that make them ITN-appropriate. Their increasing numbers/severity is a secondary effect of global warming but we're not posting them because of global warming. --M asem (t) 23:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Count Iblis. Also it's wild that the all-Canada record of 113°F was broken on the Pacific side of the mountains (A desert-like 121.3°F – the new Earth record for ≤45° from a pole, literally on Vancouver's river). Normal sea temperature Jun 28: c. 55°F 17 miles inland: 109.2°F. In an oceanic climate! Vancouver Island reached 108.9°F even though the wind had to blow over the cold strait to reach there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As discussed last year, meteorological records are not significant enough for ITN. Whether it be most storms in a hurricane season or the highest temperatures ever, it isn't appropriate to post here. We don't post heatwaves elsewhere when they occur. Posting this is just US-centric and hypocricy. As there are relatively few to no deaths from the event, I must oppose. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 23:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the proposed blurb? Canada is a sovereign state, and a country in North America. If your !vote isn't overlooked for naked anti-US bias, it should be overlooked for what has to be willful ignorance. If only we got the same level of venomous hate from you when a hurricane during hurricane season does hurricane things. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Coukd you please link to the discussion where a formal determination or policy was established that "meteorological records are not significant enough" for posting? Please see WP:CCC. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no "established policy." People opposed back in November 2020 per climate change and that we post storms (impact) and not season articles with records. They are correct that we shouldn't be giving in to climate change as more records are likely to be broken in the future as we continue to warm. I oppose all of the blurbs (main, alt 1, and alt 2) because the record is just a number value with no real meaning. I would support a blurb mentioning the deaths and/or other impacts mentioned below. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Original, Neutral on Alt(s) The Canadian record has already been broken in under a day, this new mark probably tomorrow. We could plausibly go the rest of our lives gradually getting hotter every day, can't keep blurbing it, so why arbitrarily start now, before July? But who knows, that wave article could get important for other reasons (though heat waves don't so much "strike" as "settle over", "envelope" or "engulf" their intended victims). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand... these records aren't broken very often, are they? Looking at List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada, the last record before the heat wave was in 1937 at 45.0 °C. This seems notable enough for a blurb Belugsump (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Used to be longstanding. Now it's been broken twice in two days, and summer isn't nearly over. Too soon, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think record-breaking temperatures are enough on their own. I'm looking at the "Impact" section and not seeing an awful lot.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Oregon Health Authority said 128 people visited Oregon hospitals for heat-related illnesses on Sunday. Haven't seen an update on this statistic, but it's probably grown, since on Monday Portland reported a new-new all-time high of 116F (47C). – Sca (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * France was only 115 and India was 119 for any city bigger than Allahabad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – One aspect of this slowly developing situation that should be borne in mind is its obvious connection with the much larger topic of global warming/climate change. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Tentative support – Unprecedented, persistent and potentially perilous. Favor Alt2 – partly because the main impact in terms of numbers of people is on the U.S. (also the locus of most of the coverage). – Sca (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Changed to tentative support because the temps in Oregon are considerably lower today/Tues. (Not in my town, though – currently 103/39. Got a big jug of sun tea brewin'.) – Sca (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – 63 possible heat-related deaths in Canada and 2 in the United States with hundreds of hospitalizations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "63 possible deaths" means nothing. Must be confirmed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 103 excess deaths from June 25 to 28, significant spike above normal with many unquestionably due to heat. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – This heatwave is serious, lots of broken records, and unfortunately lots of deaths, per CycloneBiskit, and frankly it is unprecedented, considering some areas have never experienced this level of heat before now. Not to mention that I live within an area that is being affected by it, so it means a lot. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox  19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article now states that I-5 (the main north to south/south to north superhighway of West North America) was severed in multiple places in Metro Seattle by buckling, they're cooling their drawbridges with hoses to prevent expansion joint getting stuck like vise, their streetcar cables "melted" (insulation? or they merely sagged?) and their bedroom community reached 118°F. For comparison the Phoenix and Vegas records are only 122 and 118 and those are full deserts, not desert with a non-desert season like Los Angeles or North India. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support OK, the significance here has now become clear. This CNN article addresses it pretty well. Article also looks better than it did before. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This heatwave raised the Canadian record from 113°F to a Turpan Depression-like 121.3°F and moved it from Saskatchewan to Southwest British Columbia 640 feet above sea level. Insane. 121.3°F: our new record for Earth poleward of the 45 and 50th parallels, 100.6°F: 0.6°C/1°F short of a new record for Earth poleward of 60th parallel and 2 Fahrenheits short of the record for poleward of the 40th parallel which is the aforementioned Turpan Depression desert of China 500 feet below sea level (each 300 feet lower surface elevation pretty much adds a Fahrenheit automatically). The 80-year old record for Earth poleward of 50th parallels was absolutely shattered by 5.2 Celsiuses or 9.4 Fahrenheits. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support breaking records, in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The Canada record, which held for 74 years, was broken 3 days in a row in the same place—-Lytton, British Columbia. Today’s record was 49.6C! (source) That’s almost 50C (122F). 145 people have died suddenly in Vancouver, BC alone. The heat wave is expected to move into Nunavut. Extremely unprecedented, four sigma heat wave. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4.4 sigma. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vancouver alone had about 65, Burnaby and Surrey shared the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support due to the unusually high death toll and the fact that an 83-year old Canadian heat record was broken by an absurd 4.5 degrees. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Anyone that suggests the record highs in the Pacific Northwest being over 10 degrees F higher than Austin, Texas (just as an example I saw in the news earlier which made me do a double take) is not enough for it to be "in the news" is just making up criteria. Not to mention the other factors - low rate of AC equipped buildings in the area (due to temperate climate) and others. I suggest adding something about the records, not the impact, to the blurb. There is no reason we must cover the depressing side of things - and to be quite frank, the deaths aren't why it's in the news - the event itself and the number of extreme (again, 10 degrees higher than Austin all time record high) high records set is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Canada north of 50 got hotter than the Riyadh record. Also above the records of Europe, North and South America besides Mexico/U.S., Abu Dhabi Airport, Albuquerque, Alexandria, Algiers, all major Australian and Indian cities, Amman, Aqaba, Aswan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina, Cairo, Cameroon, Canaries, CAR, Chad, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dubai, Eilat, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Giza, Islamabad, Karachi, Khartoum, Kirkuk, Lahore, Las Vegas, Lebanon, Mali, Medina, Mongolia, Muscat Airport, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Nouakchott, Port Said, Port Susan, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Suez, Syria, Tehran, Texas, Tijuana, Tripoli, Tucson, Tunis, Turpan (city), and Yemen. Equal to Morocco record. 0-1.50°F less hot than Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Mecca, Phoenix, Qatar, Sudan, Tunisia etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – Extreme heatwave that shattered numerous records and had plenty of notable impacts. Also, the heatwave resulted in the deaths of at least 103 people, and it started multiple wildfires, some of which are forcing evacuations.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't it be mentioned that this broke national all-time temperature records? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The ITN box is not well suited for just record-breaking weather events (since it is bound these will be broken in the near future due to climate change); instead, the reason this is considered significant is the catastrophes that resulted from the insanely high temperatures, which is a more tangible aspect for ITN to work from. --M asem (t) 19:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lambert Mascarenhas

 * Support article is on the short side, but good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Refs need to be in proper format. (I've fixed a few.) In particular, Ref. #1, which was used 5 times in the article, is a bare URL that leads to a domain name advertisement. Where should the actual ref be, please? --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An archive link for Ref. #1 has been added. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely fixing, Joofjoof. --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Reuven Bulka

 * Comment: Could use more refs on his media appearances, fundraising efforts and publications. --PFHLai (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Steven Horwitz

 * Comment: This article was tagged for {More citations needed} since June 27th. This issue needs to addressed before the nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Solinger

 * Comment: This stub has less than 300 words of prose, and the section on his "Musical career" lacks refs. Much fixing is needed to allow this nom to proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frederic Rzewski
Article should now meet all criteria for inclusion Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Joofjoof (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions A few things that need to be addressed:
 * 1) Is it customary to include recordings by other performers in the composer's own page?
 * 2) The paragraph about his works in the Career section needs source verification: did the composer actually state that his variations were "a companion piece" to the Diabelli Variations?
 * 3) The Slonimsky quote in Appraisal should have a page number.
 * 1) yes, it is customary; most composers aren't prolific concert/recording artists. Rzewski was somewhat of an exception-- with emphasis on somewhat. The vast majority of recordings of a composer's works were made by other performers. See Ned Rorem, John Corigliano, Elliott Carter, and countless others. 2) no, it did not. Removed accordingly. In the verification process I also detected a handful of other mistakes, which I have now rectified. I also replaced the source with an online version. 3) I have removed the quote for now, since I don't have access to the book. That quote was added way back in 2004; perhaps, who added that quote at the time, knows the page number. Let me know if you have any further questions Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  04:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we didn't bother with footnotes, let alone page numbers back then. It's on page 857 of the Concise Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any further concerns with this RD nom, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me now, thanks for verifying the sources. I think I have found a citation for the Russian book at the end: Joofjoof (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Personal Life and Death section has footnotes for the death but not for the personal life materials. Is this a BLPO concern? If the info came from the Washington Post article (I don't have access), please redeploy the footnotes as needed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, they came from the Washington Post article!! Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  03:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Zingarese, for inserting the extra footnote there. I find no other issues with this nom. This RD is good to go. --PFHLai (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Attention, please. I would appreciate if more eyes can go through this soon-to-expire nom before I put this RD on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support – ref 26 is from Apple Music, while refs 27–28 are from Amazon. That should be fine given that they're being relied on for basic info about his works and not citing user reviews (per WP:RSPAMAZON).  Everything else looks alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, those three sources just verify the existence of the albums. That should be fine per RSP if you look at some FL-quality articles of artist discographies, many of the refs are from Amazon Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Gravel

 * Support GA, no concerns about article quality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Thriley (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record is definitely notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Tour de France

 * Oppose if we're not doing the Euros, we're definitely not doing cycling at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll reiterate my longstanding opposition to posting single-sport events in progress. Ongoing was not meant for that, and this does not have the global attention that the FIFA World Cup has. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing should be limited to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per all the others. We're not Cycling Today. – Sca (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a yearly event and is important only to a relatively small amount of people. What's next? We start posting every single tennis major, golf major, March Madness, and FA Cup as ongoing?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Matt Hancock resigns

 * Oppose super-local politics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia is it not? MissSnowdome (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is "English language" yes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Important for the UK, but not really for any other countries. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not even important for the UK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, not like the public's going to suddenly forget to stay alert, control the virus and save lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a minor figure in a government in one country during a global pandemic...not ITNC.  ——  Serial  18:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - probably does not meet the threshold but arguably could have longer-term implications for both the UK and world at large due to the subject's role in managing the country's Covid-19 response. Good faith nomination should be acknowledged though. Welcome to Wikipedia MissSnowdome, good luck with future nominations. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Absolutely zero future implications.  None.  Not a bean.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many more nominations we'll be seeing, now that they've been indefinitey blocked. ——  Serial  19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Parochial UK politix. Lacks broader significance. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support – Matt who? Although obviously the article is a right mess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh chagrin. Miss Snowdome, our gracious nominator, has been blocked.  But yes, this is certainly ITNR material, if not ongoing.  Why are we nominating this for FA?  For goodness sake.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly Mr Hancock's new job (according to our nominator ) is of ITN importance as well... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooooh! Better get down to William Hill's pronto.... **swoon**. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Abdalelah Haroun

 * Oppose multiple tags. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This stub needs to be expanded. --PFHLai (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The various tags are now gone, but the wikibio is still a stub. Please expand. And also, the records and personal bests lack footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mir Hazar Khan Khoso

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough for RD.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready for RD, well sourced neat article JW 1961 Talk 17:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Bamford

 * Support Looks good. Maybe this is just me, but the article seems to suggest he only played for a few years. I see some starts on the European Tour in the 90s. Would it be appropriate to say he retired in some year, or he played in X tournaments?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Romulo Yanes

 * Suggestion: The refs and external links can be put in proper format. --PFHLai (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for getting things fixed so quickly, Bloom6132. This wikibio is good to go for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) UFO report

 * Oppose Unless one was piloted by little green men, there's not much there there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not an American news website, this is barely exciting news in the US, and completely unimportant to the rest of the world. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the report basically says "there are things that we have seen that we are unable to explain". It's not conclusive at all and it makes no mention of anything crazy like aliens. If you see something only through highly sophisticated instruments, and your first response is "aliens" rather than "maybe there's some sort of glitch with the instruments", that's on you.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 23:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Man (archaic human)

 * Comment - what makes this notable? I'm not an expert on finds of ancient humans, so I don't know if this Dragon Man is the oldest, or unique in some way, or just one of many such finds. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems possible that he could be from a previously unidentified species. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or from dragons! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Though in Latin, he shares almost shared a name with two Chinese fish (Cyprinus and Poropuntius). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion could drag on for a long time. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or it could vanish in a puff of smoke. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "Prof Marta Mirazon Lahr, from the University of Cambridge, believes that Dragon Man was, in fact, a Denisovan.". Count Iblis (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A scientific article on it has been published in The Innovation. The skull was reportedly discovered in 1933, but appears to be analyzed more thoroughly only now, so I've corrected the blurb. Brandmeistertalk  19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it's the very oldest human Not even discovered, just described. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no oldest, there's human bones, chimpanzee-like ones and bones in between and where human begins is fuzzy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware (although "chimpanzee-like" bones is a bit of a simplification), I was thinking something like the oldest verified Homo species or oldest verified Homo sapiens proper (even if the latter is even harder to pin down). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The designation "homo" is an ad-hoc convention. There exists a continuum of possible organisms. If all the archaic homonids were still alive, and humans would occasionally mate with Neanderthals and Denisovans and they would in turn occasionally mate with Home Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus and Homo Erectus would occasionally mate with Homo Habilis, and Homo Habilis would occasionally mate with Australopithecines, and Australopithecines would occasionally mate with Chimpanzees and Gorillas, then there would be gene flow from Chimpanzees and Gorillas into modern humans, even though humans could not mate with them directly. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support This may be the discovery of a new species of archaic human, which we previously posted at least once back in 2010 ( Denisova Hominim), but I'm not sure if this is notable enough for today's ITN standards.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was discovered in 1933, also there's a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" about whether it's actually a new species linked to humans or not. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it wasn't brought to science until 2018, and wasn't ever described until June 25th <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Joseph2302. We run the risk of looking excitable and foolish here. Lets not fall into the daily newspaper trap of unquestioningly running the most sensationalist bits from qualified scientific studies. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - 1. Because it is science 2. "The team has claimed it is our closest evolutionary relative among known species of ancient human, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus." and "The researchers say the discovery has the potential to rewrite the story of human evolution." but ""The results will spark a lot of debate and I am quite sure that a lot of people will disagree with us,". I think we should update the blurb to specify the "could" "maybe" Sherenk1 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Has claimed"- this sounds like speculation and assumption that it's true. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Mainly conjecture. Hyped. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't they find another one in Israel or Palestine like yesterday? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt it's a published name in an established publisher that will certainly generate discussion for years to come <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this is suitable for ITN, might work as a DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — It is a significant finding concerning the mankind. STSC (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1. Per above; sources make the description out to be quite important in terms of human evolution and a rethink of the homos. (You know what I mean) Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article has significantly improved in quality from last 2 days. Its unusual for ITN to have actual peer-reviewed sources, given the very nature of ITN, so this is a notable change. Albertaont (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant new find. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alain Paul Lebeaupin

 * Weak support. It's quite a short article, but I guess everything's there. My only question would be on the line "Pope Francis accepted his resignation". Was there any particular reason for that? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , All RC bishops are obliged by Canon Law to tender resignations when they turn 75, the Pope accepts it or lets them remain in office in some cases JW 1961 Talk  JW 1961 Talk 19:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support short but enough for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support just about good enough for RD. It would be good if the resignation reason was explained in article, and if more sources other than press releases were used. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the article is sourced to the Vatican, his employer, so most of the article is based on primary sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bumbubookworm; needs reference improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Dunn

 * Support - could use a bit more detail, but seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Trần Thiện Khiêm

 * Support Clearly sufficient. Noticing a "Tucker" and "Willbanks" in the notes that are not in the references. Also there are two Kahin works listed, but they are not differentiated.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. Will keep working on the article Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very nice! No reason to delay this one further.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good enough for RD, would be nice to see a little more on what he did as PM, but that doesn't stop it being RD-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be well-cited, looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Canadian Indian residential school system

 * This is similar to a story that was just done about a month ago, I believe. I don't know if that is actually a reason to oppose, but it gives me pause. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In that vein, I'd be fine with Ongoing per below if there's an overarching article on this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely our featured article, Canadian Indian residential school system. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the article is appropriate and there doesn't need to be a spinoff, consider my !vote an oppose blurb, support ongoing, assuming quality checks out of course. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, possible Ongoing - I was literally about to nominate this. Consideration may need to be put into an ongoing slot, as these discoveries are going to become quite routine in the coming months as there are 139 of these schools. I've added an altblurb with similar wording to the Kamloops posting a month ago. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 139. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The buildings and surrounding areas didn't vanish into the ether upon closure. The sites presently exist. Everyone here knows that they have been closed for some time. Kurtis (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't vanish into thin air, but many buildings were demolished (this one in 1999). Those still standing are no longer schools. The surrounding area is mostly still there, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 21:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb but would Support Ongoing. We can't keep blurbing each time that this is happening, but ongoing should be fine. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Discoveries continue. STSC (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, due to magnitude of discovery; AP said 600 †, Guardian 751. Definitely calls for a blurb. Developing. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A similar discovery was blurbed just last month, this is far more suited for ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing what's ongoing here? These deaths were nearly a century ago. Are we going to park this in the box waiting for the government to turn up more mass graves? Last one was a month ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs, think you voted again below. Albertaont (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Once against the OG, then once the hysteria of this item became clear again for the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless there's really strong evidence that they're going to find these mass graves at many other schools (and let's not let editorial bias come into play, we need RS backing that this might actually happen), the new discover is a blurb story, but does not make this ongoing. If there happens to be a third case that comes along, then maybe ongoing, considering it as ongoing is extremely non-neutral unless we have clear evidence in RSes that they expect more graves to be found at several other schools. --M asem (t) 22:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say, I would support a blurb but I agree with Indefensible below that I think a separate article may be needed to document the two large grave discoveries so far and their impact, separate from the school system page. --M asem (t) 22:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - the article Canadian Indian residential school system is not appropriate for ongoing currently, the opening sentence is literally "In Canada, the Indian residential school system was..." in the past tense and not the present. The subject of this article is not ongoing, so it would be more appropriate either to have a blurb per the original nomination and then move it to ongoing if the article is updated as events continue or have a dedicated investigation article in ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, saying things like "We can't keep blurbing each time that this is happening" when we have 751 graves, is outstanding. I mean we get nominations for mass shootings of half a dozen people all the time, but we can't blurb the discovery of seven hundred and fifty one graves??  Just beyond belief.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's beyond belief is your argument that this is more burb-worthy than a building collapse that has left 100 people dead or unaccounted for. Try not to let your anti-American bias shine too brightly, here. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You'd do better to focus on the matter in hand. A building collapse is inconsequential and trivia in comparison to the discovery of 751 graves.  That's not an anti-American bias, it's just common sense.  But YMMV.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotta be honest: Any pub quiz that considers a building collapse and fatalities to be "trivia" would be one shitty quiz. WaltCip- (talk)  12:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything is relative! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Would prefer blurb to ongoing, but we need a more substantive update on the recent finding. I would agree that we not post each one, but we're nowhere near that being a concern yet.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 751 deaths is ITN worthy. And no evidence that finding horrific numbers of death will be an ongoing event- this could (hopefully) be the last time they find so many. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just a shame that some people at ITN think that 751 deaths aren't important, because they're not Americans... :( <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any opposed to posting something in relation to this. Issues are ongoing v blurb, and quality of the article or need of a separate article, which are fair arguments. --M asem (t) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose All "The bodies were not part of a mass grave; rather, headstones had been removed by members of the Catholic Church in the 1960s." -- time to turn down the hysteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How many headstones? If it's all, still potentially disturbing. If not all, that's still a lot of sketchy graves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because finding 751 graves is still totally normal.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the Catholics removed the headstones, that's really weird. We blurbed a mass-vandalism. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is probably the most out-of-tune assessment of this issue we will ever likely see. Still, back to inconsequential building collapses. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * About two-thirds of the headstones were removed (or never placed), the better target article says, but why is a mystery. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb Having the phrase "Canadian Indian residential school system" as an ongoing item would surely confuse many readers. The noteworthy event is this horrifying discovery. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be confusing to very many people; all they have to do is click the stickied article and read what it has to say. It also doesn't have to be given such a vaguely-worded piped link. It could be "Exhumation of Canadian residential school victims", or "Canadian residential school gravesites". If exhuming mass graves becomes a more frequent occurrence over the next few months (and I expect it shall), I think it would warrant an ongoing blurb. Kurtis (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb per above Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb - I don't think two newsworthy events a month apart is enough frequency for ongoing. As a blurb, the article quality is fine and it's in the news. 3k page views isn't a ton but it's enough reader interest in my eyes to justify posting. I think ITN should cycle quickly and we should err on the side of posting. And no, it's not a mass grave, but the discovery of an unmarked cemetery of children is nevertheless of interest to readers. Levivich 01:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was a unmarked cemetery of children, Debbie Downer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. I made an ass out of u and me. Levivich 02:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still safe to assume there are proportionally far more hidden dead children here than you'd find in a French or English cemetery from the same time, if it makes us feel better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Ongoing, Maybe Blurb It takes at least three things to form a pattern, series or wave. Not saying a third isn't coming. But it's not here yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, not ongoing. Understandably, this is getting international attention today. I don't think it fits for ongoing, given the guideline of "continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news".  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this is starting to become a potentially ongoing thing across Canada. The page 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries has been made to relate to both the Kamloops and Saskatchewan findings. Important to note that although originally slate as "mass graves" it has become apparent these are "unmarked graves" or burial sites. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a better target article. A bit late to this discussion, sure. But better late than never. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I support linking to this new article, as the correct blurb target. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, not opposed to ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, and potentially ongoing, assuming new developments become a frequent enough occurrence to warrant it. Sadly, I suspect they will. Kurtis (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. No consensus for ongoing at present. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb and I wouldn't be opposed to ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - I've changed the target article to Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries and flipped the template for further discussion on this potentially being added to ongoing. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 00:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - new investigation article looks promising, but should not be posted while current entry is in the box. Prefer renominating and a new discussion once the blurb rolls off. That is how previous cases have also been handled if not mistaken. - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing – This is a major (re-?) discovery that's getting second-day coverage  and which may prompt further govt. investigation. – Sca (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We have already had two blurbs for similar events (chain of events?). So it does appear ongoing would be good but since this has already been blurbed, I say wait and if another such discovery comes to light nom for ongoing then. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Away goals rule abolished

 * Oppose we don't post sports rule changes to the best of my knowledge, and in any event the article is terribly undersourced. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think this is significant enough for ITN. It's still in use in other confederations such as CONCACAF and CAF. Also in the end, it's a relatively minor thing.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Brandmeister, you may have scored an own goal with this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the limit of this change is to some European football matches, and even then, it's only a few matches a season at most. Also, that article is nowhere near ITN worthy, notwithstanding the importance issues. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Surfside condominium building collapse
Support - There are almost certainly people buried in the rubble. The article is being improved very rapidly. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I would wait to see if it ends up causing a significant number of casualties. One, two or three would not seem important to me. It's not very very unusual see the collapse o apartment buildings. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait If it is only a handful of deaths, then this looks a lot worse than it could have been. But if it ends up nearly all 51 ppl missing are found dead, then this is obviously on appropriate to post. --M asem (t) 17:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It happened at about 1am - the death toll will almost certainly be high. Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We should still wait for that to be confirmed. This is massively pre-emptive to assume that it will be high. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -Very significant coverage worldwide. The fact that the building collapse happened in a developed country with supposedly strict building codes make this more unusual. Since happened at night, death toll will likely increase. Albertaont (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Let's not do a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS thing (though the death toll here will likely be high); this is already significant and is being covered extensively. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely uncommon for buildings to collapse in the U.S. outside of damage from a natural disaster. Death toll will almost certainly be high, and even if it isn't, this is still a big story. Mlb96 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly unusual event likely to have many casualties. I think the blurb should be mildly tweaked, though; it's not especially encyclopedic to say "in Miami" about an event that only happened nearby Nohomersryan (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait a death count of 1 doesn't justify posting on ITN, regardless of what country it's in. Wait for more details before rushing this onto the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait There will likely be a significant number of fatalities, but so far only 1 death has been confirmed, so we should wait until there's at least a clear number of people who are missing before posting. The 99 people who are unaccounted for may include people who weren't home, were on vacation, etc. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, but if there are 37 survivors, the building was clearly substantially occupied at the time.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per all the previous waits. In terms of news it doesn't seem major so far. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the rest. And in the meantime, perhaps focus on this story about 751 unmarked graves at a former residential school in Saskatchewan...  Unbelievable.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ditto. I saw that BBC story and I've been wondering why there hasn't been more coverage. – Sca (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing we posted in May? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was near Vancouver, this is near Dakota. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is in the Northwest Territories; Kamloops is in British Columbia. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in Southeast Saskatchewan near (by regional standards) North Dakota, the Northwest Territories used to be huge and the province part of Canada started real small and grew. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And three times the number of graves. Truly grim stuff. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's less coverage of the mass graves because although their discovery is recent, the deaths aren't. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet fundamentally and decisively more meaningful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ... If you want it in ITN, then propose a blurb for it. But most people don't care about deaths from 50+ years ago-- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "most people don't care about deaths from 50+ years ago" ignorant people perhaps. And I guess people who couldn't give a toss about gross miscarriages of justice or genocide.  Briliant. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the 750 unmarked graves from two generations ago more ITN-worthy than the deaths of 100 people less than 24 hours ago? If these graves were in the US instead of Canada, would you care? Serious question. I can't wrap my mind around this level of dissonance. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My people were taught that one single guy who died about 1,999 years ago is to be remembered and revered like a god every single day. Plenty still remember and revere their hundreds of thousands of direct ancestors at the same rate. Many consider aunts, uncles and cousins as old family, too, including several who are indeed legit pissed today, despite this terrible secret coming to light in a completely foreign province. Not a contest, though. Room on the MP to mourn all these people we never knew. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Gaining international coverage and death toll expected to be significant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual event with death toll likely to rise. Article quality is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- it is likely (unfortunately) that the number of deaths will surpass that of the Grenfell Tower fire, which we also blurbed. Truly awful. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Unfortunately, this will likely be a major tragedy. CNN is now reporting 99 missing people.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support User:PaienPaien User_talk:PaienPaien It is likely the collapse caused or will cause even more deaths than currently reported 23:07, 24 June 2021
 * Ready good enough article and strong support to post. At the time it was posted the Grenfell Tower fire didn't have a casualty count either. Seems consistent. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready Blurb for death number doesn't even match the number stated in the article. And there are reference errors in red in the article. If people aren't fact checking the blurb, I doubt all these support fans are actually checking anything.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-marked ready. I fixed the cosmetic issue with the cite and updated the blurbs like any posting admin would have done with the most current information --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time the Grenfell tower was posted, there was confirmation of "multiple casualties" and with hundreds still unaccounted for, with 50+ injured to hospitals. Here, we have now 3 confirmed deaths, and 11 injuries and still 99+ unaccounted for, and given the "waits", not at the point that would be equivalent to Grenfell. ITN is not a news ticker, we can wait to make sure the death toll is high, if it is going to be high. --M asem (t) 23:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We also have clear consensus to post now and an acceptable article. Get over it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The supports above that are based on expectations of a large death toll are against WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We can wait a few more hours as more reports come in. I expect it will be a large death toll unfortunately due to the number missing so many hours on, the time of day when it happened, and other factors, but we still work on facts, not assumptions. --M asem (t) 00:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At least half the supports (not incl mine) commented on the uniqueness of the event with one straight up calling on us to not look at "minimum deaths" so at least try to be accurate with your WP:SUPERVOTE. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * " Get over it and move on." Some irony in this post from someone who two minutes before said that people should "stop the hysteria" on another thread here.... Also, not a WP:SUPERVOTE- there was an unclear consensus, which is now clearer in favour of supprt. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support regardless of death toll buildings in developed countries don't just collapse in the middle of the night. An unusual event. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, The obsession on the event's death toll here is so unusual. The way it gets thrown around, you'd think it was the only criteria or something. A large, unexpected building collapse is obviously significant and the article looks good. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 00:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of body count. WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a criteria. This event is in the news, the article is of sufficient quality (as of now), and readers are interested (over 20k page views in the first 24hrs of the article's existence). Also I agree it's ready to post. Levivich 00:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support per above Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as a Blurb) Benigno Aquino III

 * Support RD, since the death is a former head of state, and a high-profile person. Though the cause of death is yet to be announced. --TheGoldenArmor375 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb We posted the death of former French president in December 2020, former Indian PM in 2018 and former Zambian president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the reference issue has been fixed. Showiecz (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Abrilando232 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per nom. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the other former heads of state. Article looks fine, one cn tag shouldn't stop it being posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed that one cn tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per nominator --Vacant0 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only We don't want to blurb every former head of state. There should be some standard.   GreatCaesarsGhost   11:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A former head of state of a country with more than 100 million people clearly deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Having been the head of a state, no matter how populous it may be, doesn’t mean that his/her death will directly have a blurb. Tabaré Vázquez didn’t have one, nor did Gustavo Noboa and so many others. They must have a recognized prestige and have been an outstanding president, like Kenneth Kaunda or Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. As I don’t know Aquino, I neither oppose nor support his blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never been to the Philippines but know about him and his family very well as one of the most representative people from that country. That's more than enough for me to conclude that he deserves a blurb. Other than that, the fact his name appeared on a list of the 100 most influential people in the world a couple of years ago should be an automatic qualifier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I don’t have any problem to support blurb. Thanks for the info . _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb predecessor of Rodrigo Duterte CoryGlee (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not a transformative figure, and I don't agree with autoblurbing the former heads of state/government of countries that are not the US/UK. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Limiting it to just US/UK is a clear bias, and I would oppose any suggestion or proposal to do so. Wikipedia already has enough problems with a perception of being US and European-biased in its content, let's not make that any worse. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to expand that list to China and India, but not every country automatically. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Being a former head of state shouldn't be an automatic pass to a blurb. How was he transformative?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – per previous two posts. Bleve it was Corazon Aquino who was truly significant, i.e. 'transformative.' – Sca (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Philippines v. China ruling, which his administration spearheaded, is transformative as it permanently changed the way how the South China Sea dispute will be handled. This binds all succeeding Philippine administrations on what they can do/claim, and other countries as well. We do not have to even apply the "transformative" criterion:
 * Aquino was the immediately preceding president prior to the current one.
 * The current president's term is not even yet finished.
 * If there was a Philippine president you'd expect to die, it was not Aquino. Aquino was 61. Except for those who died in office, he was the youngest Philippine president to die.
 * The public did not know Aquino was sick. When the news broke, people expressed shock.
 * The Philippines is a country of 106 million people, of which at least almost 65 million are English speakers. This is the English Wikipedia. This has to be as easy as posting a first-time cricket tournament. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb We posted Kenneth Kaunda not merely because he was a head of state, but because he was a special head of state--the first head of state, an extremely long-lasting head of state, and a regional leader--in other words, "a transformative figure in their field". I'm not seeing the same with Benigno Aquino III, who appears to have been a one-term president of the Philippines.  However, I'd be happy to listen to someone make a case that Benigno Aquino III was one of the most significant presidents in Filipino history. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Philippines isn't Africa where <S>all</S> most incumbents win elections (sometimes without opposition, just like Kaunda was for his last four of five terms) until they are ousted in a coup or die. The Philippines allows for a single term of office since 1987, but I would be interested if Aquino would've been allowed to run for a second nonconsecutive term if he had lived long enough for 2022. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per nom and . Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 16:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Former head of state deserves blurb. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD (only) — Not a global statesman. STSC (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Important head of state, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pretty straightforward honestly, per above. 70.23.250.32 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Most, if not all, former head of states should get blurbs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? There are more than 200 of them. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the alive ones! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Him being a former head of state isn't what makes his death blurbworthy. My reasoning is the same as Howard the Duck's.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as a blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * support blurb per HTD Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Zinovieff

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bev Scalze

 * Support - added a cn tag but seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unsourced paragraph and there was another piece of info not actually in the source Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * CN tags now addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AllegedlyHuman, for adding the refs so quickly. do you have any further concerns regarding the sourcing in this RD candidate article, please? --PFHLai (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bumbubookworm, for crossing out your "Oppose". Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Viktor Pavlovich Potapov

 * Question - are there any English sources available? Hard to judge the article and quality of its sourcing when all of the refs are Russian. - Indefensible (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. That shouldn't hold up a nom, though, per WP:RSUE. I would recommend going to Translators available if you want some help analyzing sources (I also do not speak Russian), or perhaps asking the creator who recently made this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any English language sources, except to confirm the interesting detail that he had an Il-38 named for him, for example here. But that's hardly uncommon with Soviet military personal alas. I can help out if there are any particular details you have questions about. Spokoyni (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * can you confirm that the refs used on the article meet WP:RS? - Indefensible (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think there should be any issue there. Spokoyni (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The tone could use some work ("Potapov was again successful") but seems fine otherwise. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - assuming refs are good per Spokoyni, article probably meets the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Melissa Coates

 * Support Not too bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose her own website is used quite a lot Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Less now. Less enough? Government of Canada, now that's too self-serving! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A whole paragraph without a single reference, and multiple without a closing reference. Stephen 02:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian London

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article decent, no tagsJackattack1597 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question British and Commonwealth heavyweight boxing champ, twice inches away from ruling the world. But do feet and stones go together, unitwise? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, both British imperial measurements. (Stones are used instead of pounds.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. Got a kick out of the lead image. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD) John McAfee
Comment: I know the original blurb is atrocious, but perhaps it can be rewritten. He's been waiting in Spanish prison for American extradition for months now, under controversial circumstances. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Count Iblis (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Blurb, or blurb pending improvements?  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb pending improvements. This is a high profile article, so it will get edited in the coming hours. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Technical issues Since I usually post rather than nom, I unfortunately signed in the nominator field of the template, hence the garbled mess above. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An IP came in and saved the day. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose proseline mess. RD only, niche influence.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proseline is indeed awful, and there are cite tags. RD only once fixed, not blurb-worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per comments above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only, subject to issues being fixed. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb if a blurb is posted, it should be “dies by suicide”, not “commits suicide”.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the RfC to that effect failed, and "dies by suicide" always seemed clunky to me (at least it's better than the passive "dies of suicide"). That said, given that this is looking to be another Epstein situation with dubious circumstances (at least according to nutters), perhaps "is found dead in his jail cell" is better for the blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RFC ended that "commit suicide" is completely fine to use, and the term that should be used should be typically based on what sourcing uses. That said, I'm finding more "found dead" rather than any word firm on suicide from RSes. --M asem (t) 20:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any opposition to "kills himself"? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Our reliable sources in English have not confirmed it is a suicide. We can't state that yet. --M asem (t) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this RfC, my apologies.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 00:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC was a long time ago since then every respectable publication has adopted "dies by suicide". If that is unacceptable, "kills himself" is an obvious choice.
 * Many scholarly works and mental health guidelines have clearly stated why the term "commits suicide" should be avoided. Since there is a perfectly good alternative available, we should use our editorial discretion to use "kills himself". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "since then every respectable publication has adopted "dies by suicide"": palpably untrue. If it is, please have another RfC (c.f. The Times a couple of months ago as an example, and there are plenty more from numerous other reliable sources). If you don't like the term itself then have another RfC. Although that one was not that long ago, the question arises on the MoS talk page from time to time and is consistently refuted. Trying to stifle the use at each individual mention against the standing consensus from an RfC isn't the most constructive of moves. 86.155.197.47 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Was there a clear consensus? Do you have a link to remind us all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the exact wording should be agreed at the article/ Talk page. The blurb should then reflect the agreed article wording. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Reuters says "dies in Spain by suicide" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC was only five months ago. I wouldn't call that a "long time" and I doubt there has been a huge shift since then.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral towards blurb details surrounding death don't seem clear enough for blurb. –DMartin  20:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. In terms of the early days of anti-virus software provision he was transformative. "Commits suicide" is absolutely fine in normal English and should be retained, unless the aim is to have errors lighting up with complaints about mangled English. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:D88:7A74:B796:AEDA (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 5 CN tags. Support blurb when resolved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If this doesn't fit the "unusual death" aspect we reserve for blurbs, I don't know what does. But 100% agreed - we need to fix quality first. --M asem (t) 20:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - meets listing criteria but not blurb-worthy. - Indefensible (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready Whoaaa, what an unexpected twist. Note that this is being proposed as a blurb under the "unusual death" condition, not the "transformative leader" condition (although he was certainly a transformative leader of popups on my desktop). Davey2116 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you meant that as sarcasm, but this is not really an unexpected end at all. This is a person who's fame is derived far more from his many (alleged) crimes and being generally "out-there" then his business interests.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a bizarre end to an equally bizarre life (and makes sense as a way to avoid an effective life sentence). But a few months ago I was actually looking forward to his extradition. Davey2116 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a bizarre end to an equally bizarre life (and makes sense as a way to avoid an effective life sentence). But a few months ago I was actually looking forward to his extradition. Davey2116 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb for multiple reasons. Firstly, this is top news in the media at the moment and BBC's article is really convincing about his notability. Secondly, he pioneered in something that transformed the computer world and impacted billions of people. If that doesn't make him a transforming figure, then we definitely apply double standards. Thirdly, the fact he committed suicide to avoid extradition is story on its own. And finally, the fact some people consider him a criminal has nothing to do with his notability. We don't have a rule to post blurbs for 'good guys'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb when ready. There are too many citation needed tags for this to be posted right now, but because of the nature of his death the additional explanation is needed which a blurb can provide. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb Old man dies, but interestingly, long after popularizing and dominating virus protection and shortly after still grabbing crime headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Not really a household name, and his demise was due to personal issues. Note that article says "apparent suicide," tho I don't suppose there's much doubt about that. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparent means clear and obvious, not the opposite, and his name was literally on household products. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparent is more iffy than that, or at least it can be depending on circumstances. (Note family's reaction.) – Sca (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral on blurb I take this opportunity to say that there is a previous nomination pending to be published, in view of the fact that this one in less than 20h will be published. Am I being too much repetitive? Well, a little bit, lol. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support any of the blurbs because the El País article contains good citations from eye witnesses, multiple jurisdictions, and more than one reporter to support the statements. DougEMandy (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I support for consensus to apply WP:BLP, WP:BDP as "exception would be for people who have recently died" + "apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide". Yet I think all info in secondary sources does pass verifiability under WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPPUBLIC. Maybe alt1, alt2 with due weight but not false balance for his preemptive denial of alleged circumstances upon imprisonment. DougEMandy (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when ready - Was a well reported and high profile legal case involving both Spain and the United States. GWA88 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Major influential businessman who played a huge role in the founding and development of one of the largest antivirus companies in the world. His influence has also laid the foundation for how antivirus and computer security companies work in the 21st century. Twistedaxe (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No blurb. The antivirus software is sort of a household name, but the dude himself isn't. I don't think we can call him transformative in the Thatcher/Mandela mould any more than lots of other people of his ilk. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD when the article is ready.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, not on the strength of his notability, but on the newsworthiness of his suicide on the cusp of being extradited. BD2412  T 23:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and BLP. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, support blurb on notability of event and person, oppose on current quality: I don't think you have to be particularly computer literate to know how popular/groundbreaking McAfee was at the time. However the article is a complete nightmare to read, the lead is far too long, the sections are confusing, the chronology doesn't quite work as personal life is so intertwined with professional whereas the article seperates the two and also the legal troubles are not very well explained. Sources look plentiful and good enough quality if used correctly though. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only huh? I don't see how this reaches the threshold for a blurb at all. Banedon (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Formerly transformative industry leader, famous last name, international crime context, violent death, oodles of news, timely...just poorly written, apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Had 47 kids. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Formerly fecund former software mogul? – Sca (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaginally vigorous venture capital anti-virus virtuoso? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article isn't in good shape. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A transformative figure in deleting softwares that I install to my desktop. (jk, unusual death) Article needs fixing--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs major quality fixes (proseline). Moscow Mule (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: NBC is definitively calling this a suicide. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That resolves that matter. I've updated alt2 to reflect that. --M asem (t) 04:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb twice over for being a transformative figure + died in unusual circumstances. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation describes him as "one of the first tech millionaires". He pioneered antivirus software, and then later became a household name for his alleged crimes. Steelkamp (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RIP. Schierbecker (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notable internet entrepreneur, sudden death especially regarding circumstances and gaining international coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD when cleaned up, no blurb - of minority geeky importance only.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Not every day that someone from Cinderford makes the news. My anti-virus seems to have just expired. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak support on blurb although ALT1 is the most appropriate blurb, as it's an apparent suicide (and no official cause of death seems to have been confirmed yet). And I guess he's well known enough for an ITN blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as is always the case in blurb debates, we have a ton of votes for RD v Blurb that don't specifically mention quality. I don't think these should be taken to assume the editor has reviewed and is okay with the quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD is only measured on article quality, therefore using Support RD means that you believe it meets the article quality threshold. There is only 1 cn tag, so article quality seems okay to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. It's inconceivable that all of these editors are reviewing quality. If the were, why do all the other RD noms have no votes? These folks are voting for blurb v. RD. And the article is pure garbage.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On behalf of all those editors who have spent time improving what now looks, to me at least, like quite a good article, I think you should adjust that comment. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not "proving your point"- I'm doing exactly the opposite, but good of you to try and twist my words. I'm saying people are saying the article quality is fine, because that's the only justification for supporting an RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the progress of votes, people say the quality is bad, or they don't mention it at all. No one says the quality is good, because they didn't even look. Look at the first vote, that supported a blurb but then confirmed when asked that the quality was insufficient.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I think the article is good enough to be posted at ITN/RD. But you're standing by "the article is pure garbage", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I am myself a modest contributor, I appreciate all efforts, great and small; I did not and would not malign you or any other editor. The target is thorough and well-documented, but it is not a good article. If we were to evaluate it as the notes one might use to compose an article, it is quite nice. But as an article, it is quite poor.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means point, out at the article talk page, where it's "quite poor" and/or go right ahead and make all the improvements you see fit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. All over the news all over the world. I've seen it on the top pages of local town news websites in russia and indonesia. isn't ITNR supposed to represent whats in then news rather than what people who post here regularly feel fits their ideology/worldview the best? 212.74.201.238 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD. Strange case, but the widespread media coverage smacks of rubber necking and tabloid reporting. He clearly lived a complicated and varied life, but his main contribution was building an antivirus business that he sold decades ago and no longer has any involvement with. His later political and business ventures were not major. I don't see him as a major transformative figure, even in the field of computer software - he's no Bill Gates or Tim Berners-Lee. RD is fine, no need for a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. suicide is not a crime in Spain (or the US), so the word 'commits' shouldn't be used. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember the RfC correctly, someone made the point that the word "commit" does not necessarily imply any illegal act. But as I've commented above, this discussion probably belongs at Talk:John McAfee? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Which RfC is that? I'm aware that the 'commits suicide' usage is highly dependent on the variety of English - in BrE it very much implies an illegal act and has been mostly deprecated for that reason. Other forms of English see it as more neutral. Regardless, I was commenting on the proposed blurb, not the phrasing used in the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that the word always indicates illegality, I think you may be committing an error.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who is also British, it does not imply an illegal act. One may be a committed Christian, or commit to a political party or any of the numerous other definitions the OED provides. While the original meaning may have been connected to the crime of killing oneself, the actual phrase lost all legal connections some time ago. 86.155.197.47 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, but you're opposing blurb? Presumably not just because the wording is innappropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AP style guide FWIW says not to use it. I checked some dictionaries, and while only some say it means to do something bad, all give as examples bad acts (crime, murder). I don't think there is any connotation that does not imply it is a bad thing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm very glad I've avoided committing myself to a marriage.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From prior to the RFC, the reason there's been a push to remove "commits suicide" is less about the few places where suicide may be a crime, and more on the fact that it creates a certain attitude on the act of suicide that is seen by some mental professionals to negative feed into that and may tip others on the verge of suicide into doing so (that is "committing" to the act). But, as our RFC concluded, WP at the current time does not forbid the use of "commit suicide" and leaves it to local consensus to determine if that's appropriate to use for that article. Usually this should be driven by usage in the RSes behind it, so if (here) its "died by suicide" more than "commits suicide" we should go with that. --M asem (t) 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A teapot tempest: "Committed suicide" has been standard English usage for eons. The 'legality' of suicide in various contexts is linguistically irrelevant. – Sca (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much aware that it is a minority of editors that seem to want to push away from "committed" this hence the RFC to affirm that consensus of editors have no problem with "committed" when it is appropriate. --M asem (t) 22:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Of only minor importance, although given the WP editor demographic I fully expect this to be posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I think his minor importance in software is shown by there only being 1 short paragraph about his time at the company that bears his name; and "alleged criminal avoids trial for tax crime by suicide" does not seem a sufficient reason for a blurb. I'd say quality is fine for RD currently, but I think, if it does get a blurb, it's not a high quality target either. PaulBetteridge (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on the unusual death principle, the unusual death being a suicide of a well-known individual while in custody. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD (only) — His death bears no impact on anything significant. STSC (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Statement by John McAfee about his suicide See here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Conspiratorial conjecture. For posterity, let it be known right here and now: when my time comes, it's definitely because a ninja cabal of assassins found me too important to live. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb I just don't think Mcafee is well known enough or transformational enough to qualify for a blurb, and the unusual circumstances argument falls flat for me because we didn't post Epstein's article as a blurb, and he was in jail on much less serious charges than Epstein .Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb An unusual story, but McAfee is not a transformational figure. Morgan695 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - McAfee can be listed on RD while debate on blurbing continues. However, as noted above, whether he actually committed suicide is not yet fully clear and therefore many of the blurb options that definitively state that he did should be excluded at this time. - Indefensible (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article from NBC is saying he killed himself in plain voice. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 47 kids?! Legend.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted RD --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Summary on blurb: Support blurb = 16, (explicitly) Neutral on blurb = 2, Oppose blurb/RD only = 14. By all means check my sums. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very clear no-consensus territory. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * had that been true ITNR wouldnt have existed as the vast majority of blurbs wouldnt have passed the voting 212.74.201.238 (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * For discussion of any potential blurb, quoting from suicide: "The normal verb in scholarly research and journalism for the act of suicide is commit.[40][41] Some advocacy groups recommend using the terms completed suicide, took his/her own life, died by suicide, or killed him/herself instead of committed suicide.[42][43][44][45][46] The Associated Press Stylebook recommends avoiding 'committed suicide' except in direct quotes from authorities.[47] Opponents of commit argue that it implies that suicide is criminal, sinful, or morally wrong.[48]" —47.155.96.47 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment McAfee has already rolled off RD (he was on for less than a day). Davey2116 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) ICC World Test Championship Final

 * I would change "first" to "inaugural", but in any event I support in principle making this an ITNR. However, I must oppose on quality given that Days 3 through 6 are empty. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I see that the match prose has not been updated. If no one updates it by later tonight, I will give it a go. Congratulations New Zealand. Ktin (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got as far as lunch on day 3 so far... will resume tomorrow morning if nobody else picks it up by then! Day 4 was a washout, so around 2.5 days of play left to cover, depending how detailed we want to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Prose for days 4, 5, and 6 added. Looks good imo to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the place to discuss if this should be listed as an ITNR item and posting the conclusion of the inaugural tournament wouldn't make a strong argument for it. I think we'd have to wait for at least a couple of years to see how this tournament develops to make a step forward towards adding it to the ITNR list. As for this nomination, I'd like to support it as inaugural tournament once the article on the final is sufficiently expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Question the ICC Men's T20 World Cup is already ITN/R what makes the ICC World Test Championship different? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Different formats of the same game. Former takes around 3-4 hours while the latter takes 5 days to get a result. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * T20 is a form of the game invented in 2001 to attract easily-bored modern sports fans with a "get as many runs as you can in the lesser of 120 "pitches" or 10 outs" format instead of 20 outs in 5 days. This and the 2-outfielder rule makes big hits like homers more frequent (there's also a 3rd length which was invented late 20th century when they jazzed it up by crippling the outfield and speeding the game to like 1 to 9 p.m.). Test is the pure, original, 1870s form of the game that takes at least 30 hours of gametime if they draw from running out of days (which is often, Tests were once untimed and England vs South Africa '39 lasted 12 days with score of 1,011 to 970 and only 35 of the 40 outs happened before they cancelled the game cause they were about to miss the ride home). So a tournament of Tests would take like 2 years and give them hardly any time for regular season Tests, thus they decided that from now on every Test between top 9 teams will add x points for winning, y for depleting your last out while tied and consolation points for being able to force the game to run out of days and every 2 years the top 2 willplay a new "Test champion of the world for 2 years game". (so like the derided college football format but cricket this time so no one complains) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, sort of. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The main reason it's not ITNR is because this is the first tournament, and it was created after the ITNR list was created/last updated. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it remains to be seen whether this ends up being a much-loved event or a derided piece of fluff like the 2005 ICC Super Series. Perhaps they'll tweak the format next time, it certainly seems like a series would be better than a single match, which almost ended up being rained out. But personally I think this sort of thing is being overly harsh. Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, and having a decider between the top two doesn't seem a bad idea to me. And we got lucky this time that this one was a genuinely exciting match that could have gone either way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't they play from Sunday or Monday to Friday with 2 rain compensation days instead of 1 (on the weekend) if the 5th day doesn't have a rainless 5-day amount of play time? Or make the Final 7 days even if there's no weather delay? And start slightly earlier than normal and stay at the field or player lunch area till it appears there's no chance the weather and/or natural light will allow future play today so everyone can go home? Or they could switch to regular start times if that won't risk inability to play the 5-day no-delay amount of hours. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Almost there. Prose for Day 5 is left. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! Prose for day 4,5, and 6 added! Looks good imo. Ktin (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and I also suggested an alt blurb saying New Zealand defeated India on the reserve day (sixth day) of the ICC World Test Championship given the fact that the final was interrupted due to rain and 2 of those days were completely washed out. I would like to see Kyle Jamieson picture in ITN who was awarded the player of the match in WTC final.Abishe (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * unfortunately we don't seem to have any images of Jamieson available. Unless anyone knows someone who attended the game and took a snap? A friend of mine was supposed to be there on day one, but it was rained off unfortunately...... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind its okay and I am glad that we can just stick with the blurb only. Abishe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending fixes (but not blurb 2) - Significant event in a significant world sport. Still little fixes needed: article currently still has a citation error, and it has no mention of it being the first or inaugural, which is a major shortcoming. But the reserve day is too trivial a detail to go on ITN front page, especially since its significance will be meaningless to many readers. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Significant event (and I can confirm that there are a lot of sleep-deprived people in New Zealand today).  Schwede 66  06:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * enjoy the celebrations, it's richly deserved particularly after NZ came so close in the one-day world cup two years ago as well. And thanks for the updates!  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - no problem. Just doing a quick proof-read and there seems to be info missing on the rest of day 3. Ends with "India were 211/7 at lunch" and then day four starts with NZ being 101/2! Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've finished those bits off just now. Should be about ready to go now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats and well deserved! Enjoy the celebrations. Ktin (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Great work done overnight (UK time) to add all the summary. I've added some reactions to the lead. Great to see NZ win this!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. One of the ITN criteria is for an article to be well-written.To me the prose summaries don't look particularly well-written. Some examples; from the day 6 summary - Watling is mentioned as the NZ wicket-keeper three times, which seems excessive, and there is inconsistency between the hyphenation of wicket-keeper in those descriptions. From day 5 - a couple of mentions of "leg before the wicket" in full, could be shortened and abbreviated after first use.  Day 5 ends with India on 64 for 2 but Day 6 begins with India on 62 for 2....   There's a lot in these daily summaries that could be done overall to tighten and improve the writing, cut out redundancy etc. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all the over-use of "wicketkeeper" and "leg before the wicket". Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also had a bit of a copy-edit for days 5 and 6, tweaking bits that were unencyclopedic or giving value judgements in Wikipedia's voice. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppport now - some excellent work there to improve the article, and it's well worth ITN now, good coverage of the match. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bcp67. Happy to fix any other issues.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also tried to do a bit of re-writing and improve the wording, I'm always happiest when an edit of mine removes characters from an article! --Bcp67 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support article issues mentioned in other comments seem to have been fixed, and there's a good summary for each day that had some play. Importance-wise, this is similar in importance to Cricket World Cup and ICC Men's T20 World Cup, so definitely enough for ITN. If the tournament existed when the ITNR was setup, I imagine it would be on that list. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We also have The Ashes at ITN/R which, while obviously important, is a Test competition involving only two countries. This Championship aims to be the grand final for all of the Test nations, so from a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective it seems like a no brainer for it to be included. We obviously can't decide that in this thread, but I'll probably propose it formally in the next few days, I don't see much value in waiting two years as suggested above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ready. Support first two blurbs. Not really important that it was on the reserve day. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment New Zealand cricketer of Samoan descent Ross Taylor hits the winning runs for New Zealand as they lift the inaugural edition of the ICC World Test Championship which is a perfect tribute to former New Zealand cricketer Martin Crowe, the brainchild of World Test Championship format. Abishe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1. I was a bit sceptical of this competition when it was announced a few years ago, but it has generated interest and the final was excellent. So is the article - lots of detailed prose and well referenced. Looks good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A new tournament but Test matches are usually thought of as the pinnacle of the game. Article is good quality. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't take six days to post this! :D  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if one of the preceding five days is rained out :) Ktin (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt1. --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * if the image meets homepage expectations, please can we consider adding the picture of Kane Williamson. Cheers and thanks. Ktin (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * please crop the image a bit, it's too tall at present and we don't need to show the lower parts anyway in a mug shot portrait. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon the cold-ping. I do not have an image editor on this computer that I can edit / upload from. Please can I request your assistance in cropping this image? Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a newer news item is coming on ITN with a pic soon. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oh okies. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trimming this one down doesn't make that much sense given that its a lower resolution image to start; certainly we'd be able to make a 100px sized image for ITN, but for such a singular purpose seems unnecessary given that there's ways to handle the size easily in the template (upright, etc.) --M asem (t) 00:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oh okies. Thanks. Someday I will learn these cool things :) Ktin (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Apple Daily

 * Comment It seems like last week's raid and arrests are more important than the actual closure. I don't know if the blurb can reflect the events immediately preceding and logically leading to the newspaper's closure but that seems to be the only way of telling why this is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Widely covered, but the actual closure of the paper has been a foregone conclusion for days. Note Guardian headline: "Apple Daily’s demise comes as no surprise." – Sca (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How does that have any impact on the subject meeting notability or any other criteria? - Indefensible (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An unexpected or surprising nature of an event is one criterion for newsworthiness. – Sca (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is? Where does it say that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria? The words "unexpected" and "surprising" do not show up in the guidelines. - Indefensible (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the clearest indication yet that the 2020 'security law' has ended freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The article has a decent section on the raid and closure. The rest of the article suffers from recentism, but is sufficiently well-referenced to post. However we need to be careful with the wording of the blurb - 'forced to close by the government' is not quite what happened here. The police raided their offices, arrested their leaders, and froze their assets, but the government can claim that it didn't directly force the paper to close. Adding altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support captivating Hong Kong right now. Banedon (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. The raid last week isn't that significant comparing to the closure, the raid didn't get that much attention since it's not the first time (first time is last year), but closing the paper just a few days after the police raided is significant. On the day of the raid, no one foresaw that the paper would close in a few days. It is quite a clear indication of Chinese government suppressing freedom of press in Hong Kong with the national security law. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb it's in the news, article meets minimum quality standards, and readers are interested (10k page views yesterday). Levivich 15:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just an anti-mainland China newspaper gets shutdown there because of disinformation. It's nothing unusual and nothing uncalled for. STSC (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect on several points. Individuals at the company were accused of "collusion with foreign powers," nothing to do with "disinformation." Some still haven't actually been charged with anything. It is unusual in HK; Next Digital is the test case. It is uncalled for in that only individuals were charged and the entire company's assets were frozen, preventing workers from being paid. 104.218.65.22 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The newspaper has long been known of spreading disinformation on Hong Kong and then it called for foreign powers to impose sanctions on communist China. "Unusual in HK"? The British colonial government did the similar thing by banning the pro-communist newspapers during 1967 anti-colonial rule protests. And it's not uncalled for to freeze a company's assets if there's evidence of crime-related assets. STSC (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO the legitimacy of the regimes in concern matters in this case. -- Patrickov (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb In the international news and meets quality standards.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * support alt Widely reported, being pretty much the only opposition print newspaper in Hong Kong, its closing is significant. Article is sufficient quality. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, mildly prefer altblurb but very strongly support having a Main Page item on Apple Daily either way. The forced closure of Apple Daily has a much more tangible chilling effect on the press and on business confidence than the text of the security law itself, and this incident is widely reported in mainstream news outlets around the English-speaking world as discussed above. Deryck C. 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. --PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Apple Daily be in italics as it's the name of a newspaper?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. Now italicized on MainPage. Thanks, TRM. --PFHLai (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mila Ximénez

 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD, and good that all the TV appearances are sourced (as that's often what stops articles running on RD). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: René Robert

 * Support Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Parassala B. Ponnammal

 * Oppose for now. Not enough detail in the Career section - it's not even really obvious why she's notable from what's written at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will work this later tonight in case no one picks this up by then. Ktin (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Edits done. Article has shaped into a nice C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tamanofuji Shigeru

 * Comment I won't cast a support vote as I'm the author of the article, but I think everything is cited.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready (looks good to go). 141.157.254.129 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Carl Nassib

 * Which national football league are you referring to? --WaltCip- (talk)  17:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The one that's linked in the blurb? The one that has the article "National Football League?" You're better than this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good for him, and the sport, but I don't see how this would be significant enough for ITN. We've not posted the first player to come out in any other league or sport, have we? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jason Collins was posted in 2013—first in the NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It appears I opposed that blurb too, so for consistency I'll continue to oppose this one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At this point in the 21st century, the first outted gay NFLer doesn't seem particularly significant or impactful. – Sca (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca's comment --Vacant0 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Between Collins, Michael Sam, and the bevy of retired players who have come out, I don't think the qualifier "active" is enough to get this over the line. If we posted this, are we going to the first in every sport?  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is part of his personal life in which he makes decisions that he thinks are best for him. I don't see how this news affects the sport, the league or even his career. Nothing has changed and probably nothing will change. Come back and re-nominate if he gets sacked from his team, banned from the league or suspended for life as a result of his sexual orientation. Otherwise, it's pure trivia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The frenzy surrounding Michael Sam has probably dampened any chances for there to be some unnecessary circus surrounding Nassib's sexuality, which has otherwise no effect on his career or the sport. Glad that he's cool with coming out though. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is personal life and just some sort of celebrity or pop news.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diego Cortez

 * Oppose stub. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will work on updating the article. Ktin (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Edits done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Usman Kakar

 * Oppose. It's too short at the moment. Just 986 bytes of prose makes it a stub. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs expanding above stub class. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tiit Madisson

 * OPpose for now. As noted, some uncited bits and could probably use some more detail on what his activism actually consisted of. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs some more sources. Also, what was he imprisoned for? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Kurvers

 * Comment The Stanly Cup award and the career statistics sections could be sourced, will Support now that is fixed JW 1961 Talk 09:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added sources to the article, his career statistics are somewhat sourced although I did find and added this 1 but I'm not sure if that's WP:RS. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  A few sentences on his playing style are unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, the unref'd claims on the defensive side looked like OR, so they have been removed. Refs about him as a PP specialist have been added and his productive playoff run in 1988 for the Devils have been added. --PFHLai (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, striking.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mamady Keïta

 * Comment lots of unsourced/uncited sections. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs lots more sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not enough sourcing Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please add more refs, preferably not from his music school. --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Swedish government collapse

 * Support - HoG being outed in any country is a big deal, and this is our first no confidence outing. Don't like the proposed blurb, added altblurb. Gaioa  (T C L) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a major historical event in Sweden as it's the first time a Prime Minister was ousted by the parliament. Manvswow (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the new PM is selected. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per John M Wolfson. The ITNR item is the change, and the change hasn't happened yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The PM has not actually changed yet(he is now an acting/caretaker PM). The notability here seems to be that a Swedish PM has never been removed this way before. When the replacement takes office that will be posted as ITNR- I might suggest that this proceed as a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct in Stefan Löfven being the interim PM, however, there is no longer a clear majority that supports Stefan Löfven as PM. That's what makes this a government crisis. Löfven has a week to declare a snap election or resign as PM, he'd still be the interim PM in the mean time but a new government has to be "developed" by the Speaker of the Swedish Riksdag that has majority support. It's a historic event in the sense that a Swedish PM never being ousted before and at the same time being a major event in Swedish politics because there is no majority for any government alternative at the moment making a snap election the most likely outcome of the situation. In comparision to U.S politics, this would be just as big as the impeachment of a president being successful, well minus the fact that the president can't make talk with the senate and congress for support to continue being president. Manvswow (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless Vänsterpartiet (Left Party) agrees to make a new government with Stefan Löfven in exchange that he lets go of his proposed market rents, then the Riksdag majority will stay right-wing for the most part. Twistedaxe (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response I would argue that the change has happened, he's already lost the no confidence vote. The crisis/collapse is not a future event either. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is the change. I changed it to "no". If this unique event is "significant" enough to stand on it's own we can post. If not, we'll post his replacement later as ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support was about to nominate this myself. It confirms that either way a head of state will change, either through an election or an agreement of a new government leader, therefore just as notable as any other election, coup d'état, coronation etc. Might be worth adding it's the country's first such event. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I would prefer to wait until he finally resigns and a successor is appointed, or already nominate the hypothetical elections if he decides to dissolve the Swedish parliament. However, this is not the first vote of no-confidence of censure to be passed (or at least I can't see if there are any differences with the 2018 one). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the new prime minister is known. I don't think the no-confidence vote by itself should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this an idiomatic use of the word "crisis?" While unusual for Sweden, this is routine in parliamentary systems, correct?   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you call this idiomatic, then you should check out the 2014 Swedish government crisis. This is bigger than that. Manvswow (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Without a functioning government, Sweden is in constitutional crisis, correct? Perhaps that's what the articles should be moved to, but we also have the Venezuelan presidential crisis (since it happened during a constitutional crisis, very awkward of them on our naming conventions). Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I was asking. Venezuela literally had two concurrent presidents giving conflicting orders; that's a crisis. A no-confidence vote is a routine act of a functioning government. It's big news, but the Swedes aren't stockpiling canned goods and boarding up windows. ` GreatCaesarsGhost   01:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While "crisis" has meanings open to interpretation, I point out that "constitutional crisis" does not, and Sweden's VONC is the latter. So replace "government" with "constitutional" if it's moved, not that it is necessarily pertinent. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait. It would make sense to post now if the no-confidence vote was going to be start a long drawn-out period of coalition negotiations. But it appears they have exactly one week to either form a new coalition or call elections. Let's post once we know what the outcome is, it won't take long. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until a successor is at least named, if not actually confirmed. Per Simeonovski, Genius, Wolfson. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt On top of everything above, he's smiling in that picture, sends the wrong (as in mixed) message. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support post now, and then update (or simply post a new blurb) when the next episode happens. Banedon (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a better blurb than government collapses triggering a crisis? To Americans "government collapsed triggering a crisis" sounds like the government lost a lot to all de facto power to do anything cause some disagreement or coup or war or some poorly worded constitution parts caused a dysfunction of crisis proportions or something banana republicy like that. Hey if you want to make "constitution says legislature picks their own leader whenever they want" and ">50%" sound like a junta that's your right but maybe could just say the PM's party coalition collapsed or he lost a confidence vote or something like that. Successful impeachment 1. Is explicitly in the constitution 2. Requires far, far more unlikely yea percents than government "collapsing" which just needs >50% which could happen from as little as a coalition collapsing from 1 dude dying or changing his mind etc. Sometimes governments of highly democratic and rich nations even collapse themselves on purpose to get more seats or at least move next forced election later. 3. Successful impeachment of U.S. President has also never happened in quarter millennium history while Sweden was fused with Norway for a lot of that time and king had more power than prime minister till c. 19th century. 4. this kind of thing isn't that unusual even in highly democratic and rich nations right? (I don't mind if this is posted BTW) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's already an altblurb that avoids the 'government ... collapses' phrasing. In parliamentary systems, a vote of no confidence is unusual but not unheard of, see list of prime ministers defeated by votes of no confidence. Threats to hold such a vote are far more common than actually succeeding at one. It's a way for the parliamentary opposition to force a new election or the end of an existing coalition, either because by-elections have changed the composition of the parliament since the government formed, or because the government's behaviour has alienated some of their previous supporters (most often parties in a coalition falling out, which is what happened here). Recent successful examples are Spain 2018, Canada 2011, and Sweden 2018 - Löfven was also the PM in the latter case. I can't think of another example where the same PM was brought down twice. The government intentionally calling a snap election would never be referred to as a 'collapse'. Hope that helps. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt could do if a better photo of him is available. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Lots of options on Commons . Maybe this one? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's reasonably approximating a serious look of concern! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until a new leader is chosen. That's what we have done for other countries' government collapses. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Löfven still hasn't been replaced yet, we should wait until June 28. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Wait appears to be the clear consensus. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added an additional source from CNN incase needed. -Twistedaxe (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jeanne Lamon

 * Oppose needs a lot more sourcing, which is why it's orange-tagged. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Anatoly Lysenko

 * Oppose article is a stub, with only two sentences on his career. Career section needs significant expansion- if he was active for 62 years like the article suggests, there must be way more content available on his career. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Too stubby. Perhaps materials from his (much longer) Russian wikibio can be translated and added? --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luis del Sol

 * Comment There's uncited stuff near the end. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs refs, particularly the Style of Play section. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Irene Mambilima

 * Comment bunch of uncited stuff. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too much unsourced content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 French Grand Prix

 * Oppose as a terrifying sports ticker precedent that would open the floodgates to nominations for just about any single non-title-winning sports event. As noted in the nom, the French GP is no more or less worthy than any other GP and we have the F1 overall winner and constructor at ITNR.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It may sound a bit strange, but as the nominator I don't particularly disagree with you. While formally my nomination presumably counts as supporting its inclusion, I primarily nominated it because I wanted other editors to have the opportunity to discuss it. I am ultimately neutral on the matter. The Indy 500 is also listed at ITNR, which is a similarly old event which forms a round of larger championship. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Armenian parliamentary election

 * Support Not every day you see a man resign, reform and replace himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk any comments on the quality? Most of the page is made up of the 3 tables. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an election. They produce data, data need tables. I agree with Alsoriano, not too bad (and getting better). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I guess. I have lots of faith in Alsoriano tho so I'll also support it too. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment Marking "attention required" seeing that few users have expressed their views on this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak support. Most of the article is lists and tables. The prose in the results section is minimal, but does just about meet our requirements. I would like to see more than one sentence on the accusations of fraud. The lead is inadequate, which I've tagged but should be an easy fix for anyone who wants this posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead has been fixed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And the prose has been improved. Switching to full support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reconvening, and , at the related resignation nomination of April 25, you all indicated some sort of support for mentioning this event whenever it happened. Well, it happened. Any new feelings? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Elections are ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. comment I've been expanding some sections and maybe now it's pretty ready to be posted before it becomes stale. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Election happened. Article has satisfactory prose, eventually. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Updated with sufficient prose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. Comment Marking it’s ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Question could we use File:Nikol Pashinyan 01 (07-04-2021).jpg rather than the nominated photo? In the nominated one, he just looks bored, and the alternative suggestion looks much more professional. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Pic changed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. Question How long must we wait for a nomination that has been ready for hours to be published? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of words, might stand out on the ToC now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Your prayers have been answered!! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gianna Rolandi

 * Support well sourced and enough content of her career and life. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Hesegem

 * Support looks fine to me. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 U.S. Open

 * Support - appears to be adequate prose summarising the event. --LukeSurlt c 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support there's round summaries, which is good (a couple of citations needed, but shouldn't hold this up), and so this has enough prose for main page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Of course the CNs should hold up posting.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the News says "Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Don't be so literal. If you read the rest of the sentence you cited, you'll find "but any contentious statements must have a source." In any case, there is no reason not to wait an hour or two in service to accomplishing the entire point of the project -- quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the "Field" section is too large and ungainly, the 2020 article separated it into another article, which greatly improves readability. Chaosquo (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The prose summaries of the rounds are there and decently cited. The rest of the article is a bit data heavy but that shouldn't disqualify it from posting. Nice to see a sport article that's been updated before nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've marked this as ready. -- Calidum  20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Bailey (weatherman)

 * Comment have added a number of cn tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have updated the article with references to reliable sources. Happily888 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A bit short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Champ

 * Comment Note that Champ does not have a stand alone article, he shares an article with Major, who is not dead.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Champ was A Very Good Boy and more for our purposes, has a good article to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, rest in peace Champ! --Vacant0 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * PP comment – Not notable. I venture to say that most readers never heard of this animal until his demise. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to propose the article for deletion if it does not meet the criteria, or propose changing the RD criteria to exclude animals or reestablish a super-notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I venture to say that most readers never heard of Kenneth Kaunda until his demise either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I had. If 'Champ' had been known for something other than being the pet of a famous person, as could be the case with an animal actor, it might have been OK, but IMO this panders to twee emotions. And BTW, how do two 'supports' (including yours) constitute consensus? – Sca (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not at issue for RDs so no consensus is required on that point. As I said, you are free to go to AFD. If you are arguing that the quality is poor, that's different. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the item was railroaded in. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Railroaded" suggests a nefarious intent or bad faith that does not seem to be the case. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion period here, and unless you are arguing a quality issue, there was no procedural violation here. So I respectfully but strongly disagree with the use of the term "railroaded". 331dot (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing nefarious intended. What was meant was "a procedure conducted in haste without due consideration," as in the fourth definition in Wiktionary. – Sca (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you genuinely just compare one of the most important African politicians of the 20th century with a dog? FFS. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , had you heard of Kaunda before he died? I hadn't, but did not take my lack of knowledge to mean he was "not notable". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I had. If you are anywhere near my age and were familiar with African politics (and even international politics involving Africa), Kaunda would have been a very notable figure. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm probably younger than you, and not interested in African politics. My point was that for our purposes here, they're both living organisms with articles, and therefore RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's my point, really. I love my pets, but when Wikipedia consders that a random dog is equally as important as a world politician, perhaps we ought to consider WTAF we're actually doing here, do you not think? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a random dog, it's a dog that receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, because it is the dog of a world leader. No equivalency is being drawn here with other article subjects. If you feel the dog is not notable, you are free to propose the article's deletion. When RD was expanded to anything alive with an article, this was considered. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What 331dot said. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of 'not random' dogs, Hitler had a German shepherd too, you know. → Would 'Blondi' have qualified for RD? – Sca (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any article about something alive qualifies for posting to RD, so yes, Blondi would have qualified. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Was this a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to hat everything after "Posted" as an entirely unnecessary waste of time. Sca knows (or should know) that animals are eligible for RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gimmie a break, I'm retired. - Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

, you'll want to keep a sharp eye on the status of Muja, then. He's said to be 85. – Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reminder Any article about something alive does not qualify as a Recent Death. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you mean? Animals were explicitly decided upon in [Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_57#Are_animals_eligible_for_the_Recent_Deaths_section? this RFC]. I'm not sure about other organisms, e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria etc. if there are any notable such... the template above does seem to indicate that they're also ITN/R though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, dead notable plants and animals are eligible. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. Ramesan Nair

 * Support good for what it is. No issues (if someone wanted to do something tho maybe the filmography section could use a short blurb with film highlights?) 70.23.250.135 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The filmography has been pushed to a new article to avoid referencing any of it, but no mention of any of his films remain in the main article. Stephen 00:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that article was made in December 2020 . This was not a WP:GAMING attempt. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AllegedlyHuman, date of creation is irrelevant, content was moved here. Stephen 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. Moving filmography into a sub-article is not a way to get articles passed for ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits and I can do any additional edits as required. Please have a look and let me know. I believe this article might go stale very soon. Appreciate your inputs. Ktin (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks OK now, I guess. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ryan Crouser

 * Pending ratification. Stephen 09:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this will take some time. We posted marathod immediately, for example. Also, look at the sources below, CNN doesn't seem to mind the ratification part. --Tone 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Ratification by the IAAF is a slow bureaucratic process that can take months. E.g. when Mondo Duplantis broke the 6.17m pole vault record on February 8, 2020, it took them until June 29, 2020 to ratify it. We should post stories like these when they actually make the news, not when the bureaucrats finish their paperwork. Nsk92 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No sources have been offered demonstrating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , that should cover it. --Tone 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Breaking a 31-year world record is a notable achievement. I've added a couple of links to news sources to demonstrate that this is in the news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Breaking one of the oldest records on the books in men's athletics, and breaking it by a significant margin. Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support posting now on quality and significance. I am concerned about all those figures being properly sourced. I would guess refs on the page cover everything, but the placement of citations is not ideal?  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment nice item; but I think the blurb should be amended to add the words, the first in 31 years, or something similar, to emphasise its significance. And the link should probably be to Men's shot put world record progression, not shot put. Adpete (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll break with the pack here—shot put is a niche enough support that I don't think this is sufficiently important. Records get broken all the time (dozens every Olympics), and the fact this one has stood for a while only makes it marginally more significant. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't pull a posted blurb unless there is a serious issue with the article or a dramatic misreading of the consensus. This was sitting at 4-0 support for over 24 hours before posting, so it's going to stay up.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "We don't pull a posted blurb" - huh? Where do you get that from? We pull blurbs all the time. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. I do agree that there's nothing wrong with this one though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to keep reading- there are more words in the sentence.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Iran election

 * In Iran, the Guardian Council gets to decide who runs for president, that's how they do it. I'm not sure that needs to be called out here. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – In the case of a patently pantomimic 'election,' perhaps it's best not to elaborate in a mere blurb on the nature of the process. Although, on second thought, instead of "is elected president" maybe we could say "becomes president," which would be succinct and totally accurate. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But he was elected, even though if one thinks it was illegitimate. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any issues or differences between the candidates that we can note?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good and the news is important.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As this event (a change in head of government) is on the recurring events list, importance is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – in principle. Favor Alt1 Alt2. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle This article has a refimprove tag. Once that's resolved I will give full support. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All reference issues have been resolved. Prefer ALT0. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt1 blurb. "Becomes president" suggests he is currently president. Even if the candidates were all pretty much the same ideologically, it's still an election. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Semantics. "Is elected" could be taken to imply the same thing. Article: "Raisi won with 17.8 million popular votes out of 28 million votes." – Sca (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it is semantics. "Elected" means one has won an election, not that they have actually assumed the office.  There is a difference between "Joe Biden was elected" and "Joe Biden becomes president". 331dot (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Alt2. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with 331dot. Alt1 is outright wrong (one "becomes" president on the day of assuming the office and, in virtually all countries, that is when being sworn in). Alt2 is sheer avoidance to accept the legitimacy of the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per, improved from my first review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He was elected president by winning the most votes. Oppose Alt1 as it does suggest he is currently president. Alt2 may be correct because it may be some time before he is inaugurated. Albertaont (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment in the unlikely event this is cleaned up for posting, the original blurb is fine. There was an election, these are the results. There isn't even a section in the article documenting disputes for it. The alt blurbs are unnecessary. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due the referencing, as well as no prose on the difference between candidates that may impact the choice.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb only, oppose on quality even if Iran is not a real democracy, an election did nominally take place. Iff reliable sources indicate that there has been international backlash on the conduct then it should be reflected in the article and blurb. In any event there are still far too few citations for my liking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality. If article is fixed up, I prefer an alt that mentions that the election had the lowest turnout for Iran in history..Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't generally post election turnout on here, if I'm not mistaken. The high 40s isn't particularly bad; the US tends to be in the 50s and 60s. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At present almost all of the article's content has reliable sources.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still an oppose. Both of my prior concerns remain.   GreatCaesarsGhost   22:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the original blurb. It seems like the election result is valid despite the low turnout which means that Raisi is elected president of Iran. Using "becomes" implies that he's been installed by force but that's not the case. Of course, there are many domestic and foreign organisations, including Amnesty International, complaining about what happened before and during the election but it's irrelevant here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, mon ami. "Becomes" carries no implication of force, it simply denotes a process of change. Cf. Webster:
 * 1: to come into existence.
 * 2: to undergo change or development.
 * – Sca (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I know very well what it means and it was intentionally proposed to contest the legitimacy of the election (disqualified candidates, low turnout and similar nonsense echoed by Biden's administration). There's no reason to replace the standard wording "is elected" with "becomes" when he was elected president by the populace and not in any other way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree to disagree with you, and stand by my view that "becomes" is NPOV in standard English usage. (AGF!) But it seems that given the state of the article, this point may be moot. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply follow your own reasoning above to deduce that "becomes" intends to replace "is elected" to highlight the case of "patently pantomimic 'election'". Other than that, there's nothing wrong with that word even though we don't use it in blurbs on presidential elections.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Past practice doesn't always dictate present usage. Each issue must be judged on its merits by reasonable users. Au revoir. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. The article is a real mess at the moment, with lots of uncited material and also a lack of analysis of the result. I'm sceptical this will make it, but if it does then I'd favour the original blurb. We just discussed all this in the Syrian case, and there was no consensus that we should deviate from our usual election blurb format, which leaves the criticial analysis on legitimacy and turnout etc to the article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - I think the quality is good enough as of this writing (no tags except for the section needs expansion for the election, but I think the section has enough to be useful, and most importantly is cited). Prefer alt2; alt1 is incorrect; alt0 implies a free and fair election; alt2 avoids that implication. Levivich 16:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - This looks ready to post... though I personally find the use of the word "elected" to be truthiness in this case... more like he was selected. FWIW Alt2 follows the same precedent we use for election blurbs. Inauguration is another matter. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unmarked as ready Still too many uncited statements in the Candidate list and Opinion polls sections, I'm afraid. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please indicate what is unready, perhaps I am missing it. I see nothing wrong with the article. Opinion polls are worthless, try looking outside Iran. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Candidates" section lists many candidates without citation; if such sources cannot be found then the entries must be removed per the BLP policy on unsourced contentious statements. Otherwise the article, while a bit of a shambles and low on prose, does not appear to have any Main Page-hindering defects (this isn't FAC, after all). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done a couple of edits covering your concerns. Pleas check if it's OK. -- M h hossein   talk 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is getting stale and frankly the remaining CNs could be resolved by just commenting out their associated assertions. Half of them are in the Candidates subsection Declined to run, and what does that even mean anyway? Wouldn't that include nearly every Iranian that has a wiki article? The Rejected subsection is a incomplete list and if references for more than half of the entries cannot be found, then I seriously question its inclusion. The Announced but not registered seems to suggest that they were not, actually, candidates and as such these should probably be removed from the Candidates section. The bits of encyclopedic information that would be lost from the election article would be better suited in respective BLPs, because they add only marginal information to the election article.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs text updateThis nomination is only 2 days old - not stale. This article still needs a Results section. Joofjoof (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - In general the article seems OK. - STSC (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still not ready. Where is the prose on the election itself, and the results and aftermath? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale fast. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone saying that this is getting stale or there's work that have to be done, but none is contributing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I have no idea what everyone is talking about. There's no prose?? Of course there's prose. There's no results section?? Yes there is! There's no aftermath?? The election was two days ago! What "aftermath"?! Not every sentence needs an inline citation in order for this to be posted to the main page. Anyone who really thinks it is contentious info about a BLP that an Iranian politician registered in an election (as opposed to bluesky) can go ahead and remove the uncited entries. A country changed its President: this is frickin' news and the article is fine. I've re-tagged it Ready. Levivich 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An election is a choice - the whole country is deciding to proceed one direction or another. This is why elections are per se significant. The article has not one word differentiating the candidates from one another. There's mention of a debate having occurred, but no mention of issues. Most of the article is an explanation of the mechanics of the election.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just googled "what does Ebrahim Raisi's election mean" and found a half dozen solid sources on impact.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GCG's point on "who are candidates" is a good point: even if just a section with a lot of "main"/"seealso", I'd expect a short summary blurb about each of the primary candidates in the table as to understand the significance of the results. At this stage, I don't know if having to get into the issues has to be covered, but we should know who was running and why --M asem (t) 13:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought this was ITN not FAC. Also some of you don't seem to understand this was not a real election. An issues section? What differentiates the candidates? In an article about an Iranian election?! Lol! (That doesn't exist in any of the other Iran election articles, you may notice.) Levivich 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not FAC, but it is something going on main page and is supposed to represented "our best work". The only "developed" section on the article right now is the process of how the election works, which is not unique to this specific election. (And no, we're neutral, we should not be writing this that "this was not a real election"). Beyond that section, its a sentence or two here and there, a bunch of lists, and a bunch of tables. No real prose. A short section to list the 7-odd candidates with a 4-5 sentence bio for each would not have broken the bank to get it to a postable standard. --M asem (t) 14:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea that ITN is supposed to represent our best work, but you didn't get it from WP:ITN, which says . MINIMUM, not best. Levivich 15:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Second bullet of first section of ITN: "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." And in what you're quoting, a "minimum standard of quality" would be the key read from that. In addition, the Main Page of Wikipedia is mean to reflect the best work that Wikipedia can produce - doesn't mean every highlighted link has to be FA, but that required a basic level of quality. That's why we have to nearly repeat every day on ITNC "ITN is not a news ticker" -we don't have to post stories in a timely manner if the article is not up to the quality standards. --M asem (t) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and Ready let's not hold this article to some standard which does not exist. What's there is fine, it's referenced, there is some prose about the results and turnout. The 2021 Somaliland parliamentary election was recently posted without details about candidates or debates and it's not really a country. It's time to post it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as I think it meets the bare minimum for Main Page posting (not much more than that, to be honest, but this isn't FAC). I'm sticking with the original blurb for now as election improprieties are not currently adequately explained in the article to justify anything else; besides, "becomes president-elect" is a clunky and quite frankly stupid way of saying "is elected president". If such electoral improprieties become better expressed/justified the blurb should be adjusted to say "is elected president of Iran in election criticized by international observers" or something to that effect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull . What's the point in us having a discussion and registering our concerns if it's just going to be ignored? The article has zero coverage on the election itself, and the "prose" on the results is just a three sentence summary of the results. The ITN requirements explicitly say the page must "have been substantially updated". Ridiculous. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * are you talking about the article on the election or the bio of the pres? Levivich 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the election article. It's the same phenomenon we see over and over at ITN with elections and sports tournaments - a reasonably detailed article of what happened prior to the event, but only tabular or very brief coverage of the during and after. What's in the news is the election and the result, not the Iranian electoral system or the Covid provisions, which seem to form the bulk of the prose at present. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: when the Tories win the next UK GE, what would we expect to see in the "results" section before posting? I'm curious because it would be similar to this, an inevitable result with a bit of outrage and disappointment.  What more, within a few days, would we be expecting to see?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we can look back at the last UK election to see what sort of thing we posted at that time: Although the results section in the body did not have prose at that time, there was a decent cited update occupying three paragraphs of the lead - with tidbits such as Corbyn resigning and Swinson losing her seat. If the Iran article had something like that, it'd be fine. Anyway, it looks like everyone thinks I'm being ridiculous so I'll withdraw the "pull" and just register my puzzlement informally instead.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd ever expect to see that kind of thing from Iran, would we? I'm not suggesting you're being ridiculous at all, by the way, just curious to see if we're now experiencing a kind of requirement creep on election updates.  One imagines (or used to) that the result was the pertinent thing, not the fall-out which could take days/weeks/months/years and hence sits outside the scope of ITN really.  Just my opinion, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same board as Amakuru - I won't ask for a pull, but I really think there were easy fixes, not hard to do, that would have alleviated the issue, with existing material out there, such as simply a short paragraphical bio for each of the main candidates, which could have been done before election day. That would have been enough to highlight the main issues in the election and shouldn't have taken more than an hour of work since all 7-8 appear to be notable people. --M asem (t) 17:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's definitely requirement creep.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (I don't think you're being ridiculous either.) Levivich 19:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The results prose is adequate as a minimum and combined with the reactions section constitutes substantial updates for the intents and purposes of ITN. There is also coverage on the COVID provisions of the election conduct. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - you said yourself earlier that the article is a "bit of a shambles". Just to be clear, ITN does not permit "shambles" pages to be listed. The purpose of ITN explicitly gives as a remit that we "showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". If it's not quality, then it shouldn't be posted and there is no requirement to post everything that's nominated, even for ITN/R items. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wolfson called it a "shambles" two days ago, it's no longer a shambles. It's fine, minimalist but fine. Calm down. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is no longer in shambles, but he shouldn't be supervoting, either. There quite clearly was not consensus to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely treat "oppose on quality" !votes act as "support" !votes once the article meets the minimum quality requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No you can't. Why would you assume that a particular editor would think the updates are sufficient when others are actively saying they are not? You can certain disregard earlier quality opposes if more recent votes are universally positive.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think one can, in fact, treat "oppose on quality" !votes as supports given a level of minimal quality as the current election article possesses. Of course, such !votes must be fairly old and predate salient improvements of the article in question, but it would likely be requirement creep as said above to require anything substantially more in an article than due citations, absence of orange tags, and prose updates in order to post on the Main Page given the time-sensitive nature of ITN, and I say this as someone who thinks of ITN significance independently of the surrounding news cycle. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In case anyone cares about my useless opinion, I Oppose posting. 70.23.250.135 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITN/R, it's cited, there's enough prose updates, it meets minimum quality standards. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Old news, ZZZzzzz.... – Sca (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vekuii Rukoro

 * Support Attorney General of Namibia, chief of the Herero – seems very notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giampiero Boniperti

 * Support a good article, everything well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milkha Singh

 * Support. Made some edits / adds to sources. Article looks in nick and is ready to go to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Shaman Mithru

 * Comment lede is almost nonexistent and Filmography is uncited. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Harvill

 * Support good to go. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A bit short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leroy Jones

 * Support No apparent issues with article. --M asem (t) 01:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Kenneth Kaunda

 * Weak oppose  Quality isn't great, with a few Citation Neededs, but I would support a blurb on notability as he was the first president of Zambia, although his term did end 30 years ago. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality Kaunda was a key figure in Zambian independence, the founding president of Zambia, president of Zambia for 27 years, and was the third secretary-general of the non-aligned movement. He checks all of the boxes for a blurbable politician.  However, the article quality is not there yet. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, oppose blurb This people from Zambia doesn't look enough to be posted as blurb given his little significance. 114.125.31.240 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Really "little significance", just because you haven't heard of someone does not make them non-notable. Probably one of the most influential and earliest African leaders, it is surprising to know that he was still alive. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments The cn tags need to be fixed, would clearly support on significance when done. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending improved referencing. Kenneth Kaunda was essentially the father of the modern nation of Zambia, and a very significant figure in African politics for many decades. He merits a full blurb rather than just a passing mention in RD. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article needs improvement in referencing. Once fixed, I would support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article isn't in good shape. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, oppose on quality significant sourcing improvements needed. If done, this looks blurb-worthy to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once article improved. A major figure in southern African politics during the transitional era from colonialism to independence, and beyond, and established Zambia as a nation.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if article is improved - Agree with other commenters. The article doesn't look to be in terrible shape but has numerous unsourced statements. The death of a person who was the first head of state of a country, particular one who has reached their late 90s, would seem like a notable enough event to warrant a blurb to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed a few old CN tags, but the autocracy section needs some work, as it has two CN tags and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to support those paragraphs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb Died well past the age death becomes normal, of no interesting cause, was far from the top of his field and I'd bet nobody here could have put a face to that name until now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per InedibleHulk. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per previous two posts – altho I do vaguely recall the name, perhaps from the old Weekly Reader. – Sca (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I changed my initial bet, had a hunch there'd be a reader in the house. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember reading about plans for construction of Brasília in the WR, too. I was more interested in things like that than playing marbles in the mud. . – Sca (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kust because you don't know his name or his picture is not recognizable to you, doesn't mean it's not important. Read Gotitbro and Kurtis' comments. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate how he officially founded a modern state, but that modern state never broke into the Top 50, by any global indices I vaguely recall. Good people, surely. But a poor state. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. comment There are currently a maximum of three of us who are trying to improve his article, but I think it is not enough, especially to prevent it from ending up as a stale as it's a pretty large one. So I encourage people to contribute. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when article is finalized. Per Jackattack1597 the autocracy section needs attention as some of it reads to me like OR hence no sources  JW 1961 Talk 22:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the article is improved. One of the most prominent African politicians of the 20th century and first head of state who remained in office for 27 years clearly deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Guidelines say one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, and recent editing efforts have brought it up to that standard. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Founding father of a nation and a longstanding head of government. Definitely needs a blurb. My opinion on quality is the same as above. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an orange verification tag at the top of the page: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. (WP:ITN)—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (and support blurb) - I've added citations for most of the material that wasn't cited, and also removed some bits that were unencyclopedic, POV or seemed dubious per WP:BLP requirements. I think this is good to go now, but happy to hear of any other issues. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb now that it's well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you did a great job. Thanks! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Amakuru, you saved the article from becoming stale.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. There is consensus for a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I checked two sections: Economy and Education and both of them are trash. A copy/paste straight from Britannica, inflammatory words like "ineptness" and "disasters results". A dead link in the economic policies section renders it essentially unreferenced and I looked at page 900 of "Encyclopedia of the Developing World" and it doesn't mention anything that is attributed to it in the article. I mean, the Naftali Bennett posting highlighted that missing refs in BLPs actually doesn't matter: am I just wasting my time? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is a copyvio, I'm not seeing it (this is a serious concern if it was). Using duplicate detector, I'm not seeing anything that looks obvious that would not be expected duplicated phrasing.  --M asem  (t) 17:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was re-worded original. I'm not bothering with the rest, it's Saturday. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. federal recognition of Juneteenth

 * Would be nice if they also added Easter Monday or General Lee surrenders day or independence war starts day or ~Apr 15 tax in the Feb 15-21 to May 25-31 gap. And Random 2-Month Summer Gap Filler Day Observed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Long-awaited creation of a federal Emancipation Day in the US. I find it pure symbolism, but humanity loves their symbols. I prefer cymbals -  Floydian  τ ¢ 05:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of exposition, for which there isn't room on the Main Page, is going to be needed to show how this is ITN-worthy. At the end of the day, this is still just the US adding another public holiday (which doesn't even work the same as in many other countries, but I digress). It's not like this is the US government acknowledging slavery happened – obviously they have already. So, I'm not seeing this being particularly transformative at even a national level, and I can't imagine us posting a similar story for any other country. --  tariq abjotu  07:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose internal politics. I might change my mind if there are a lot of follow-up stories, but as of right now, this is completely overshadowed by the Geneva summit. Banedon (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The most recently established federal holiday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 1983, so it's not that often that a new federal holiday is added. The Juneteenth bill can be seen as part of the aftermath of the George Floyd protests. Davey2116 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe not in the US, but once you broaden to every country in the world it really isn't that rare, e.g. in 2020 Iraq made Christmas a public holiday . Banedon (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Banedon. We don't usually post internal politics of this nature. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial and of practically zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whilst it's good that they've done it, this isn't ITN-worthy, as it's only a US Government policy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pure symbolic and nothing of importance to the rest of the world. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Disagree that it has "zero encyclopedic value"(if so, it should be nominated for deletion) but the US can decide to have whatever holidays it wishes, just as any country can. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I said "practically". Thanks for the advice though, really appreciate it.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It recognized the Armenian genocide this past Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, too, symbolic moments happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congress had already recognized the genocide; the president doing so had not happened before. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, and this time, they've all acknowledged slavery ended (though the trials and tribulations endure) many times each before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose A country getting it's 11th official holiday is not in itself notable for this ostensibly international encyclopedia. As for the attrocity propaganda about slavery in the US, what happened there was no doubt tragic, but that happened in a single country to a fairly small number of people compared to the population of the world. Morepower, their "trials and tributations" have been nothing compared to what most people across most countries of the world had suffered in the past few centuries so that's not notable either, in my opinion. Cheers. 212.74.201.238 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This holiday is unknown outside other English-speaking countries. 114.125.29.40 (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Shenzhou 12

 * Support altblurb Article has been improved from stub. Also successful 1st docking with space station. Albertaont (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - changed to ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is just under 1,500 characters, way too short for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The altblurb should be posted, but the article currently has just two sentences about what actually happened. Needs a bit of expansion before being featured on the MP. There are plenty of sources that could be used to do so. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a bit? Article is barely over 200 words – more or less a stub. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my stereotypical British understatement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're so modest. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But not a genius. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I thought you were a genus by yourself. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ― The article has been updated and is OK now. STSC (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting-oppose it's still only 1700 characters- about 2 sentences have been added since all the opposes. This is not good enough article quality for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Translation: 330 words. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pull I didn't even bother opposing earlier because it would have been a pile-on with an article so far away from being ready. We get one support and it's posted?  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 2 supports, 3 counting the OP. But we already knew that. Albertaont (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled The consensus here is that this is not ready. If it is expanded sufficiently the outcome may changes. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Guess I should go pull up all the sport articles, RDs, and space mission arrivals that only got posted with a single sentence update. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the news event was about a change to a long-standing thing or person or whatever (such as recent death, most commonly), we only need a single sentence. Of course this is a case-by-case basis - eg the blocking of the Suez Canal would not have gone up on a single sentence update. For something "new" on the other hand, we do expect a much larger expansion. --M asem (t) 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is. The item of interest is the Tiangong space station and how it's finally fulfilling its function, not the spacecraft that ferried the crew up to it. ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the state SpaceX Crew-1 was in, when it went on the main page. To my eyes it looks roughly equivalent. (In both cases, the meat of the information is not in the article for that individual vehicle. It's in the article for the program as a whole.) ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing page size counts, that diff for the Crew-1 gets me 9000+ bytes of readable prose, while the current article for Shenzhou 12 is only 4100 bytes. It's definitely still on the short side. --M asem (t) 01:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Granted, the "article for the program as a whole" in this case is very bad, and wouldn't get anywhere near the Front Page as a bold link. Whereas the same for Crew-1 is a very good article. There's also no indication in the proposed bold link that is supposed to direct a naïve reader to this supposed article with "the meat of the information", either in this one or in the Crew-I article.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-post — Overall the article meets the minimum standard of quality as per WP:ITNCRIT. - STSC (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — I have now added three new sections of content to the article. STSC (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-post — per STSC, who has done good work expanding the article. Objections on length shold be discounted by admins considering a repost. Jusdafax (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-port Diff since the pull shows the changes. I think this could go back up.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-posted Stephen 06:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(New) RD: Jabu Mabuza

 * Comment needed 1 citation. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not even 250 words of prose? Isn't this article a bit too stubby? Can this article be beefed up? --PFHLai (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(New) RD: John Osmers

 * Comment Biography can be split up IMO and needs more sources. 173.77.201.83 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Has now been broken up into subsections. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vance Trimble

 * IMO, too much of the article is cited to a first-person narrative (the OSU interview).  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * what are your thoughts on this? Does it meet the minimum requirements for ITN? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. The sentence "Trimble drastically improved the paper during his time as editor." could use some explanation/elaboration and refs, but IMO it's not big enough a problem to fail this RD nom. --PFHLai (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: K. S. Nijhar

 * Support Sufficient length and citations. Joofjoof (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the language needs tidying up in places. Phrases such as "To top it off" and "He climbed to the MIC's eminencies" don't seem very encyclopedic in tone. Also, there doesn't seem to be much detail on what he actually did as a politician. There are lots of positions and dates listed, but any landmark achievements or his political points of view would be useful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Amakuru is it better now? 173.77.201.83 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The tone is fine now. What about his political opinions and any landmark achievements though? Don't need loads of detail, just something. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added in "where he aimed to represent Malays and Indians in Subang and the country. In 2005, he questioned the validity of a memorandum of the DAP Johor State Committee, suggesting that it didn't take into account the view of Malay and Indian communities, and criticized the DAP" into the Politics section from the source there. Maybe this is something? 173.77.201.83 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the updaters have a better idea how to proceed/fix this? --PFHLai (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Stolley

 * Support The first citation carries some weight and is probably not completely neutral. However, I don't think the facts it supports are likely to be disputed. Marking this Needs Attention due to age.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Frank Bonner

 * Comment - lots of citations still needed I'm afraid. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janet Malcolm

 * Referenced and moderately expanded. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Works section needs refs. SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , may I ask for clarification—what sort of reference? The bulk of my WP work is about writers and typically the books themselves are the reference. Is it that you want them laid out in format? Innisfree987 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Normally, including the ISBN is enough to "prove" that the book was really written by the person. SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 03:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , gotcha—thanks, they’re all there now. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Quackenbush

 * hope this can be promoted before it gets archived in 16 hours time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. There are no supports, but I really don't see any issues so I've posted it. If there's anything wrong, someone please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jack B. Weinstein

 * Support. The quality is reasonable, although it could certainly use a clean-up... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs footnotes/refs for his various positions earlier in his career and for his listed publications. --PFHLai (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas B. Day

 * Support - Well-sourced article.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Career section appears to be incomplete. The first paragraph ends with him becoming the President of San Diego State in 1978. The second paragraph starts with his unpopular budget cuts in 1992 and he left for health reasons soon after. What happened in between? Any accomplishments during his 18 years as President? New student programs? Growth of funding for scholarly research? Campus expansions? Having campus facilities named after him? The current coverage on his career, with successes missing, seems a bit too negative. -PFHLai (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Thanks for the quick expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Israel–Palestine crisis

 * Comment Describing this definitively as a continuation of the same event seems like WP:OR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I second this. It is equivalent to someone nominating Korean War for ongoing after a shootout occured in the borders.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only updates that I can find are 1 sentence in the lede and a new date entry in the infobox. Let's give is a few days and some more update before we put this back in.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait I had a feeling someone was going to nominate this immediately. There is no reason to be hasty, let's wait to see if anything escalates further. A single attack from both sides doesn't mean much. Mlb96 (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We can post the ceasefire violation as a blurb for the moment and then decide on ongoing when it rolls off. Brandmeistertalk  06:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Wait. I would think that they are probably testing new PM Bennett.  Wait and see what happens. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – In context of recent past, a mere skirmish. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait One incident does not make for a need for ongoing yet. --M asem (t) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I might support the ceasefire violation as a normal item, but I don't support return to ongoing yet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, wait for now Ceasefire should stay as normal item for now, if it's agreed upon; If it gets place on the normal news, if it gets bumped off, then that's when we should add the crisis to Ongoing. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait If there is a re-escalation, makes sense to reblurb first. Albertaont (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William vanden Heuvel

 * Support looks a decent article, it could use a reference in the first sentence of the Career section JW 1961 Talk 21:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * added a ref. Thanks for spotting that – completely forgot about it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wang Chiu-Hwa

 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like a good enough article, but why was it posted without a discussion? 1779Days (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manuel Clavero

 * Nom. comment finished. Seems ready to be posted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enrique Bolaños

 * Oppose article is orange-tagged as needing more sources. Many citation needed tags which need fixing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * fixed. Perhaps now it's ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine for RD now, thanks for fixing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mburumba Kerina

 * Support article definitely good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashley Henley

 * Support Just barely above a stub, but the article is comprehensive and well referenced.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It would be great if her activity as a politician could be expanded a bit more, but I think it's already enough as it is. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carol Jarecki

 * Support looks good enough for RD. Minor thing: a couple of links are pointing to a DAB page, would be nice to fix (though this shouldn't preclude the nomination from going on front page). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ziona

 * Support article quality looks more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ned Beatty

 * Comments The lead seems overkill on listing off the films, there are lots of area's in the article that need sourcing from my first look. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose pretty much his entire career is unref'd.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose His career is unreferenced, his filmography is unreferenced, the only thing that has good sourcing is his death.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 French Open

 * Oppose target has no prose at all about either final. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A page with mostly just tables of results is not sufficient, even for an ITNR item. See 2020 French Open, which was posted last year and had writeups for men's and women's singles.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more prose such as a writeup of the main events. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Needs a referenced prose summary of the tournament and/or finals, not just data tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a common theme with sports articles being nominated- they're being nominated with no text in the article summarising the event itself... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine and nominating such articles here is a good way to advertise the need for improvement. The problem is when people think that the ITN/R status is an automatic qualifier that can bypass the quality requirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors are allowed to nominate articles that aren't ready yet, in the hope of drawing more improvements to the article. I've done that myself in the past. But if the nominator knows the quality isn't good enough, that should really be mentioned in the nom comment. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My frustration isn't about people nominating before it's ready, it's that they nominate it and just leave it as is, with no effort to try and make it ITN-worthy. And it seems to happen a lot more with sports articles than any other type of article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose In addition to lacking a prose update on who won, the article completely leaves out Naomi Osaka's withdrawal, which made bigger news than the finals, as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Naftali Bennett, Thirty-sixth government of Israel (Benjamin Netanyahu ousted)

 * Support - I suggest maybe adding a picture and mentioning Netanyahu's twelve-year tenure? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 If it's possible it would be good to include Thirty-sixth government of Israel in the blurb, a well-written article that describes/described the government formation. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with the conditions above. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but there are a few citation issues in each article precluding its posting just yet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Prime Minister of Israel article needs a lot of work, as the vast majority of the text is uncited. I've added altblurb 3 which is closer to the usual ITN format. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the quality requirements only apply to the target article. Mlb96 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a definite no if the target article doesn't meet the requirements (which doesn't apply here), but if there's concensus to require the other articles to meet a certain standard then that's okay too. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 *  Support – pending expansion. Favor Alt3. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 12 years in office, the end of a political crisis with 4 failed elections, consequences on recent events, and (per sources) has a lasting legacy. Undoubtedly should be on ITN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITN/R so notability is already considered. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 4 The length of Netanyahu's tenure is notable because of how incredibly long it was. Makes sense to include that in the blurb. Mlb96 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've adjusted the nom template above to have Naftali Bennett as the primary target article. The original target Thirty-sixth government of Israel is not in the latter alt blurbs. BTW, Bennett's bio could use more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support immediately. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:A14A:7D4C:4235:991D (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Both ITNR but also the unusual circumstances of how it happened. Albertaont (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 4. What's the common noun for when there's 4 elections in 2 years cause parliaments? Maybe that should be mentioned too, like Naftali Bennett becomes Prime Minister of Israel, ending Benjamin Netanyahu's 12-year tenure and 26 months of coalition difficulty. (or whatever you parliamentary countries call it) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting, we have an RFC ongoing where the proposal of a purely mechanical blurb is mandated. I guess some of us are robots, some dogs, and the rest somewhere between sentient beings and keyboard warriors, but I cherish this as a precise and deadly antidote to the nonsense "A equals B plus C" formulaic nonsense being proposed for this kind of thing.  We need to be human about every story we publish, not some kind of algorithmic output.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is a major event that will affect every single country in the Middle East. I think that it's important to mention that Netanyahu was the prime minister of Israel for 12 in a row so Alt 4 is my favourite option.Benbaruch (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb5 to include both nominated target articles: A new government is formed in Israel, with Naftali Bennett (pictured) replacing Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister. --PFHLai (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt 4, to give some context --Andrei (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear support on importance + ITNR, obviously wait until Bennett's article's is fixed up (a handful of tags, its almost there). I'd also recommend trying to get Netanyahu's article to be up there - its also similarly not far off, and its key to understanding this is important and more than just a simple transfer of power. --M asem (t) 21:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified version of blurbs 4/5. -PFHLai (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was this posted with clear citation needed tags in Bennett's article? --M asem (t) 23:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a few... and not controversial. There are already almost a hundred refs in the article. --PFHLai (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think the public interest should be superseded by a few cns. In general, I've always felt such an approach to be a bit dogmatic. El_C 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pull the bold linked article is a BLP with CN tags. The solar eclipse was pulled for some whining at WP:ERRORS this is an actual issue. The bit about increasing visits to west bank "heritage sites" demands a citation. I've not checked the rest of the citations, I hope someone did. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister of Israel is orange tagged bold or not we can't feature that on the MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Prime Minister of Israel" is not featured. --PFHLai (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My removal of unreferenced material was reverted without explanation. It's a BLP, I challenged and removed the unreferenced material, and I was reverted. Does WP:BLP even exist anymore? FYI --LaserLegs (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Talk:Naftali Bennett would be a better place to discuss these issues with article contents, please? Or the user talk page of the reverting editor, perhaps? --PFHLai (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ARBPIA is a dumpster fire and I'm not going anywhere near it. I called attention to it, even took some action, and consensus is that unreferenced content in BLPs are fine for the MP. Should improve RD turnaround. Good luck. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Toeti Heraty

 * Support - I don't see any major flaw in the sourcing.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Marginally notable person with little news coverage. While it technically meets the requirements, it's marginal. 1779Days (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Supports and Opposes to RD nominations should be based on article quality, not notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please, read In_the_news/Candidates before voicing your opinion. Regards. SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 23:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine, no tags. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments/Minor suggestions: This article could use a few more refs and footnotes for various points regarding her career in academia (e.g. being chair, co-founding a department, etc.) Also need consistent vocabulary (is she "Dean" (in the prose) or the "Rector" (in the infobox) of the Jakarta Institute of the Arts"? Should her poem's English title be "Calon Arang: the Story of A Woman Victimized by Patriarchy" (in the prose) or "Calon Arang : the story of a woman sacrificed to patriarchy" (in the list of publications)? Or are they actually two different poems?) --PFHLai (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD. Have marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted I've also moved my minor questions at Talk:Toeti Heraty. Not big enough problems to halt this RD nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

47th G7 summit

 * Is this WP:ITNR? Kind of feels like it should be if it isn't, but I can also understand if it's mostly publicity these days. My support/oppose is based on the answer to that question. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , ITNR at In the news/Recurring items. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose still some citation issues and the article being tagged. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think those are fixed now. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality issues have been fixedJackattack1597 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now There's no update. For instance, the 1 billion COVID vaccine pledge and Taiwan Strait call for peace listed in the proposed blurbs are not mentioned in the article. The "Agenda" section talks about what will happen, but not was has happened. Another specific example is Boris Johnson and Joe Biden will aim to 'unlock' travel restrictions between UK and amber-list US at G7 summit.[25] Well, did they? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support added a blurb which included the discussed measures from a week ago that ITN decided to postpone until the end of the summit. Article quality could be better but I think it's acceptable as is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose vaccine pledges, taiwan strait, net zero were all announced by various G7 members prior to the summit. (Most coverage being on the US and a lesser extent UK vaccine and environment pledges). so what is the news? Albertaont (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing at all in there about what actually happened. Is this a joke, question??/ The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above, needs way more text on what the outcomes/main discussions there were. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ― Not ready. STSC (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Getatchew Haile

 * Died on the 10th. Stephen 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Need a bit more on his death than just putting the date of death in a bracket next to his date of birth on the first line of the article. --PFHLai (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Text has been updated and cited. Joofjoof (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sanchari Vijay

 * Comment quite a bit of the filmography still needs sourcing. Once that's fixed, looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milton Moses Ginsberg

 * Oppose Given the lag between his death and reporting it suggests he is not really that notable enough for ITN, consider the New York Times at the beginning of the article noted he fell "into obscurity". Govvy (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone with an article is presumed to meet the notability requirement for RD, votes should only be based on article quality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And even if this was based on notability, it's not measured by how quickly a grieving family chooses to go public.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to oppose. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you see the ref issues? SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 03:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @SirEdimon I don't know what you're referring to. That comment only makes mention of notability which isn't needed for ITN/RD. Uses x (leave me a message) 06:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * all tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Now sufficient for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mudcat Grant

 * Support - Well-sourced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Two-time All-Star pitcher. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Christian Eriksen heart attack

 * I think it should be "Danish footballer Christian Eriksen collapses during a match against Finland at the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament". GiantSnowman 19:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case support. GiantSnowman 19:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose He collapsed, but he's in stable condition. No impact beyond a suspended match. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from it being front-page news across the world? GiantSnowman 19:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that there's more to In The News than getting picked up in a 24 hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Not palpably important if you aren't into football. He is alert and conscious, so it's not like he's on death's door. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - thankfully this turned out not to be as grave as it first appeared. I'm very happy this isn't sufficiently notable for ITN. --LukeSurlt c 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Finland's 1:0 victory may be more significant than this scary episode of medical drama on the pitch. Has Finland ever won at this tourney? --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose It was highly disturbing and serious, but it is not front page material for us here at Wikipedia. I think we all know what would be. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose assuming he gets better, there will be no long term impact of this. The teams playing the rest of the game today and Finland winning will (hopefully) be the highlight everyone remembers. But this isn't ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an example of "ITN is not a news ticker." Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thankfully he seems to have gotten somewhat better, so it really doesn't have long term significance. I don't believe we posted a similar incident in the FA cup in 2012.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Igor Zhelezovski

 * Oppose There is no mention of source for his death in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A source has now been added in the article. According to the source, he died of COVID. Count Iblis (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is not good. It is just a giant lead section, then some tables. In addition, it is sparsely referenced. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dame Georgina Kirby

 * Posted Stephen 00:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taha Karaan

 * Comment DYKCheck says this is a stub (below 1500 characters). --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Addressed that. DYKCheck now says "1594 characters". ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  12:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited.  - Owais  Talk 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is this ready or? ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  03:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Pulitzer Prizes

 * Support Don't see any issue with notability, and the articles are decent. Also, would anybody else be interested in trying to put the Pullitzers in ITNR? ( The main issue with ITNR is that they are US based, so that might be a major obstacle)Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment ALT1 is of the correct standard format for ITN blurbs for annual events. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if we were comparing this to other awards, the 2021 awards article is literally just tables without any description. Just checking the refs related to this year's prizes there's at least something to write about the delay, as well as about the special award to the teenager that captured the George Floyd video. --M asem (t) 20:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – In the first two proposed blurbs, the comma between journalism and going (" ...journalism, going...") isn't U.S. English punctuation practice, may confuse U.S. readers, and should be dropped. (Also, suggest "American" be replaced by "U.S." as more specific.) – Sca (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The article almost completely consists of tables containing quotes about the winners and we cannot post it in such shape given the number of other articles that were denied because of the same reason. I'm also unsure about its notability and the choice of putting The New York Times in the blurb when Darnella Frazier's recording of the murder of George Floyd makes bigger news. I've checked that the last time we posted this prize was in 2014 and before it in 2010, which clearly indicates that it's not a standard ITN material for some reason. That being said, I'd like to support a blurb mentioning Darnella Frazier instead of The New York Times once the article is substantially improved with a prose update. Otherwise, outright oppose because the routine awarding of this prize is not that notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note/comment: I've struck the first blurb per Joseph and changed "American" to "U.S." per Sca. The comma between "journalism" and "going" is correct; it marks off the middle clause. I added a little more broad characterization of the awards, so the article is plenty well-developed now; it's a quasi-list, as the main thing to say about the awards is who won them, but that's fine. The board's own descriptions which we quote contain plenty of info. I disagree that the Fraser citation is the most significant—it's not even a formal Pulitzer, just a special citation, and it's not what the news coverage has focused most on. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT/ALT2 as ready to post as nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Comm(a)ent – The comma between "journalism" and "going" is not correct in U.S. English. If I'm not mistaken, this punctuation is British English practice, ergo ENGVAR. As this is a U.S.-oriented item, U.S.-English punctuation – which wouild definitely not countenance an intervening comma at this point – should be followed and the comma deleted. I'll bet my (retired) journalist's hat on that. TNX. – Sca (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * english was my worst subject when i was a student, and i confuse british and u.s. english practices all the time, but i had interpreted "the top honor in U.S. journalism" as a nonrestrictive appositive, which, i believe, is generally set apart by commas in both english variants. i don't have a journalist's hat to bet, though.  also, i agree with using "U.S." instead of "American".  dying (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * English was my best subject, from first grade to getting my reporter's hat to whatever I'm doing now. It's a perfectly cromulent comma. And that's coming from a Canadian, bilingual in British and American. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No journalist, but a once-English teacher, both Brit and Am. That comma is correct, feel free to debate the one between "awarded" and "with", though. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, compadre, as there was no textual reason to pause there. But since the offending original blurb has been stricken and Alt1 revised, the point is now moot. Such a relief. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The appositive can be either separated with two or without commas and leaving one comma is incorrect. This is a rule in all Indo-European languages.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Catching up on this thread. Just for my knowledge, what is the consensus on the comma between 'awarded' and 'with'? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Anything but Alt II The New York Times is a single entity, no matter what letter its name ends on, or how many people it employs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure who added that alt, but since it's a simple grammar matter, I'm going to change the "their coverage" to "its coverage". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that "with" is extranabulous, sufficiently implied by its little buddy, the comma. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: So little prose? Was kind of expecting some mention of the first ever Pulitzers for The Atlantic and for BuzzFeed News. Maybe a bit more on the kid with the phone video on Floyd and Chauvin, or reactions of some of the finalists and winners. --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence about the firsts. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this needs to be posted soon if it's going to be. All of the major blurb/article concerns from above have been addressed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Do we use quotes this way in other ITN articles? WP:NPS seems to apply. Without the quotes, this article is only 703 characters long. Joofjoof (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The article is not of sufficient quality for posting and we have denied many articles in similar shape. I don't know why you got the impression that this is ready for posting when it's clearly not and there's not even consensus for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes—look at our Nobel articles, where we do a very similar thing. That's another case where the quotes are brief and are an official component of the award itself. The article is plenty comprehensive—the main thing to say about the awards is who got them, so of course that's what the vast majority of the article focuses on. Do we complain when list pages are quite short if you ignore the list itself? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I would only include the full quotes for the winners; the nominees we can at least reference the events indicated by the quotes. --M asem (t) 17:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ei-ichi Negishi

 * Support Meets quality standards. Grimes2 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: UEFA Euro 2020

 * Oppose posting single sport events in progress to ongoing, as I always have. That was never the intention of Ongoing. This is also not a global event like the World Cup. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sports item as ongoing except for the Olympics per past consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure we posted the World Cup; I disagree with that too, but it is at least a global event. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do post the World Cup to ongoing, but that is due to its scale being more international, not just limited to one region. This can have its results ITNR, but it doesn't make sense to have a regional event ongoing. --M asem (t) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * World Cup is an uphill battle to fight. At least it does involve the entire world. UEFA European Championship not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait until the end and post the result. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose' sports are not ongoing the results (unfortunately) get posted at the end This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose maybe for the World Cup, but not Euros. Otherwise we'll end up forced to post Copa América too, as that starts this week. Wait til it ends, then nominate the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Too early to consider May be more supportive if a surprise team such as North Macedonia wins the tourney. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because usually only the result of the final is important enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing for any sports event besides the Olympics and possibly the world cup.Suggest a WP:SNOW close. Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashok Panagariya

 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoffrey Edelsten

 * Support well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larisa Shoygu

 * Support The wikibio looks ready. It would be great if someone familiar with Russia could take a look to check if proper vocabulary is used. --PFHLai (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Buddhadeb Dasgupta

 * Comment films and awards sections need citing, as does Family section. For someone with so many appearances and awards, there must also be more to be said about his career. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Helmud Hontong

 * Comment: Please address the Copyedit tag atop the wikipage and the error messages in the reference section (formatting errors?). Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to In the news/Recent deaths, if death of a figure is it's main story or main attention, then it worths a blurb. Helmud Hontong was not a well-known figure until his sudden death which raised speculation and request for investigation by activists. Does that mean this could merit a blurb on it's own? Nyanardsan (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is an unwritten consensus by regulars in here that death blurbs are only given to subjects that has a significant level of global influence. As far as I know Hontong was the deputy regent of Sangihe, meaning that his influence is just above the kecamatan and below regency. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for clarifying~ Nyanardsan (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a gap in coverage, with hardly any materials on his political career as a legislator and then as vice-regent. Apart from winning 3 elections, what happened between 2009 and his recent opposition to the mine developments? --PFHLai (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gottfried Böhm
Thank you very much for the nomination. I feel he should have more detail, but am busy today until Monday. There's much more in German if someone is less busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go, marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mongolian presidential election

 * Comment Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh is correctly orange-tagged as needing more sources- this will need to be fixed. Also the presidential article is a micro-stub, would need to be significantly improved before it could be considered good enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't mind possible ITNRs being posted here so as to call attention to them for improvement, but as others have said this would need a lot of work to be Main Page eligible. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose been 4 days, and doesn't look like anyone is going to fix the issues I raised. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it, but clearly cannot do it alone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ring-shaped sunrise

 * Support Article is sufficient, prefer Alt 2. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. I get the rare astronomical confluence element, but even the GIF provided gives our readers precisely ZERO idea as to what they might actually "see", and that's the bottom line here.  This isn't a mathematical moment, it's a human experience.  Without demonstrating why that might be significant, this is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the image to an eclipse of very similar configuration to Toronto's view and a caption should say similar eclipse pictured or something like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a better image, but is this really such a remarkable celestial event that it needs us to promote it? I know we went on for what felt like months about the last one, but this is just one of those things, right?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given this is an annual eclipse, and the only part making this unusual is that it is going to be witnessed by a good chunk of en.wiki-using readers, that feels awfully specific to make into an ITN. --M asem (t) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "annual," but rather "annular," which means shaped like a ring. You can probably think of an impolite word with the same root. Jehochman Talk 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or just Annulus (mathematics). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll be fascinated to know that the JU-88's liquid-cooled V-12 engines had annular radiators that made them look like air-cooled radials. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * However, even then, looking at the navbox at the article these annular eclipse are nearly annual events (less a year or so at times). If we're only getting excited about it because its going to be in the viewing range of the bulk of en.wiki's readership, that's a potential bias issue. --M asem (t) 19:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A total solar eclipse occurs somewhere on Earth once every 1 or 2 years. (average), they only average once in 4 centuries cause the 100% zone is thin. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for quality and the reasons cited. Jehochman Talk 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "quality"? The article is basically a stub followed by a huge "see also" section.  It's pretty grim to be fair. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most eclipse articles are like that, then they get updated with an image farm if Europe, North America, Australia or South Asia got a good view. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I appreciate that. Perhaps that's why it's not really an encyclopdic thing.  Just an image of something over which not one soul to have lived or dies has control, and with literally no precursor or consequence.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Comet Holmes posted? That was just a fuzzy star, and not a bright one, I could barely see the fuzz with me eyeglasses from a dark alley. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Comet Holmes posted? I don't know.  Was Comet Holmes something lots of people can see from Earth every year or so?  I don't know.  You tell me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A comet of at least that level of visibility averages once every decade or more often (I think we might be in a comet drought, not sure). A comet about one or 2 steps brighter is ITNR and happens once every decade or 2. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so that makes this seem rather meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the article should be deleted? There's cricket articles which stimulate fans who can appreciate all the box scores and history and jargon and abbreviations and stuff and just because they bore most non-Commonwealth people doesn't mean they should be deleted. Same thing, a non-genius who teaches himself the jargon and abbreviations and moon cycles and stuff can visualize a lot more about the shadow geometry and stuff from that boring stub than you might think and it'd probably be easier to learn than all the stuff in a Test series article. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean it should be deleted. It's clearly "notable" but in a kind of "trivial" sense, i.e. this will happen and there's nothing we can do about it and nothing important about it and nothing of long-lasting value about it.  The thing we have here is a "look it up" in an almanac kind of story.  Comparing it to a cricket article, which includes significant human interaction, seems bizarre in extremis, but perhaps that's what you need to do to get some attention for this?  Comparing the utterly predictable motion of planets and the subsequent "impact" on us Earth-dwellers vs. events which have genuine human interest seems strange to me.  YMMV, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how boring Test is to many Americans do you? Britney Spears and Madonna surprising everyone by lesbian French kissing on live USA-wide TV had lots of human interaction and viewers and interest (arousing the celebrity fans and inflaming the squarest Bush fans helped). Post hot kiss lol? In 2009 a comet being barely naked eye in wildernesses and maybe farm country was enough to get posted, apparently that happens about once a year (but ITN was pretty ancient then) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have a very comprehensive understanding on how boring "Test" (I think you mean Test cricket) is to Americans. And likewise, baseball is utterly shit, but hey, we are all interested in different things.  But you brought up cricket, and now Britney/Madonna.  None of these things were governed exclusively by physics.  They all had a human interest.  This story is just, well, blocks of mass moving per the law.  Yell about ITN for all it's worth, that's not helpful at all.  It's cute, don't get me wrong, but whatever.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of astronomy is just blocks of mass moving per physics. Heck a lot of cricket and baseball is blocks of mass moving (after some skill-weighted human dice bowled or made contact, heck some physicists think even the scores, blinks and thoughts were preordained since Big Bang) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Masem, TRM. How does this ephemeral phenomenon affect life on Earth? – Sca (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks cool and it's the darkest eclipse in place so and so since year X, that's all an eclipse story ever will be, I guess we should stop posting total sun eclipses too then cause they're inevitable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if it looks cool, I guess that makes it an ITN shoo-in. – Sca (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Total solar eclipses don't affect life on Earth either, but they're ITNR. Banedon (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the current blurbs were very stale I'd give it a weak support because it does no harm, but considering the oldest blurb is only 5 days old it lacks significance. Uses x (leave me a message) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The annular eclipse will be visible from very unfortunate parts of the world that are scarcely populated. Yet it's a very good ITN material, the fact that barely a few million people can experience the view brings its notability down. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't much appearance coolness drop from the 94% ringrise of the deserted places to the 80 to 86+% crescentrise of c. 35 million plus people. I saw the most impressive horizon eclipse since I was born in '13 by blinking at Manhattan skyline and at 55% it was much less cool-looking than the 80%+ of this eclipse. There was a deeper one in 1994 (90%) but it was close to overhead (and made the sunlight look pretty dark). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, these parts are very unfortunate if we're looking to sell out a show, but at least the water and air is mostly water and air up here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It must be nice to be able to live where you can make loud love in nature sometimes and not have to drive so long before you stop worrying about voyeur. That's one of the first things I'd do if I reincarnate the right place. Well first thing after childhood. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to spoil your romantic perceptions of the North, but there's a very small temporal window for decent natural exposure, between the bitter cold and perverted flying insects. Best to even party like outdoor nerds wearing the proper protection. I saw a sweet green meteor in rural pajama pants twelve days ago, all by myself, whoopee? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Alt III We know what's good, Milkster and J-Dogs, but we're clearly outnumbered. Awakening is futile. For the record, I was wearing the rural pajama pants, the meteor was bathed in its usual drapery. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support not rare events, but then neither are total solar eclipses, and if we have those on ITNR then this should be posted also. Banedon (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the likelihood of this post seems to be growing; your modest effort has moved me to Weak oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand the passionate opposes here. The article at this moment is not great, but it's a good bit better than our routine disaster articles. It's wonky, yes, and some more human aspect of it would improve it. The event is in the news. I guess I'd suggest a POTD nomination for this, particularly for the crescent sunrise images.130.233.213.61 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support iff we have cool pics of the eclipse to show on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea, conditions can change. Thanks for the reminder! Swayed my vote accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, I think that In_the_news/Recurring_items could possibly be considered to cover annular eclipses (and I personally think it we should add this unambiguously to ITNR, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). Ellipses are interesting, encyclopaedic, and make a nice change from stories about death. We'll have to see if the article is decent post-eclipse, which may not happen given how remote the eclipse path mostly is. Critically, we need a few good pictures and at least one that is main-page quality. --LukeSurlt c 09:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality this article has one paragraph of text about the event. The lead also needs tense updating. If one paragraph is all that can be said about it, then it's not ITN-worthy. And the "Related eclipses" section seems ridiculously long, and some of them seem only tangentially related to this event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of eclipse cycles, cycles are very important in astronomy. i.e. the Moon's (line of) apsides move forwards at 1 orbit per 8.85 years which is important as the apogee side of the line of apsides doesn't make total solar eclipses, it's ascending and descending nodes move backwards at 1 orbit per 18.61 years (draconic period) thus the eclipse year is 346 days and June eclipses, May eclipses etc occur once every 9.305ish years. And the line of nodes and line of apsides cross each other every c. 6 years which is when coronas and sun rings can last more than a few minutes. Every few years the solar eclipses start partial and polar, then get better then tropical then the other pole then partial, this is the 2018-21 thing in the "related eclipses". And of course the lunar eclipses do something similar but 180 degrees out of phase. The new and full moons repeat every 19 years (which is the Metonic cycle of "related eclipses": eclipses obviously must occur in multiples of 29.53059 days (lunar month) or half month and the whole number of lunar months that's closest to a small amount of whole years is 235 (=19 years), 8 years is also kind of close, thus 16 too (3 years is off by 3 or 4 days but enough to make 8 yrs better than 9), 38, 57, 76, and 76+8=84 years which is also very close, the Moon's orbit is 27.3 days (sidereal month) eclipse cycles like Saros align with this. Saros is 18 years and 10.32 or 11.32 days (depending on leap days, 4 or 5?), in summary there are lots of eclipse cycles and the closest analogy I know to something popular is octaves and fifths and fourths and major and minor thirds and other just intonations of small whole number ratios in music with consecutive eclipses being like quarter tones or semitones, closest but most dissonant/dissimilar. The many concurrent cycles are useful for various purposes and named after Ancient Mesopotamian, Mesomerican and maybe Greco-Roman words since those people just happened to be good at discovering astronomy cycles so they get weird names like inex and tzolkinex. The first surviving records of saroses are Ancient Neo-Babylonian thus the scientific community uses their name. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of which are reasons why it's interesting, but not reasons for why a one paragraph article should be put on the front page of Wikipedia. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – Interesting event. STSC (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's interesting quality content on Wikipedia that is in the news. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If only for the reason that gatekeeping at ITN is why ITN grows stale so often, so quickly. It's current, it's in the news, it's worth a mention surely. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vermont for Illustration Speaks for itself, just look at it, amazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: All proposed blurbs say "annular", yet none of the proposed pics shows "annular". No ring? Can someone craft a blurb that will go well with one of the pics, please? Thanks. The pic with the Statue of Liberty is already protected. Are we using this pic? If not, please get that protected first. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 6/10/2021 eclipse category of Wikipedia Commons had no ring pics. I took a shot at a blurb.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a struggle to find pictures of the annulus even on media sites which can pay for copyrighted images. It seems the path was just very very remote. --LukeSurlt c 04:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then let's not mention "annular" in the blurb. Whether it was annular or deep or... depends on where on Earth it was observed. Is blurb4 acceptable, please? Too simple and uninformative? --PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Do 10 June people still say June 10th? Then that might be a compromise with 10 June or 10th June (does anyone say that?). 2. The photo was taken roughly a mile from any part of New York State which some might consider misleading. Some people don't know this but the Statue of Liberty is only New York cause the law doesn't follow the geography, it's 1.5 miles from the NY mainland, 1 mile from the nearest island of the NY half of the harbor, half mile from the NJ mainland and slightly further to the nearest NY water but they made a tiny hole in New Jersey that is not Jersey just so NY can rep the statue. So the tip of her copper hair is about 230 feet northeast and 270 feet above the closest Jersey water. Otherwise sure why not, blurb 4. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would the modified blurb 4 by any better, Sagittarian Milky Way? --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: Yes, seems good, probably change to June 10th though as that seems to be less uncommon in the UK than June 10 while Americans don't mind the th. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not as cool as the Vermont pic, but cool enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The statue pic was supposed to be 0.203 or 0.204 Sun diameters showing but there was a crap-ton of scattered clouds in the NYC area around mid-eclipse. Toronto got even deeper eclipse than Vermont and 2 vids from Canada were put on Wikipedia Commons (Canada's only contribution to the June '21 eclipse category). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And very late Canada suddenly decided to upload 7 more files. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sorry but I'm just not seeing the general newsworthiness of this. WaltCip- (talk)  11:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that what "In the News" is about? Thanks for splaining. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. You could make the argument that my !vote is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. WaltCip- (talk)  13:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like it cuz 'twas raining – cudn't see it. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have questioned this posting at WP:ERRORS, as the article quality is insufficient. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and consensus to post such a stubby article was by no means clear at all. Suggest this is removed until we can generate more information than in a stub and reduce that dreadful "see also" section to something akin to an encyclopedic article.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 06:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Joseph2302, you asked "why was it posted?" on WP:ERRORS. Well, it was good enough to me for ITN. It wasn't great, but it was good enough. "Barely" good enough. ITN was getting stale on a slow news day. Looking for anything not bad on ITN/C and this was the only one there that was "ready". The nice pics helped. I consider them part of the updating. --PFHLai (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pulled I'm afraid per the above, and WP:ERRORS. Quality concerns, particularly around length, haven't been addressed yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a seriously ill omen. At least for my people. It's never coming back, folks, we tried! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. Just add a bit more detail to the article, including some actual news and reactions to the event that weren't already known about 10,000 years ago, and I'll be the first to post it back up again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I looked at the main page this morning and admired the photo of the eclipse (right), which was especially effective. Now I see that it has been pulled to restore an inferior photo which has already been up for days.  But notice that the eclipse article has already gotten |Juno_(spacecraft) five times the readership of the older blurb.  Our readers don't care how much prose such articles have.  What matters are the pictures and the eclipse is winning. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, ITN is not WP:TOP25. Perhaps you should start an RFC to make it that way as you continually appear to want that.  Commons is for pretty pictures, Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles whose content should be more than a stub and an ridiculously over-blown "see also" section.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't appreciate the arithmetic and geometry that makes chronologically distant eclipses rhyme but there is a well-made well-referenced non-stub on eclipse cycles with prose, tables and Jean Meeus references, he's like a world expert on astronomical calculations, this isn't just something someone made up to pad the article. The lede of eclipse cycle has a very helpful NASA animation of the single-eclipse maps of solar saros 136 to explain (#136 since the series of 2873-1593 BC)). Adjacent ones (223 lunar months apart) are very alike, slowly evolving over a millennium and change (graze of the penguins or polar bears to direct hit of the tropics to graze of the other cold). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * PPP comment – This sort of 'celestial' mini-event gets stale fast. Pulling it was a good move. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is done. Suggest closing the discussion. Jehochman Talk 17:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't normally close when the objections are mainly on quality. I'm not holding my breath, but it might yet be fleshed out sufficiently to warrant a re-post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is a gallery and stats dump, definitely not suitable for the MP. There isn't really much more to say about the event - almost no inhabited locations saw the annular phase, so it's all just photos of a partial eclipse. Those are always nice to see, and I was pleased to see the event myself, but not of much encyclopaedic value. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador

 * Weak support I'm usually pretty open on allowing all sorts of blurbs, but a small country that doesn't have its own currency is naming a non-currency as a legal tender? This seems like a pretty small-potatoes level story.  I won't object or stand in the way of it being posted, the article is fine, and this has been covered by reliable sources, but it's not really a significant story.  This is really not a big deal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and this seems to be making global headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's a country that has the US dollar as its currency rather than its own currency anyway. But there is lots of news coverage of this event nevertheless. And makes sense to put it on ITN now, even though it doesn't become an official currency for 90 days. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. A strange move, but a potentially significant one. The article is brief but sufficient. I would have liked to see more of the response/commentary that's being reported in the media, but that's not a requirement. Should the blurb say this is the first cryptocurrency to become legal tender, or did somewhere else adopt a non-Bitcoin version before? If this is the first cryptocurrency of any form, I would prefer to just say that in the blurb, rather than advertising Bitcoin itself. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this is certainly in the news, I don't necessarily see the significance of it. Quite frankly, it sounds more like a PR stunt (as mentioned in the article). -- Calidum  16:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support clearly significant milestone in the history of cryptocurrencies, as the first ever nation to adopt one. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @NorthernFalcon The article doesn't mention it, but the Petro and the digital renminbi are government backed cryptocurrencies that already exist. The digital renminbi is officially legal tender. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The digital renminbi isn't a cryptocurrency, and given that it's value is tied to the renminbi, I don't count it as a separate currency. Likewise, the "Petro" has a value that is tied to something else that has its own market value.  That said, it would be notable for Bitcoin (as the largest cryptocurrency) to gain legal tender status anywhere in the world.  Furthermore, in my opinion any country changing or altering its currency would be notable enough for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking it up you're correct, thank you. Still, they're functionally equivalent so I still don't see the significance of this - the difference between a digital currency and a cryptocurrency is that crypto is decentralised and anonymous, and it works in a different way accordingly. [Investopedia ] But still, functionally equivalent. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Definitely in the news, but we should remember that we don't necessarily post everything in the news, even if it's getting lots of coverage, if it's not significant. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because other countries have made official cryptocurrencies, and this isn't that significant in the grand scheme of things. Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant, as it's just a politician politicking. I don't expect people in a country with a nominal GDP of $4,041 and an underdeveloped technology sector to pay the high transaction fees or even be able to use it for transactions (i.e. the entire point of making it a currency), and people could already use it as a medium to invest. Uses x (leave me a message) 16:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this isn't the first country to make cryptocurrency an official currency. Venezuela has the Petro (no success there), China is developing and testing a digital yuan, etc. What's special about Bitcoin that differentiates itself from these? Uses x (leave me a message) 17:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very brave decision and certainly a huge milestone in the history of cryptocurrencies. Putting everything aside, this is the first designation of a decentralised cryptocurrency as legal tender.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A blurb needs to be suggested without "the first country to ...", as - In_the_news. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In a situation like this, being first *is* the news story, El Salv. being the first country to accept crypto. Its similar to when we had headlines along the lines of "first country to recognize gay marriage" or the like. The news is about crypto being accepted for the first time by any national government, not so much El Salv.'s specific role to it. --M asem (t) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First decentralised cryptocurrency. I've named two cryptocurrencies above that were the firsts. Anyway, it's implied that it's 'the first' just by being in a blurb, so it doesn't need to be stated. If it weren't the first it wouldn't even be considered. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, its the first non-govt' developed crypto, or first crypto to be adapted by a govt. However, in the case of the blurb, if we just left it as "El Salvador designates Bitcoin as legal tender.", while true and implicitly suggests a first, it undervalues why that story is in the news, and would imply to readers that if other countries later opt to use crypto that we'd announce them too. Being the first (with those cavaets) is the story here and needs to be explicitly stated, and that does mean we likely will never post the second country that follows suit. Whether we need to clarify that this was the first external/decentralized crypto, I dunno, but "the first" is critical here. --M asem (t) 19:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not yet. Bitcoin will start becoming legal tender 90 days after the publication of the law in the official gazette. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  20:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A notable first, with substantial news coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support first is first, and it's a decision that (theoretically at least) affects everyone in El Salvador. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article has one section: History. And much of that has nothing to do with history.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't change anything in practice, and is it really ITN-worthy tech news that the most popular crytpocurrency has become national currency until El Salvadorians accidentally screw up its value? I'd post the bitcoin exchange rate going wild, but like the petro, this is really a non-story until something actually changes to either ES or bitcoin. Kingsif (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous two posts, plus lack of general significance and thin RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Notable event. STSC (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose- The law is not effective yet. Change the wording along the lines of "El Salvador passes a law having decentralised cryptocurrency as legal tender, the first country to do so".
 * Preceding posted by IP user 73.111.22.127 at 05:00, 11 June 2021. – Sca (talk)


 * Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ann Russell Miller

 * Support short but sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The article is barely not a stub article but still on the short side. Is there a way to expand the article with the obits coming in? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tilly Hirst

 * Support quality is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard R. Ernst

 * Support career could be expanding maybe, but more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Juno flyby of Ganymede

 * comment: this appears to be the last destination of juno first mission extension, so i would personally consider it falling within the scope of itn/r. (to save others a click, itn/r states "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations".)  the bolded article does not appear to have been updated since the flyby, though, with its last edit performed days ago.  the other article has one update, which simply added the photo above.  dying (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to be ITNR to me. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting event, decent article JW 1961 Talk 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as ITNR, article is fine. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The update is very thin, but in principle, it is a nice ITN story plus a great picture. Any chance the update could be extended to a short paragraph? Also, are we going to blurb each moon flyby, since other moons are planned? Asking in advance. --Tone 09:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though this is not ITNR - Ganymede was not an original target of the mission (the flyby was added for gravity assist purposes, when they had engine problems that prevented them from getting to to intended orbit of Jupiter). However the update is insufficient. The Juno article has one sentence and one image (diff), with most of that article on completely different topics. I think the bold link should be the Ganymede article, which is what readers will want to learn about. However the only update there is the same image, no prose at all. We should add a paragraph to Ganymede_(moon) and use that as the target. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb and started work on Ganymede_(moon), but don't have time to finish an update now. I'll come back later today if no-one else does it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted without an emboldened link to "Gannymede". Please let us know when you have finished your planned update there and the link can be emboldened as well then. Thanks --PFHLai (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time the blurb was posted, there was already a more substantial update at Ganymede_(moon) (3 sentences) than in the Juno article (one sentence). That remains the case. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for pointing this out. My mistake there. I have changed the bolding from Juno to Ganymede in the blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks ! <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farhad Humayun

 * Support Looks to be all sourced and ready.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Career" section could use a copyedit. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks gave the career section a go at copyediting. Please have a look. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also gave the prose some copyediting. Please check and make sure my editing did not change the meaning. I also put in two {cn} tags. The list of brands seems a little too long to be without sourcing. And please confirm the identity of his grandfather (see Talk:Farhad Humayun.) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks much. Looks good. Fixed the added CN tags including identify of grandfather. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good now, hopefully it can be posted soon as it is already pretty stale.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 U.S. Women's Open

 * I note via ITNR we already cover four major tennis events each year (include both the mens + womens events of each), so I don't know if the lesser competitions are necessarily appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a golf tournament, not a tennis tournament. The men's equivalent of this tournament (U.S. Open (golf)) is ITNR, but no women's golf tournaments are ITNR. So definitely worth being nominated, to see if there's consensus to post. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, of the Women's major golf championships, it's the oldest, and gives the most prize money. So if any women's golf tournament will make the front page, it'll be this one. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Crap, my bad, I missed it was the golf Open. There, given that the actual mens US Open is still two weeks away (such that these two tourneys are not connected like other mens/womens events) I would agree it should be considered as the top womens golf event, in terms of equity, since it clearly has international coverage. --M asem (t) 13:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's such a pity Yuka Saso's article is locked. She could've been the second Filipino athlete to be posted here (after Manny Pacquiao). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made/cleared the three pending edit requests on her page. --M asem (t) 14:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality would like to see a lot more text about the event itself e.g. text in the "Round summaries" section as well as just showing a scorecard. Especially on the playoff, as I'm not 100% clear on how it worked (I think they played two holes, then because it was still a tie, they played another hole?) Also, I'm very confused by what the numbers in brackets on the "Exemptions" section refer to- and they're not listed in the source. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability routine tournament in a very minor sport (unless you're from US) Abcmaxx (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a major, not a routine tournament, for the world's biggest women's tour in a pretty big sport. The vast majority of tournaments are won by non-Americans, including this one. 2 of the 5 majors are contested in Europe. There hasn't been a World #1 from the US since 2014; indeed, every #1 golfer since then has been Asian except for a New Zealander. Your statement simply makes no sense. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pretty big sport" - you sure we're talking golf right? It's a niche sport outside the US, regardless of where the competitors are from. World Tchoukball Championships are contested usually in Europe and East Asian teams win it but it does not make it a big international sport. Mobile phone throwing has competitors from all over the world too despite it originating in Finland, as do most sports. The "#1 golfer's" nationality is irrelevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Golf is not a niche sport outside the US, and besides, it has made an appearance at the Olympics. Your assertion that it's just a US thing is silly. That's like saying Soccer is just a European thing. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're comparing association football, the world's most popular sport to a minor sport played by a small handful of people in a small percentage of the globe. It's not a regular Olympic sport, and also polo and tug of war were in the Olympics too, again does not mark this event's notability. American football is played in Europe doesn't make it a global sport either. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, golf is one of ten most-watched sports on Earth. Second, though it's a relatively new addition, it's a "core" Olympics sport, so I don't have a clue what your point is. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. I mean, I hate golf, but at least I can look at it objectively. -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also it's ironic how this "US event" managed to have 3 non-Americans in the top 5, and 2 in the top 2. As well as the last 5 winners of this event are all non-American. Considering that the men's version is ITNR, there does seem to be some kind of logic problem here..... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gridiron Football absolutely is a global sport, but this is a silly conversation anyway, golf is a well-known sport, therefore, it should be listed in ITN -- and considering that the men's version of this is ITNR, this should be in here just to correct the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Gridiron Football absolutely is a global sport" honestly, I read a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia, but this is the cream on the biscuit. Good grief.  Where else, other than the US and Canada, is "gridiron" even taken seriously as a "sport"??  We watch the Superbowl for the half-time nipples and pre-match fly-past... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your definition of a "global sport", then? It's not just in the US and Canada that people play Gridiron football -- they play it professionally in Japan, China, and Mexico, and at the Collegiate level in the United Kingdom and South Korea as well. Considering that spans the globe, I think that qualifies as a global sport. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, seriously? Let's start with "every other sport on Earth" and work our way back.  At some point I recall you claimed to be studying post-grad degree, to somehow now claim that gridirion is global is frankly absurd.  Oh well!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with you? Mocking other users' intelligence, seriously? Have you read WP:CIVIL lately? You're way over the line with this comment, pal. Mlb96 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing that TRM does not do well at is being civil. But I have a thick skin, so I don't really care what he says or thinks. Thank you for sticking up for me, I appreciate it. Also, I didn't realize that understanding the global impact of sports related to my doctoral work in computer science, but OK then. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think the point here is that when one makes outlandish assertions such as "gridiron being global" they need to be corrected. It is woefully misguided to think that anyone outside the US/Canada is interested in any real sense in that version of "football".  It's a total fallacy.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm beginning to understand why you were desysopped all these years ago. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done you, a proud moment I'm sure of it. And nice swerve away from the fallacy-pushing I guess, bravo! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And my god, your links are so embarrassing, I'm not sure why you thought they were relevant. Seriously?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gridiron football is not at all relevant to this nomination, and this whole thread should probably be hatted. Abcmaxx's idiosyncratic view that golf is not a major sport is probably not going to be much of a factor as to whether this gets posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. All such absurd irrelevant non-sequitur comments should be censored.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They're relevant because you're making the claim that gridiron (not gridirion as you bizarrely spelled it) is not a global sport when it clearly is. As an aside, you're not even attacking my argument, just mocking it. Come up with a reason why my links are irrelevant in establishing that gridiron football is a global phenomenon, please. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The links speak for themselves. Honestly, this is amongst the funniest stuff I've read here this year, and it's still only June. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, all those things apply to e.g. tchoukball and mobile phone throwing; international top players from around the globe, played worldwide. American football isn't even popular in neighbouring Canada who share most league systems. Golf is mostly played, watched, hosted, broadcast and financed in the US; everywhere else it's either a minor sport or a very minor sport. Octopush and paintball is played at "collegiate level" in the UK too by the way. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sport was literally made in Scotland. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This, honestly, is the best response to the nonsense above, I've seen for an age.  has been properly trouted!   Thank you!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware, it how it got to the US in the 1st place, doesn't make it popular though does it? Even if for argument's sake we count the UK and Ireland and Japan having a "big" golf following, it's still tiny, it's even in the article: Golf. By that logic we should be including all sorts of competitions from all sports, not picking ones that happen to adhere to Anglo-Saxon tastes. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And we do!! Good grief. Go read WP:ITNR.  Wow, you ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT these days.  But hey, just yell about shit and it makes no difference.  Mis-apply logic or reinforce the systemic bias we see here, "Anglo-Saxon taste" for the love of "god".  Ridiculous.  Have your fun.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is fine. As always with sports nominations, the real problem is that it's just a list of names and score tables. Uses x (leave me a message) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- the men's version of this is ITNR, the women's version is notable too. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNR thus uses quality as its only defining parameter. You support this set of stats?  Honestly.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if updated. It's insane to claim this is a niche sport only popular in the US, particularly when the two golfers in the playoff were from the Philippines and Japan. -- Calidum  16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it doesn't really matter about significance vs the men's tournament or anything else, the article has basically no prose. It's a list of results.  Those supporting this kind of thing need to take a long hard look at what ITN is trying to do here.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality No prose summaries and a tediously long "exemptions to qualifying" section mean this is nowhere near ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but prose is needed for the final round, at a minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I decline to evaluate this nom till the article has some prose on the final round and the playoff. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless or another editor is actually going to add some prose to this article, it's never going to be accepted on ITN. And if one more thing is accepted at ITN, then this will be stale (i.e. older than the oldest content on ITN front page). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment at this point, this is obviously not going to make it to ITN before it becomes stale. Can someone close this? I would, but I'm too involved. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  17:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just needs someone who supports it already (!) to actually bring it up to a bare minimum quality. Seems that's not of interest though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any interest in golf or any sports at all, really. The only sport I ever played was soccer when I was little. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  18:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) ANOM sting operation

 * Comment In such cases, the outcome is what matters the most, not the very fact that the operation took place, so notability should be assessed based on some figures.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb, though more verbose. Brandmeistertalk  12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article uses "organised" rather than "organized", so I don't think the blurb should just be defaulting to US English spellings. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb. This seems like a well-coordinated large-scale operation with outcome that justifies the efforts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Favor Alt2. More than 800 arrests. Leads many RS sites. Seems quite a coup for int'l law enforcement.  – Sca (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt Notable large scale law enforcement operation that should mention the results.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Individual convictions in the future are unlikely to be notable. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as long as "organized" is changed to "organised" to match the spellings in the article. This is notable enough, and article is good enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Article seems to be missing a key fact, the number of arrests. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. Brandmeistertalk  14:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurbs are missing mention of the app – which criminals believed to be entirely secure. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The action and results constitute the news. Readers can learn about the (complex) app. in the article. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Many news articles explicitly point out that this is the first time a sting like this has been successfully perpetrated for such a long time and especially mention the ingenuity of essentially running a messenger service for criminals in order to entrap them. In fact, the whole article is named for this very app and the article heavily focuses on ANOM's creation and distribution. Not mentioning it in the blurb seems counterintuitive to say the least. Regards So  Why  19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt3 as the article is now fully cited, has most of the information that's out there, and the event is significant and doesn't happen often, certainly at least by this method. Uses x (leave me a message) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree alt3 is better as it gives info about the mechanism. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I added a third altblurb that mentions the network which I think is relevant (it is prominently mentioned in all news reports after all, including those sources mentioned in the nom). Regards So  Why  19:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one of the moste spectacular law enforcement operations in recent times, with far-reaching consequences for both the fight against organized crime and the struggle to maintain individual privacy in a world of ompipresent surveillance. -- The Anome (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * support. event is obviously notable as explained above, and article is of good quality considering it was started today.  however, the crux of the notability focuses on the fact that the messaging application was a ruse, which is not mentioned in the first three blurb proposals, and may be misleadingly described in the fourth, as it is unclear if the network is appropriately described as an "encrypted device network" if it deliberately allowed law enforcement to intercept its communications, regardless of whether or not the network actually used encryption.to address this issue, i have further muddled the blurb choices with alternative blurb iv.  note that i have used "secure" instead of "encrypted", since it is arguable whether or not it was the latter, but it was definitely not the former.  dying (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Appreciate not having the word "organized/organised" in the blurb. Less drama that way -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm here from the main page. When I saw the current blurb, I had to check the article to know which parts of the world were involved. "International" could encompass everything from two countries to two hundred. In my opinion, it's a bit too vague&mdash;"global" or "worldwide" might be better. In fact, I think "involving x countries throughout the world" or some variant thereof would be best. Kurtis (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording from "international" to "multinational" which still captures the breadth of countries involved without implying 200+ countries involved. --M asem (t) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I was actually trying to imply that the term "international" could convey a smaller scale than what had transpired, not that it was overstated. Kurtis (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of blurb space, we don't really have room to get into the number of countries involved. "Global/worldwide" implies large a scope given that this was mostly the US, European and Australian agencies at play. "Multinational" implies "more than 2" but not "every country", and at least for the blurb, the reader can follow the link to learn more which countries did support it. --M asem (t) 18:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for clarifying. Kurtis (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Introductory clause – Using information obtained from a compromised encrypted device network, – seems overly long and complex for at-a-glance ITN reading, IMO. – Sca (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Made an attempt to fix it by removing wordy: "information obtained from" - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That reads considerably better. TNX. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yoo Sang-chul

 * Oppose looks like it hasn't yet been improved. There must be much more that can be said about his career. "Managerial career" section needs more sources. Also, says he played 125 times for S Korea, not 124. And no sources anywhere in the article so far as I can see that support the fact he played for the S Korea Olympic (U23) or B teams (although they may be in the non-English sources). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment article has now been updated. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nigeria censorship of Twitter

 * Comment Has received major international attention, but should probably be its own article if it's going to be linked on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement for a separate article and I would strongly discourage this. The separate "Censorship of Twitter" page is already sufficiently separate for this purpose, just needs a proper expansion for this specific incident in Nigeria. --M asem (t) 17:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support getting significant global press coverage and it's related to a significant political issue (Biafra independence movement). The segment on Nigeria in the article is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, an important development in Nigerian political culture. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I'm mixed on notability, but it certainly needs to be longer than three paragraphs. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a bit. Still meh on notability, but considering the rest of the content it's just enough in terms of length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Receiving quite a lot of RS press coverage and international condemnation. The Censorship of Twitter target article is sufficient & not in poor shape. I like that the original blurb is concise, but I am not opposed to any of the alternatives. <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> 💙 21:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly Support Nigeria has one of the largest, if not the largest, Twitter user base in Africa, so the government banning it would have made it notable even without it getting so much attention. While I'm a bit weary about the article choice, it is serviceable in the absence of a full article on this dispute (although there are one or two "citation needed" tags that needto be addressed). Prefer to go with Original blurb for its conciseness. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Twitter's been banned numerous times in various locations. I can't recall if we posted the Turkish banning, or the Pakistani banning, but these sorts of things seem to be routine for the industry. Additionally, it's perverse to make the story about Twitter instead of the actual underlying story.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not call editors perverts – we are all working together here. And personally, I think both of the president's actions – threatening violence and subsequently restricting his citizens' internet access and free speech – are reprehensible, but only one has been deemed to be notable by the outside world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW: perverse. The proposed bold link also makes clear that this is almost routine for this company.130.233.213.61 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Seems largely parochial, lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This would make Twitter more important than it actually is, and unwise and/or threatening posts by warring politicians on the platform is (sadly) nothing new and a global trend at that Abcmaxx (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Peruvian general election

 * Comment While TeleSur appears as a source in this nom, it is not present in the article. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed with source I've been using to update the article's results. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until results are written into the article, otherwise the rest of the article looks solid. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support after results announced per nomination Abcmaxx (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a completely pointless nomination. All that matters is the prose, and we can't know if the prose will be sufficient until after the election results are in. Even if the rest of the article is perfect, I'm not going to support posting something if the most important part of it isn't (and can't) be written yet. Why not just nominate the French Open before we know who's playing in the finals? Why don't we nominate old people for RD before they're dead? -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone has a ITN nomination for 'Death of Queen Elizabeth II' prepared and saved somewhere on their computer. Dat GuyTalkContribs 05:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Post the day before it happens so I get credit for it" nominations rub me the wrong way. While we're waiting, does anyone want to form consensus for Olympics to go in ongoing in two months? I say support. /s AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the editor in question is also an article contributor, so they can get an article contributor credit anyway. But nominating a day or so before the election results is announced is way too premature. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that the motivation here is merely to get credit? 331dot (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever; that was a total bad faith assumption.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until the results, and support per WP:ITN/R . --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Support per ITNR" is unnecessary, as the whole point of ITNR nominations is that support on the merits is not required; this discussion is to discuss article quality and a blurb(as well as timing). 331dot (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad, I didn't notice that the nomination was already made according as a recurring item. Thank you for letting me know, I'm striking that part at least for the sake of simplicity. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until actual results are confirmed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait For official results to be confirmed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The result is almost beyond doubt, in favor of Castillo, but of course we need to wait for the official source and for the prose update to the article. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE Looking at the Results from the official election website, 100% of the vote is in with Castillo in the lead meaning he has won the election. The Wall Street Journal also said that Castillo has all but won the election --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article remains unaffected by this new information, which would preclude it being posted on the main page unless and until that is rectified. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been called as the election hasn't been officially validated, and there could be a recount, etc. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Pakistan train crash
Support because it's important enough and the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The article needs a lot of work, it's a stub and has been tagged with link rot. Once the article is up in good shape, then I'd support. Support Article's linkrot issue has been fixed and it is being expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article. Widely covered and prominently featured on RS sites, most of which say at least 40 killed. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - per Sca and as death toll is in double digits. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article and meets the criteria for nomination. Pyramids09 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Addo Bonetti

 * Support sourcing is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John M. Patterson

 * Oppose for now as the sourcing isn't there yet, but it's clearly being worked on and I'd expect it to be ready soon. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see I had missed sourcing the "failed elections" section. It's sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Earliest-serving and oldest living former U.S. governor. Also, deaths of segregationists are always fun. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada truck attack

 * Oppose While a hate-related crime, it does not appear to be terrorism related nor premediated based on the given sources. Its a sad event, but not the type of crime we'd cover on ITN. --M asem (t) 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was a premeditated act. The BBC headline is "Muslim family killed in 'premeditated' truck attack". According to police: "There is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act". This is also now being covered widely internationally.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant in the sense, in comparison to most terrorist acts, that the man didn't plan this act out. The act was likely premediated as in "premediated murder" in the sense the suspect appears to very much dislike Muslims, saw the opportunity to run down the family, and did so on the spot. Yes, its being covered internationally because hate crimes in Canada are rare, but this is not like, say, 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa which was terrorism related. --M asem (t) 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Same deal, the premeditation's in the type of planned target. In 2014, it was soldiers. Now, it's Muslims. MINIMUMDEATHCOUNT-wise, this is the significant one. In a political outrage sense, most Canadians expect that if terrorists kill anyone, it should be our soldiers, not every demographic of traditional nuclear family on our streets; Could be some big (federal and provincial) ramifications. At least this one has someone to slowly punish in public, like in 2017. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lone wolf attacks aren't ITN material as crimes happen every day. Terrorist attacks of this sort, just like the ones in the U.S., tend to get lots of clicks so they get a lot of articles written about them even though they aren't very significant. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disaster stub at this moment. I'm not convinced of notability either.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- we wouldn't include an attack of this magnitude if it were in the US or the UK. I don't think there's any good argument that it should be included in ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. Killings in Africa, Asia & the US with death tolls that are multiple times this one occur frequently & the large majority aren't posted. A high proportion aren't even nominated. Jim Michael (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Prosecutors are considering terrorism charges"- this means it's a hate crime, but not necessarily a terrorist attack. So I agree with 's reasoning for why it's not notable enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mochtar Kusumaatmadja

 * Comment One citation needed tag. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As that's resolved, assuming good faith on the citations (they're mainly from books) it's fully cited and there's a good amount of information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you for notifying. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Robinson

 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Dushman

 * Support (t · c)  buidhe  04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 IIHF World Championship

 * The specific final article should be bold and right now its tables and no text. Stephen 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * question: does the article's usage of a template that is being considered for deletion have any effect on whether this article is eligible for posting? i understand that articles being considered for deletion are typically not posted, but am not sure if the same applies to articles using such templates.  also, the template for discussion template appears to be breaking the formatting of two of the tables.  dying (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, since templates can just be replaced. It looks like it'll be kept anyway, so it's just a problem of it looking terrible because of the deletion notice. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now because both 2021 IIHF World Championship and 2021 IIHF World Championship Final lack updated prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more prose about the matches themselves, as there is currently almost none. The bolded article needs some tenses updating in places. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Needs a referenced prose summary of the tournament and/or the final. Currently most of the text is about COVID restrictions and changes of venue, rather than what actually happened during the competition. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: T. B. Joshua

 * Comment The lead section will have to get re-worked, other than that, the article looks alright since it's well-sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is currently tagged with Too many sections. Can this issue be addressed soon, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy TV awards

 * Support blurb If we post the Emmys, I don’t see a compelling reason to not post the British Academy Television Awards, particularly considering that we post the BAFTAs for film. Probably the second-most high profile English language television awards. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is in pretty good shape and per Wizardontheyear. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have we ever posted the British Academy Television Awards on ITN previously? Has there been any attempt to nominate for ITN/R? WaltCip- (talk)  00:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There was an ITN/R discussion in August 2020. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb 1 Article appears stubby, merely because the 2,7kb of prose is above and below tables. Well written otherwise. The altblurbs are awkward (alt1) and UNDUE (alt2).130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * comment: apparently, both and  to itn/r were performed by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry.  i was hoping to find the reasoning behind their additions in the relevant consensus-establishing discussions, but could not find one.  (i could easily be looking in the wrong places, though.)  however, i did find a discussion about a month prior to the additions where, in my opinion, no consensus had been established.  also, there have been calls in recent years to remove the emmys from itn/r, at least once each in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.  dying (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discussion ITNR issues, nor to propose a new ITNR. Only key is that we have repeated published - when the articles is up to par - the Emmy winners, and thus reasonable to see if one of the other top TV shows currently not an ITNR can be nominated per ITNC . --M asem (t) 00:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies, i had not meant to propose an inclusion or exclusion to itn/r here, but merely wished to explain why i had felt that the current arguments for notability of this year's bafta tv awards seem lacking. i had wanted to understand why the emmys were considered notable enough for inclusion in itn/r, hoping that it would allow me to understand if this year's bafta tv awards were notable enough to post on itn, but i could not find a consensus establishing the former.  to be clear, i had been interpreting each !vote here as for posting on itn, not for inclusion on itn/r.  if you still feel that the comment is inappropriate, i can strike the comment if you prefer.  dying (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * question: regardless of whether the emmys should be included in itn/r, why are this year's british academy television awards notable enough to be posted to itn? genuine question, as i am unfamiliar with television awards in general.  i couldn't find the viewership numbers for this year's bafta tv awards, but according to deadline, it appears that only about two million people watched this year's bafta film awards live.$[original research]$  considering that reuters reported that decreased viewership has been "a trend among live awards shows during the coronavirus pandemic", i would assume that interest in this year's bafta tv awards are similarly dismal.$[original research]$  in addition, the telegraph review of this year's show does not seem favourable.  the only current arguments for notability i see above appear to hinge on the emmys being notable enough for itn/r, which itself seems questionable.  dying (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not a factor for INTC, nor is reception of the awards ceremony. The question to ask is if in the world of television media, if the BAFTA TV awards represent a sufficiently high level of award to be included as ITNC. --M asem (t) 00:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And to add to this, each ITNC is standalone, so the assertion that the only current arguments for notability i see above appear to hinge on the emmys being notable enough for itn/r is completely wrong. The Emmys being in ITN/R could be (and has been) just one of several arguments for adding BATAs to ITN/R, but this is something that posting at ITN/C doesn't hinge on in the slightest. Judge this nom on its own merits, not on whether one newspaper was impressed with the production or if you think the Emmys should be ITN/R or not. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * popularity and reception of the awards ceremony are currently all the information i have that could be relevant, which is why i was hoping that someone else could explain how this year's bafta tv awards were notable. also, i'm not sure if qualifying the notability question by adding "in the world of television media" is appropriate, since similar qualifications can be applied for other nominations.  ("in the world of eve online, does the battle of b-r5rb represent a sufficiently notable battle to be posted on itn?")to make it clear, i do not believe that the bafta tv awards are not notable.  i simply don't know if they are, and none of the arguments i have seen above so far have convinced me, someone who knows admittedly virtually nothing about television awards, that the bafta tv awards this year are notable enough to be posted to itn.  also, regardless of whether the bafta tv awards belong in itn/r, i am evaluating this itn/c nomination on its own merits, which is why my question included the phrase "this year's".  (currently, i have no concerns over the article's quality.)  my shoddy research had found mention of celebrities appearing in holograph form, which might be notable, but it seemed like they only showed up on the red carpet, so i was unsure of its relevance.i agree that determining this nomination's merits on itn/c should not be based on whether the emmys are in itn/r, which is why i prefaced my question with "regardless of whether the emmys should be included in itn/r", and why i am unconvinced by the other arguments that appear based on the emmy's inclusion in itn/r.  for example, the statement "If we post the Emmys, I don't see a compelling reason to not post the British Academy Television Awards" appears to base the notability of the subject of this nomination on the recurring posting of the emmys, and not, for example, one instance of its posting, in which case the opinion may have been better conveyed by stating "If we posted the Emmys" instead.i linked the review not because the reviewer was unimpressed by the production, but because the first purpose of itn is "[t]o help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news", and considering that the reviewer stated that the ceremony "veered from cheerless to underwhelming and then circled all the way around", i gathered that not many readers would be interested in quickly accessing this content.  the review also notes that "there were a few mild surprises but no bombshells" regarding the winners, which meant to me that readers generally interested in the list of winners and not the ceremony itself may also not be as interested in this year's article.  other reviews were available, but this one was from a solidly reliable source, and also seemed to be the most favourable amongst the ones i had found.  dying (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how awards like this work. Rarely, the significance of the award is discussed in depth with the current year's ceremony, but instead that is instead established over many years from multiple other sources. We judge inclusion of such awards or sports events at ITNC (if there's no ITNR) based on evaluating how important that is in that field, which may requiring going beyond the specific year, as well as making sure the specific year's ceremony is in the news and the specific year ceremony is up to date. Eg: we don't include stuff like the Nickelodeon Kids Choice awards because while they may have coverage, we know from their history they are not considered top tier awards in the industry. But BAFTAs, in general, are on par with the big US academies in its history. --M asem (t) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What Masem said: 1. how popular something is, doesn't really matter. 2. the above support that said there is no good reason not to post because the Emmys are ITN/R is not, as you interpreted, saying that the Emmys being ITN/R is a reason to post - it is suggesting that the ITN/R of an equivalent award means that any personal prejudice against posting TV award ceremonies is not a compelling oppose (and that user saw no other reasons, so supported). As an additional note, I also find it bizarre that you think a negative review means that people won't be interested in accessing information about an event, especially awards: they most likely want to see the results and don't care about the production value. Since this is wildly off-topic but I'm sure nobody cares to start explaining to you further at the talkpage, I've collapsed it. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's a notable ceremony and the article looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) The Birth of Lilibet Mountbatten Windsor

 * Oppose Essentially just celebrity news. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The child is unlikely to take the throne and Harry/Megan have withdrawn from royal duties. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we're not a gossip chat for (former) royals. Questionable if a baby more today should even have an article, as WP:NOTINHERITED applies. But definitely not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose. her brother was also not posted.  dying (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose its newsworthiness is questioned even in Britain by media critics; never mind as a global event. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose good to know, but not big news. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not realistically in line for the throne. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose great to hear but definitely not blurb worthy --Vacant0 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not worthy of ITN. I suggest a WP:SNOW close.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Sri Lanka floods

 * Comment Perhaps better for ongoing, per nom comment? Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For ongoing we need to be confident that it'll continue to be updated, but right now it's not even long enough for a blurb. One thing at a time. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing would benefit from a bit of expansion, but it's clearly an ongoing issue. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not believe that the two flood events highlighted in the article is significant enough to go up on WP:ITN or Ongoing especially with only 14 deaths. I also firmly believe that we as a community need to look carefully at how we present flood articles and other such weather articles. For example: are these two flood events really notable enough to be split of from a general Floods in Sri Lanka article especially since one is associated with the monsoonal rains.Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The weather project editors seem to feel differently, just look at how many routine storms get nominated. Kingsif (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Major hurricanes and typhoons that make landfall are often key events even if they are usual seasonal occurrences. But so are floods and things like tornado cells that are associated with northern hemispehere spring-summer conditions. It is not that we won't post floods or tornadoes but they should have a much more significant impact that the usual occurences. --M asem (t) 13:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly speaking as a member of the Weather Project, I can tell you that editors within the project, don't tend to feel differently and only tend to nominate something unless they know it's going to have a or has had a significant impact on an area and by significant we generally mean we expect to see the retirement of the weather systems name where applicable. However, we have to remember that editors who do not contribute to the weather project can and do nominate events for ITN even when they are generally routine and is why we wanted to get some criteria set up. However, it isn't easy and we have to go on a case by case basis. Also it is worth noting that the weather project has only just really been set up and is hoping to improve coverage of weather events across the board including flooding, so that we can get a better idea of what's notable and what isn't. However, to do so we need editors like yourself to contribute with your local knowledge on what happens in your country.Jason Rees (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Routine, as flash floods occur in Sri Lanka (with usually a higher number of deaths) at around this time every year. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sad, but normal... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Somaliland parliamentary election

 * Oppose Unlike Kosovo, which is partially recognised, Somaliland is internationally considered to be part of Somalia. Because of that, we don't post elections in any other self-proclaimed separatist entity, such as the Republic of Artsakh. Brandmeistertalk  11:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a hard-and-fast rule. The rule is that states listed on List of sovereign states get ITN/R, states listed on List of states with limited recognition (i.e. Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland) get ITN/C. Elections in the Republic of Artsakh could very well be posted under these rules. If you individually don't think this election is important enough to pass through ITN/C that's one thing, but it is an eligible submission per policy, not inherently restricted from posting as you imply. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It has a historical precedent, Artsakh elections were rejected at least once due to unrecognized status. Brandmeistertalk  13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – ""Somaliland's self-proclaimed independence has not been officially recognised by any country or international organisation." Thus, voting results there don't qualify for ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sca It doesn't qualify for ITN/R, but that's not what the nomination is for. The nominator comment says everything. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, Somaliland is a self-proclaimed political entity that's not recognised by other countries but this election was observed by representatives of UN member states, which gives it international legitimacy and it may lead to wider recognition according to political experts. Additionally, this is the first parliamentary election in sixteen years in a political entity whose independence has been matter of a thirty-year long and still ongoing civil war. As compared to Kosovo as a recent precedent, it has double of its population and 16 times greater territory. Marrying up all these things, this is a significant election that merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Somaliland isn't a country. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fine, and even though it's not ITN/R 3.5 million live in Somaliland (The Republic of Artsakh, which Brandmeister used as an example, has 120,000), as well as it being the first election in 16 years, so it's a significant election. The fact that the European Union, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom helped fund the election, as well as ambassadors supporting the election, shows the election can't just be dismissed. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski. Somaliland is the textbook case of a de facto rather than de jure state. I understand its not ITNR for this reason but that's also not automatic grounds for dismissal. The article is adequate and well-describes an election that determines the effectively sovereign government of a large jurisdiction. --LukeSurlt c 16:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support They are a  de facto independent state and have been for a long time. The Somali government does not have any de facto jurisdiction over Somaliland therefore who wins this election governs the land in its entirety. The main difference is that unlike some other unrecognised states it is not a puppet government installed by a foreign power either. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril Simeonovski and others who supported before me. IMO, they have summarised strong arguments in favour of posting. 45.251.33.143 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Armenia is a partially-recognised state and was posted before. Honestly don't see why this shouldn't be posted. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically only Pakistan doesn’t recognise Armenia, so Armenia is recognised by almost every country. But I agree that this should be posted. 45.251.33.143 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Somaliland is de facto a state, I agree with Kiril's statement above. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Most of the opposition seems to be related to the fact that Somaliland is not recognized as an independent nation, but this is not an ITNR nomination where that would be relevant, and the article seems in good shape. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, The article says that Waddani wins 31 seats, not majority seats. However they announced coalition with UCID. Maybe we should revize the blurb.Joseph (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have amended it to "the most seats". 331dot (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that Somaliland is not a country goes to the significance of the event, which is one of the three mandatory criteria that an article must meet to get a blurb. I'm not saying that the blurb should be pulled at this point, nor am I saying that there wasn't consensus to post. But those opposes were in fact relevant, and you shouldn't have dismissed them outright. Mlb96 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, we did not post the results of the Northern Cyprus election because of a lack of consensus to post, and most people who opposed did so on the grounds of "not a country, not significant" (including myself). Mlb96 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that item wasn't posted because it became stale – nothing to do with consensus. The 2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election and the 2018 Northern Cypriot parliamentary election were posted, however. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So it was. However, my point still stands and it is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Mlb96 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The policy says internationally recognized states are ITN/R, and states with limited recognition should be judged on their merits through ITN/C. You say not being internationally recognized should have bearing on significance as assessed by ITN/C. But if a nation were internationally recognized, it would be ITN/R and we wouldn't have to assess significance at all. What you're saying is a Catch-22. The policy as written clearly indicates that some elections from states with limited recognition are blurb eligible. So how do votes simply expressed along the lines of "nope, not a country" hold water? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems irrelevant, given that the vast majority of comments are in support. Debating this point of contention further would be an entirely academic matter. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Such an election could be significant, if, for example, a leader who supported reintegration into the original country or a leader who supported an all-out war of independence were elected. Contrast this with an internationally recognized country, in which the elections are inherently significant no matter what, and we reflect this by making them ITN/R. You are essentially treating these elections as also being inherently significant, which is directly adverse to the "not ITN/R, judge on their own merits" policy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Solhan and Tadaryat massacres

 * Support - a notable event, unusual both for the country and for the horrific scale. The article is in ok shape and I have confidence it will continue to improve. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Significant enough, but the article needs to be longer. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Notable due to the huge death toll but article needs expansion. --ϗ (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable on significance, everything is cited. Certainly would be nicer if it was longer, but it's acceptable as is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very much notable. The article could use some work, but given how cloak and dagger the perpetrators are, maybe that's not so surprising.  Mel ma nn   10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle. – BBC puts toll in Solhan at 132. However, more sources needed. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Could use some background e.g. Terrorism in Burkina Faso .—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable and article's good enough (although could be better). Brycehughes (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per notability. Article is not as bad. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) G7 agreement on global corporate tax rate

 * Oppose as it's premature. Right now it's only a statement of intent and isn't binding in any way. Next, the larger group of G20 members will be presented with the idea, and if they give the okay there will be a lot of discussion on the small details. Then, 130 countries need to give the okay. (Irish Examiner) It's certainly in the news, but I think the story lacks significance because right now it doesn't mean anything, and the details haven't been added to the article. It's blurb-worthy if/when it becomes binding. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to figure out the "next steps" to understand how binding this G7 was, and would generally agree we need a more likely firm point that this will happen. But we also generally post when the news seems to recognize a major step, which is what this is being called. But we absolutely need a proper target for this and that I don't know. --M asem (t) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The G7 summit article has not been updated. Corporate tax could be a target, but it has orange tags. Joofjoof (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance All G7 Summits are ITN/R, and therefore pass ITN on significance. There's a couple of uncited paragraphs, so it's not ready yet, but it shouldn't be difficult to change that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this year's summit is June 11-13. From WP:ITN/R: "Summits are posted upon conclusion". Joofjoof (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking as ITN/C. As Joofjoof said only the conclusion of a G7 summit is ITN/R. That isn't to say that this nomination shouldn't be judged on its merits; a singular newsworthy event could take place within a summit, but the community consensus beforehand was only regarding the summit itself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even the deal to back a proposal hasn't been finalized, and the seemingly associated summit hasn't started. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I am broadly supportive of this, but it is too early. If some kind of actual agreement is reached that is transposed into international law then ITN should mention it for sure.  Mel ma nn   10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not happening yet. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for 13th - as commented above ITN/R, but the summit hasn't even begun yet. Worth hanging onto until it closes in a week. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the summit starts and we'll reassess what is significant at that time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait and close. Agreements at summits are borderline CRYSTAL, commonly requiring domestic approval from differently-minded constituents. Leaks of talking points that might be agreed at a summit are several miles into CRYSTAL.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karla Burns

 * RD only This doesn't even come close to the significance level required for a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only Not that significant for blurb level. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It's possible Laurence Olivier himself would not have received a blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb She's nowhere near transformative in her field, and the death itself isn't really generating noteworthy reaction. rawmustard (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Is a blurb really even "being discussed" here? There is obviously no chance of it. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Clarence Williams III

 * Oppose Career and personal life sections need sourcing work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose still in need of many sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Friederike Mayröcker

 * Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Works section has no footnotes. Do we require footnotes in the lists down there, too? The referencing in the prose of this wikiarticle seems fine. --PFHLai (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PFHLai, it has now a ref for the audio plays and the libretto. The book are identified by ISBN numbers, I believe that suffices. If not we can cite the DNB (in authority control). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found this source: http://www.literaturhaus.at/index.php?id=8245 with complete works. Grimes2 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Thanks for adding the footnotes so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Anerood Jugnauth

 * Adding a blurb to the nomination so we have something to vote on. Oppose on quality: sections "2012–2014" and "Family life" are entirely unsourced, unsourced paragraphs in much of the rest of the article. Support blurb when improved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article needs a lot of referencing work as there are unsourced paragraphs and sections. If article is improved, then I would support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty much is unsourced. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  06:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * comment:, i believe it depends on the notability of the leader and the quality of the article. former president of india abdul kalam received a blurb in 2015, but former president of india pranab mukherjee did not last year.  more recently, in march, former president of madagascar didier ratsiraka received a blurb, while former prime minister of bangladesh moudud ahmed was skipped altogether.  also, notability does not appear to excuse article quality, as former president of france jacques chirac was also completely skipped.  dying (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , after reading your linked nominations I thought this had to do with their influence. Abdul Kalam played a pivotal role in developing India's nuclear weapon and continued to do so after his ascension to presidency. Ratsiraka served as president for nearly two decades and transformed Madagascar into a socialist state before returning it to its original state. On the other hand, there is hardly anything outstanding from Moudud Ahmed and Pranab Mukherjee's tenure as the leader of their respective country. Jacques Chirac is an outlier, I guess. ϗ (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most of the article seems to be unsourced --Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality because the article is lacking a significant number of citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle but oppose on quality for now. If he were just a president or PM, then he'd probably be not very significant but considering he was both president and PM, he should be blurbed. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also his son is the current PM, which increases his visibility and importance IMO. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: F. Lee Bailey

 * Support An interesting character. I'm assuming good faith on the book citations, but if that text is anything like the rest (with a spot check of each section) then all the information appears to be correct. The article is also comprehensive and well researched. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per Uses X; comprehensive, well researched, and very notable. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond J. Donovan

 * Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) International Booker Prize

 * I've managed to expand the article a bit, will see if I can add more later - Dumelow (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The International Booker is jointly awarded to author and translator. Stephen 23:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb. P-K3 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a note at ITNR that author and translator should be included in blurb. --M asem (t) 05:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready The article is fine and well-referenced given the available sources of information. There's really no need to wait any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, looks fine and it is ITNR. --Tone 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * File:David Diop (2018).png is available from WCommons. Are you folks at ITN interested? --PFHLai (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've posted this pic on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) X-Press Pearl

 * Comment I know that this was nominated six days ago, but I am boldly re-nominating it for today given that the ship sank today. Please correct me if I am mistaken. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think this has a significant impact in global news since this container ship has sunk into the Indian Ocean. 112.134.213.204 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks ready now, willing to post when I see some more support. --Tone 09:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with the last nomination my problem was that the environmental impact wasn't clear, but now much more information is out and it has been put into the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. Now we have a ship-bias on ITN, that's rare. --Tone 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we post the Nigerian boat accident too? That one had 60+ fatalities, but the article needs a lot of expansion. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it met the conditions of an ITN-worthy article, then we could. But the article is a short stub that nobody seems willing to expand. Lots of people are coming here to complain that it's not posted, yet nobody wants to invest any time getting it to at least a start class article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On the Niger boat accident, looking at the sources given and what I can even see, I don't even know if we can get it past a stub. It happened, it was reported, but -- there's a rather amazing lack of detail in English-language sources -no followup from major sources after the event to confirm the death toll, etc. This is a problem of external systematic bias, not within WP, when we can't really do much with what little the sources give us to start with. Yes, some expansion is possible from what's there but may be two or three sentences at best. --M asem  (t) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I found too. It's unfortunate and disappointing.  I don't know how to fix it. Jehochman Talk 16:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has just been expanded; worth taking another look.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * please see In the news/Candidates, ongoing new discussion moved to May 27 Abcmaxx (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) IRIS Kharg

 * Comment At least according to the Reuters, with no loss of life, but I think the quality of the article precludes a quick snow close on this facet. --M asem (t) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Largest ship in the Iranian navy sinks. That seems newsworthy.  However, the article only has one sentence describing the sinking.  I recommend waiting to see whether this was an accident, sabotage, or combat loss. Jehochman Talk 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The answers to those questions may take a long time to surface, or maybe never will. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They're saying it was a fire in one of the ship's systems (well outside of combat). Now sure, it could be something like sabotage, but I don't think we need to wait to post for the explicit explanation beyond that. The update (like the safety of the crew, etc.) should be included though. --M asem (t) 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added that the crew were rescued. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article – due to the possible political ramifications of the destruction of the Iranian Navy's largest vessel (by whom?). – Sca (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sinking of the largest ship in a large navy is notable regardless of whether there are casualties or not (at the very least, we don't have a rule written in stone that death toll is the only criterion for notability). The article is in good shape and could be posted once the update on the incident is expanded with a few more sentences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Kharg was not a "tanker" in the usual maritime sense of the word (a commercial vessel used to transport petroleum), but as our article says "a replenishment oiler (naval term) or replenishment tanker" used to supply fuel oil to other vessels at sea. Possible change to plain English: "a naval fuel-supply ship." – Sca (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A tanker is a vessel designed to transport any liquid, be it water, petroleum, milk, beer or whatever. The ship class is correct, per the article on the class. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Today's modest proposal is that we speak to our audience in plain English. Just a suggestion in the interest of readability & comprehension. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article itself looks good and I'd consider this notable enough for a blurb. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - image added to CMP and is protected. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article has two lines of text on the sinking. Wait until there's at least a decent amount of content about the event in the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing four lines. What it does have, which applies to all browsers and screen settings, is five sentences and four references relating to the loss. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see five short sentences that constitute a short paragraph. That is insufficient for ITN in my opinion- if we're going to be directing users to an article about an events, there should actually be a decent amount of information about it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A system failed, the ship caught fire, the crew was evacuated, the ship sunk. It's going to take time to determine the exact cause but the rest of the article is in good shape, and that's a sufficient update. It is not like the crash of a commercial airliner where there would be tons of details of the cause and effect immediately; this is a military vessel and by that nature, its not going to be immediately scrutinized to the same degree. --M asem (t) 15:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We need a better article. Pyramids09 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good, and it's notable as its the biggest ship in the Iranian Navy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This article looks good, and it is a very notable ship in the Iranian Navy. SVcode ( Talk ) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, I'll modify the location a bit, it was in the Gulf of Oman, near Jask. --Tone 16:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the image, now, who's going to do the paperwork? Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you was a job doing well... Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "The largest ship in the Iranian Navy" == trivia. "IRIS Kharg (pictured), a modified Ol-class tanker, catches fire and sinks in the Gulf of Oman near Jask, Iran." is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:ERRORS, where the change was made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. Interesting that a drive-by at WP:ERRORS for something which is not an error could clobber the consensus blurb from WP:ITNC. "The ship wasn't on fire" would be an error, this was WP:IDONTLIKEIT --LaserLegs (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that word "consensus" means what you think it means. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it mean someone shows up at WP:ERRORS asking for a change and Jehochman unilaterally makes the change? I was looking at WP:CON but I didn't find that part, if you can point it out though it'd clear this whole thing up for me and I'll move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Largest ship" isn't trivia any more than the fact it sank is trivia. It's the main reason this is a story at all. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my statement in the talk page RFC (related to elections but applies here), "the biggest ship in Iran's navy" is a non-controversial fact, and nearly every RS reporting on the sink repeat this. While its an observation/commentary on the news fact, its definitely far too closely tied with what's being reported so it is definitely appropriate to include in this case. --M asem (t) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't put that phrase in the proposed blurb as I thought it could be seen as glorifying in the loss to the Iranian Navy, rather that stating the simple fact thay they had lost a ship. It was mentioned in the nomination notes here to give editors here an idea of the significance of the loss. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Great article, in the news, well-sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of news item we want to highlight. Good work to those who updated the article. Jehochman Talk 04:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Rutman

 * Support The works that are missing citations can just be commented out since they seem to be very obscure. I'll leave it uncommented in case any more can be found. I found a few more citations on top of yours, so there are plenty of cited works there anyway. The rest of the article is excellent and well referenced, so it's not a problem considering its size. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright now --Vacant0 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Marshall (pitcher)

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A good length and everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited. rawmustard (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Criminalization of sexual abuse in Catholic Church

 * Comment More than that: "insisting that bishops take action against clerics who abuse minors and vulnerable adults, commit fraud or attempt to ordain women". It won't take effect until 8 December (so it could possibly be left until then), and it completely replaces the 1983 Code of Canon Law (a very comprehensive article). The target page should therefore be 2021 Code of Canon Law, which doesn't currently exist. (The Irish Times) Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that's likely the proper article for this (more than just a small update to any of the other articles that cover the Canon Law), and that really should be created first before we can post (this is not an area I'm not an expert that I could contribute meanfully here). In terms of timing, as we've usually done in the past, given that there's nothing that will stop these from going into force, we usually post on the announcement when there's recognition by reliable sources, barring any other points. --M asem (t) 18:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of both sources above is that it's rather a revision, not a brand new canon, I've added altblurb. Specifically, AP says "The revision, which has been in the works since 2009, involves all of section six of the Church's Code of Canon Law", i.e. only one section of the Code is revamped. Brandmeistertalk  19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times says "It replaced the code approved by Pope John Paul II in 1983 and will take effect on December 8th". I don't think this is going to get posted, but I think the nonexistant article I posted above is the right one because of that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If this was a sovereign country, would we post this as a blurb? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The very idea of a state keeping sexual assault legal for this long would be amazing in itself. Things being as they are with this particular Catholic Church, though, it's not so cut and dry. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – It's been widely covered, so some people think it's significant, but to a non-Catholic it seems a church matter beyond the usual scope of ITN. Not quite sure what "criminalizes" means in this context. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that it means that you could be excommunicated for that. I agree that it is vague and probably not in the scope of ITN to announce changes in religious doctrine. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's what "criminalizes" means in this instance, then it's an internal church or doctrinal issue and not within the purview of ITN – (IMO). Changed to oppose. — Sca (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the number of cases in regular news that have also bubbled into ITN news related to abuses of the Church to minors and others over the last several years, this change is significant across the board. But I fully agree that having an article or a necessarily significant section to expand exactly what this means, etc. is necessary as otherwise, it could appear simply as hand-waving the problem away too (I don't read it like that but it could be). --M asem (t) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Internal Catholic matter/doctrine change which, given the Catholic proclivity to protect sexual abusers, is unlikely to have any meaningful impact (sexual abuse is already against 10 Commandments, and Catholics purport to follow those). If/when any prominent individual actually gets punished under these provisions, that may constitute an ITN item.  Mel ma nn   22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Presumably this is a symbolic gesture to show that the church is finally taking the issue seriously. Which is a good thing, but I doubt it will have much practical impact. It's not like they've officially condoned or allowed sexual abuse up until now, it just wasn't written down as such. And writing it down may or may not make a difference in terms of how much it's covered up going forward, that remains to be seen. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we wouldn't report on minor statutory changes at national or supranational levels so we should not do so for canon law either. This seems more like a tightening/clean up of the existing provisions, not unlike amendments to acts of parliament for example.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd be open to a blurb, but I'm not seeing an obvious article this would apply. We have Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, which is more about specific cases than the general topic of Catholic Church sexual abuse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose something that is illegal is now recognised as illegal- seems rather like just a symbolic gesture. Not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a major update on canon law to deal with the sexual abusers. This issue concerns our society as a whole. STSC (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (born 1943)

 * Comment I moved this nomination to correct date (1 June). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It needs more citations, and there may be BLP issues with the full names and dates of birth of minors given in the article. P-K3 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ujwal Thapa

 * Oppose unless expanded, it's currently rated as stub class JW 1961 Talk 12:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to Support as expanded beyond stub class and sufficiently referenced now JW 1961 Talk 08:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JW 1961 . ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support just about enough for RD, what is there is well referenced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mufti Faizul Waheed

 * Support Well cited.  - Owais  Talk 06:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - as far as I can tell the title shouldn't have the word "Mufti" in it, per MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:TITLESINTITLES. Other than that, article looks decent and will likely support. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , COMMONNAME. Otherwise I'd have skipped it. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  20:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Credit message is pending lol. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  04:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)