Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2020

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

(Posted) RD: James A. Redden

 * Weak support it's okay but who (or what) determined which cases were "notable" for inclusion? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - with no opposition and a support (albeit weak), this seems just about good to go. The structure is a little odd, with his death folded into the "federal judge" section but not the "notable cases", but looks OK to me as well otherwise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Pape Diouf

 * Weak oppose weak article, several dead links and some citation needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Added a ref to address the 1 cn tag. Even with the dead link tags, there are other refs which cover. Seems to meet the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Halim Khaddam

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gita Ramjee

 * Oppose Stub and orange tag requesting references Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prose resume at present.  Spencer T• C 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is now expanded past stub. TJMSmith (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Wallace Roney

 * Oppose discog needs work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) US offers Venezuela power-sharing deal

 * Wait If VZ accepts the deal, that would be reason to post. --M asem (t) 22:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem but an interesting development. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed with the two above. The article is not in great shape. I would normally suggest that these go into a more general article, like Government of Venezuela or Politics of Venezuela, but those are both orange tagged and I suspect changes to them would be contentious.130.233.2.31 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose don't post proposals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a mere proposal- if accepted, that would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems extremely unlikely that Maduro will agree to any American proposal. Diplomats airing ideas without practical effect does not justify an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sure Maduro will happily agree to a deal with the country that wants to arrest him for drug trafficking.--WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Pierre Bénichou

 * Oppose currently a stub article Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Updated referencing. Still short, but seems to meet the minimum requirements I think. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reimar Lüst

 * non-COVID related, it seems. --M asem (t) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose what's there is fine but for such an eminent astrophysicist, the article is weak. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!)
 * I need a break, Penderecki and all!! Will do tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. I neglected a GA review all these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the ESA link and used it, please look again. Someone who knows astrophysics, please also look. I had no better way to summarize his achievements than putting it in quotation marks, - I'd have no idea how to rephrase it and still say the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better, needs the dn to be fixed but otherwise good improvement. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I dared to use the German WP for the dab ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dab? You're referring to the Dortmunder Actien Brauerei, nicht? – Sca (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support – At 300 words it's thin, but for a non-Anglo expert in a specialized academic field it may be just enough. (The footnoted Max Planck Society announcement is fairly extensive, and is in English.) Duly copy-edited. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Brief, but what's there is referenced, and there do not appear to be any major chronological gaps in his biography. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It was recently expanded. Article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Posted to RD) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James T. Goodrich

 * COVID-related --M asem (t) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support barring that one marked CN (about his influence from Olser, which I'm unable to find a source for immediately - however, there's still news reports coming in on his death so may be sourcable). That line's not needed immediately otherwise this seems ready to go. --M asem (t) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem's assessment. TJMSmith (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Awaiting missing reference (or removal of sentence if not required) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the uncited statement. TJMSmith (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose seems like a weak article (e.g. the fate of those he operated on isn't even mentioned). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded a bit on his processes and the current (healthy) fate of the two cases noted. --M asem (t) 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice article by my eye. Clearly establishes notability and fleshes out contributions to field, awards, etc. Orange tag seems totally undeserved, at least as of this moment, and since it was added without any notes on the Talk page, I think it would be suitable to remove it in the same manner.130.233.2.31 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment IP tagged it for notability --LaserLegs (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And Fram untagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (Posted to RD) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Amazon warehouse protests

 * Oppose rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this is going to die in a hail of "we already have a COVID-19 banner" but otherwise I think it would be notable enough to post on it's own. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really? WaltCip (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very trivial at the moment (compared to COVID) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too trivial at the best of times, let alone at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a lot of people are upset about the behaviour of a lot of companies (and a lot of heads of state) in a lot of countries. This is trivial.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joachim Yhombi-Opango

 * Weak oppose it's justifiably tagged as poorly constructed, but once that's resolved, it might be suitable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Will fully support this as soon as the career section is broken up into digestible sections. TJMSmith (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yhombi-Opango was the prime minister and president of the Republic of Congo. Should this be a blurb? TJMSmith (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think the quality of the article leads it to reach that level of posting.  Spencer T• C 14:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Based on the lack of consensus to blurb Daniel arap Moi, a twenty-year Kenyan president who also died of old age recently, it's unlikely there'll be consensus for this one in a non-English-speaking country... I'm guessing we will end up posting blurbs for the likes of Jimmy Carter, John Major, John Howard etc, but that's just the way it is. Also, the quality needs to be fixed up before it can even go to RD.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Heads of state/government in non-English speaking countries tend to have a higher bar to clear for blurb status, which I don't believe this passes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added sections per The Rambling Man, TJMSmith. - Indefensible (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Indefensible! TJMSmith (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD only. Past sitting president of a non-G20-type country is ..at least at this point, not high priority for ITN. But otherwise looks good. --M asem (t) 17:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lorena Borjas

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A well sourced new article. TJMSmith (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arianne Caoili

 * Non-COVID related. --M asem (t) 17:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Needs editor attention) Viktor Orbán rule by decree in Hungary

 * Oppose Lots of countries have been imposing decrees and states of emergency which have been criticised as threats to liberty. This doesn't seem very different and the article hasn't been updated. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to support this - it's a huge victory for right wing authoritarianism - but the target is orange tagged and there is no update. Maybe COVID-19 in Hungary is a better target? Is anyone contesting this (I smell a constitutional crisis brewing). --LaserLegs (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Hungarian political machinations, however ominous they may sound, generally lack wider significance. (Blurb lacks period.) – Sca (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not... "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --LaserLegs (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to the infallible rule book again, are we? Use your head. The item is of scant interest to a majority of Eng.-lang. readers, esp. in the current news environment. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How did you make that determination? 331dot (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I used my head. It's chock full of empirical guidance. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you survey all English speakers in the world? I wasn't called. Seriously, what was your guidance? 331dot (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AUT TACE AUT LOQUERE MELIORA SILENTIO. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits. A legislative body voting to surrender its authority with no end date is unusual. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted, we haven't actually got any content on the issue at hand. Nigej (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on merit, oppose on quality the "indefinite" part is the newsworthy item, however there are quite a few uncited paragraphs and a lot of citation needed tags, and an orange tag. Also, it hasn't been duly updated for this event. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest alt-blurb - A formerly democratic European country sliding to dictatorship is a big fucking deal. That said, Victor Orban isn't the best target - I suggest instead 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Hungary. Rami R 17:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, agree with above that the target should be changed from Orban Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Week oppose This seems like yet another coronavirus article we're highlighting, and we have a permalink in the ITN box for a reason, to avoid incremental and local updates on the issue, which would overwhelm the ITN box. -- Jayron 32 18:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel there's much point to ITN if we don't occasionally highlight coronavirus related events - the permalink doesn't really cover everything, and completely ignoring individual events feels like we're ignoring the elephant in the room (think banner blindness). More specifically, it's very easy to miss local developments from the permalinks - local developments which nonetheless have global implications, such as these Hungarian developments. Rami R 18:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Every country in the world is doing something unprecedented and with long-term and global implications. Hungary is not particularly unique or unusual in this regard.  While every single country may be doing different unprecedented things, they're all doing something which would be unusual, noteworthy, or maybe even outrageous in normal times.  These are not normal times, and while not every country is responding in exactly the same way Hungary is, they are all doing something to which your argument could be applied.  -- Jayron 32 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * COVID is just a pretext; this has been in the offing for years. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe. I can see he has dictatorial tendencies but its not our business to prejudge. Nigej (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, my point is, I think that just because there's some COVID aspect doesn't mean it should automatically be relegated to the COVID pages and barred from ITN. At some level we're always judging whether something is "newsworthy enough" for ITN. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a big deal independent of the pandemic and isn't "just another country's response" . It is a)an indefinite state of emergency b)voluntarily granted by the legislature c)in a western country with a track record (admittedly not the best; if this were the US we probably would have already posted it by now) of liberal democracy. Also, I do highly suspect that Orban's been planning this for a while and is using the pandemic as a reason, but it'd be nice to get a reliable source to that effect; if we do that's all the more justification to post this (EDIT: to show significance outside of the pandemic, not to right great wrongs on Orban's behavior). (In retrospect this is a bit harsh.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, I do not agree with Rami's argument that we should disregard the banner and post stories better suited for it willy nilly per IAR. While we'd all agree that this would be blurb-worthy without the pandemic, my argument is that even with it it's still a significant episode of democratic backslide. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb; the "indefinite rule by decree" part is unusual and ITN-worthy independent of the coronavirus pandemic, but the article on Orban still needs cleanup. Tito xd (?!?) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Hungary is not a banana republic. It is a member of the EU and it just became a de-facto dictatorship. This is a highly significant event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A parliament approves an indefinite state of emergency in response to a crisis of indefinite duration. I would support if it spices up and the EU imposes some sanction(s) against Hungary but it is a little underwhelming at the moment considering many other governments are exercising emergency powers. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The pandemic isn't particularly of an "indefinite duration"; most think that it'll largely be over by the summer and most states of emergency (at least in the US) end at that time. Even if it goes on longer the standard practice is to have a sunset clause that can be renewed if need be, something that the opposition in Hungary wanted but which was rejected by the government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely is indefinite. (If you have knowledge of an exact date when the pandemic will subside, please tell me so I can make some bets on the market.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am unsure why this article should be blurbed given the already-special attention given to COVID-19 in ITN. The notion that this is somehow out of the ordinary for these times is just not true. Germany has banned export of PPE, France has seized pharmaceuticals and banned them from export, every single EU state has imposed some sort of movement/expression/gathering prohibitions. All of these fly in the face of long-established (and once dearly defended) priciples of the EU, and could reasonable be characterized as "sliding to dictatorship". And they're all also covered in the COVID-19 ongoing special box.130.233.2.31 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Enough with this false equivalency: France and Germany did not suspend parliament and cancel elections. No EU member has done this other than Hungary. Rami <i style="color:red">R</i> 07:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Whenever a democracy suspends elections, no matter where they are, it is notable. This in particular is a brazen power grab that should be broadcasted to many people. Swordman97  talk to me  16:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant political development amid the COVID outbreak. Gotitbro (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Rami and 331dot. ——  SN  54129  17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to post this, but there's still sourcing issues on Orban's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, sadly. I have been through Orbán article and added citation needed templates to all the claims that were unreferenced. We cannot post it unless those are fixed, especially because it is a BLP. Honestly, I don't think we can fix it before this going stale. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Orbans article has more orange banners than ever and bold or not we can't link to a BLP vio from the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to know which elections have actually been cancelled. The next scheduled elections are for 2022. The same for referendums. Even if the bolded article were better quality, we would still have to find some reason why this rises above the content in the already-very-prominent COVID-19 banner.130.233.3.161 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * During the state emergency, by-elections and national and local referendums cannot take place, and deliberate bodies of a local governments and national minority self-governments cannot be dissolved (source). Unless I read the law wrong, elections to both the National Assembly and to the European Parliament will still take place. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: rm attention needed. While there does appear to be consensus in favor of posting, concerns about the target article remain.  Spencer T• C 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's why I had put "needs attention" there, not "ready". It needs editor attention, not admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, I've gone ahead and re-added it. I'm so used to seeing those tags be used to get an admin's attention.  Spencer T• C 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) The Parsonage Garden at Nuenen

 * Comment – Support in principle, but target article(s) need expansion, esp. The Parsonage Garden at Nuenen, which probably should be the primary target. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, expansion's going to be critical here, without that... --M asem (t) 17:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of Singer Laren, the emphasized article could be changed to Vincent van Gogh, which is a Featured Article. Then it probably would be post-worthy on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb to this effect. Support nomination for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've tweaked your altblurb to bold the painting article, which is in a reasonable shape and is the main reason for the blurb. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one link is to be bolded, reverted. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 09:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In which case, I Oppose the alt blurb, as the painting is the story, not the artist. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Switched the emphasis from the painter to the painting in the altblurb. This way also works fine in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't multiple articles be emphasized? This was the case with recent entries, e.g. the Turing Award. - Indefensible (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN always uses the "an emboldened link" terminology. In rare cases, if the article of focus (which would be the Turing Award) is not at par with ITN standards, it can be relegated and better, related articles should be used as the bolded link on an WP:IAR basis. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 18:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support original Article has been expanded, only the painting should be bolded. Brandmeistertalk  10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support First Blurb per Brandmeister. Kenmelken (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A few more cites needed, and support the original blurb once those are fixed. Per Masem and Brandmeister, it's the painting is the subject, not Vincent Van Gogh. It's debatable whether the theft should even be mentioned in the artist's article, and we don't generally choose the bolded article on the basis of whether it's an FA or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question why is this notable? Seems like a non-violent petty theft of something a handful of people consider very important. If we could put a value on it, then it could be evaluated against something like the Dresden heist --LaserLegs (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either. – Grabbing a multimillion-dollar painting is hardly "petty theft," and Van Gogh is a headline name. Good nuff to go. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support once the cn tags have been addressed. This is an obscure early Van Gogh, not a hugely influential work, so in normal times I would oppose. But we need to put something up on the template and this is the best nomination we've had for several days. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * References have been added. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)




 * Post-Posting Comment – I'm guarding my own rather obscure Van Gogh (left) – and my remaining rolls of TP – with my life. In the present crisis, both must be considered priceless. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Hau Pei-tsun

 * non-COVID related --M asem (t) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose most of the bio is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Rapp

 * Publications section is not fully referenced currently, will remove unreferenced content as necessary. - Indefensible (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would this help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * talk, I added it, looks decent enough for me. I checked that all publications without ISBN are listed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Warren Anderson

 * non-COVID related (it appears) --M asem (t) 17:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  - Article is sourced and in depth. TJMSmith (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Sourced, and unlike many scientist bios is well fleshed out about his contributions to his field.  Spencer T• C 21:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ken Shimura

 * Oppose too much work to do here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Isaac Robinson

 * Support - This article was recently expanded and is well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I refuse to believe that a member of the US government less than 50 years old does not have a certain date or location of birth. There's more information in his mother's BLP. And blind speculation about his death as well? The two most important facts in a person's life and our BLP cannot even manage those.130.233.2.84 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rm ready; insufficient depth of coverage. In terms of his political career, article is a resume in prose format. There is only 1 sentence describing what he did as a politician, and that is related to coronavirus legislation.  Spencer T• C 15:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just got the feeling that, with no disrespect, he was just a "meh" minor politician who warranted an article purely based on arbitrary notability criteria and who really hadn't done anything politically notable in his career. Maybe that was an oversight. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I checked Newspapers.com and Google for DoB and didn't find anything. Maybe someone else will have more luck but I am not sure it was ever published.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although I know that any person with an individual article is technically eligible for RD, the article reads like an obituary. Reliable source coverage will be needed to confirm this individual's notability pre-obit.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a source. Seems to have decent coverage now. - Indefensible (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There doesn't appear to be a single source actually about him apart from the news reports on his death (and all the others are local news sources). That doesn't exactly yell "notable" at me. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Members of state legislators are not notable enough, especially ones that haven't even served a complete term. It is not known if he died due to coronavirus and even if so that would still not make him notable enough for a recent death mention. - Jon698 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , all U.S. state legislators are notable through WP:NPOL, and all notable individuals qualify for RD if the article is up to par. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just give out recent death notices to every random state legislator that dies. He had an unremarkable tenure of less than one term. - Jon698 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , why not? Our policy is that anyone notable can be posted at RD if their article is good enough quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article isn't high quality enough. His unremarkable tenure has lead to there not being anything to add to his page besides minor personal life details and some bills that he created during his short tenure. I am currently the main contributor to the article and I have spent hours looking for sources to expand this article and I found barely anything excluding the endless amounts of articles from two days ago at max restating the same information. - Jon698 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has large gaps in coverage which makes it ineligible for quality reasons for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you able to prove a negative? This individual apparently meets WP:N but yet his career (with all due respect etc etc) appears to be completely unremarkable.  If you can find bits that are missing from the coverage, could you point to them?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not quite sure why this article is attracting such spurious opposition; it is not a stub and it is sourced, so it meets RD standards.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. As Muboshgu said, the policy is that all state legislators meet GNG. I agree with this policy, and editors who disagree should take it up at the appropriate place. There's not much that can be said about one year as a first-term legislator that isn't already in the article. What's there is of good quality and is thus ready for RD. Davey2116 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to look at WP:NPOL again when we can have an article like this which is pretty close to failing WP:GNG (his death would come under WP:BIO1E). But yeah, I guess it should be posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Article is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it's time to make a change to our RD policy here at ITN. This is a flaw. We posted something that shouldn't have been posted.--WaltCip (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How so? If you have a specific idea please put it on the talk page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert H. Garff

 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - plenty of local coverage and an AP press hit. Article is well cited. Not much coverage outside of Utah, so I'm torn as to notability. &#32;-- Javawizard (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Diffie

 * COVID related death --M asem (t) 20:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Article has GA status. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets criteria per above, however discography could use referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments above. TJMSmith (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support LGTM, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Merrill

 * COVID related death --M asem (t) 20:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Addressed cn tags. - Indefensible (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks like it is almost ready for a WP:GAN. A discography section might improve the article. TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Krzysztof Penderecki

 * Non-COVID related death --M asem (t) 20:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Already a class B/C article. sentausa (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Could use a citation for the paragraph He was an Honorary Member of and for some in the awards list. RD is a little backed up right now so maybe post tomorrow after improvements? Otherwise we can drop Michael Sorkin off the list but I just added it a few minutes ago.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb on Principle oppose on quality. He was one of the greatest living composers of classical music at his death.  Here is Reuters calling him "one of the world's most celebrated composers;" and this is the Hamburg Philharmonic calling him "one of the greatest living composers of classical music."  Similar claims are being made on his obits today. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality as NorthernFalcon wrote above; Oppose blurb. This is the issue that highly described subjects have; the more content there is, the more there is to maintain at the same quality level and therefore the more potential tripwires there are. - Indefensible (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I see now: the awards are almost completely referenced (5 or so missing, which could probably be dropped). The use in films is not referenced yet, but all these films have articles, so it shouldn't be too difficult, and I believe whether his music was used in films or not really doesn't make him any greater. The section about the St Luke Passion is little referenced, but it has its own article and doesn't need detailed treatment in the composer's article. What else? - Btw, once upon a time the article had a decent infobox ;) - We faced the same sourcing problems for Jessye Norman, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good enough now even with a couple cn tags per updated referencing as Gerda Arendt wrote. - Indefensible (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Some work needed to get it up to speed, but should be easy enough to fix before posting. RD ONLY, OPPOSE BLURB. Not a big enough individual to warrant a blurb. (and why the continued obsession to mention IBs? why, oh why, oh why...) - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing my Oppose blurb as nominator. I don't believe he rises to that level based on the NYTimes article. --M asem  (t) 20:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only. Not widely known enough in Eng.-speaking world for blurb. – Sca (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Referencing has improved. Spengouli (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support referencing has improved and will improve some more. Very significant composer. Krzysztof Eugeniusz Penderecki (23 November 1933 – 29 March 2020) was a Polish composer and conductor. Among his best known works are Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, Symphony No. 3, his St. Luke Passion, Polish Requiem, Anaklasis and Utrenja. Penderecki composed four operas, eight symphonies and other orchestral pieces, a variety of instrumental concertos, choral settings of mainly religious texts, as well as chamber and instrumental works.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. The "Use in film" section would benefit from more citations, but it is uncontroversial content. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like the cn tags were addressed. Great work. TJMSmith (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This one is Ready to go, I think. Hopefully will be posted soon. - Indefensible (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 07:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Schramm

 * Support - Article is well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan Howard

 * Support - Excellent article. It is nominated for GA status. TJMSmith (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Schäfer

 * Support - New article but looks like the content is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It was sickening to work on, and I'd prefer to not see it in the news. I just tried to make the article decent. Thank you for more, Williamsdoritos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Per improvements made. RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support getting English-language coverage and article is satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just try to imagine I was his daughter ... - also: he gets all the press coverage anyway, but how about Huisgen (below)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh, after three days of dealing with four recent deaths, I wanted to write about a soprano today, on Sunday. Instead, more work to make this halfway decent. What do we know yet?? - Read Jessye Norman today, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh more, will you please help me ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh even more: Krzysztof Penderecki --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Coburn

 * Oppose much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does contain unsourced statements, yet it is not the reason why Tom Coburn should not be mentioned in "Recent deaths" section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Replaced the first "not" with "contain" 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the contrary- it is a valid reason why he should be omitted, and the sole matter of concern in a RD nom.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Significance is not an issue, but does not meet quality requirements yet, per The Rambling Man's comment. - Indefensible (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since when is 'Sputnik' considered a reliable source? – Sca (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is missing citations in several locations. TJMSmith (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The missing citations have been resolved. Spengouli (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)(
 * Posted in spite of the MOS:LEADCITE problem the sourcing has introduced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now per above. Added updaters. - Indefensible (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Azam Khan (squash player)

 * Oppose one unreferenced "Family" section and one section of "quotes about the subject", not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The celebrity's importance should be the only judgment whether he should be included in the "Recent deaths" section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting is not determined just by significance but also by article quality. See the guidelines in WP:In the news. - Indefensible (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is missing citations and a Career section. TJMSmith (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Campbell

 * Support short but sufficient article. TJMSmith (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support getting a bit of local coverage but not much more. Article is barely adequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Lowery

 * Support - Has a couple cn tags which should be addressed, however otherwise looks good and the guidelines say 1-2 cn tags may be ok. - Indefensible (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while citations are still required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, CN tags have been cleaned and references added. Spengouli (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you for addressing the cn tags. - Indefensible (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daniel Azulay

 * Oppose basically an orphan and not seeing it "in the news". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be reported in local Portuguese news, would say similar standard as Naomi Munakata. - Indefensible (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was extensively reported in Brazil, but I don't know if the article is good enough for the main page.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Succinct article. Everything seems sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Les Hunter

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient quality and properly sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) North Macedonia joins NATO

 * Support Article looks in good shape --M asem  (t) 21:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support although I would just call it NATO and not expand, the common name is NATO and I'm certain the majority of our "overseas" readers would understand that and not the expanded variant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This. NATO, NASA, EU, UK, US, are the abbreviations I'd expect any English reader should be familiar with (though linking will always help). --M asem (t) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, have abbreviated NATO in the blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although there are some SEAOFBLUE issues in the new blurb, perhaps someone can take care of that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per The Rambling Man Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, decent news story. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone add a ref for the first part of the History section? Would think should be easy enough to find for the 1995 and 1999 items mentioned. - Indefensible (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go for posting. important news.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I have NOTHING against Slovak Prime Minister Mr. Igor, but his face has been here for long, can't we replace it?. If not, no problem. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Just a comment on the blurb, I'm not sure when we are counting the negotiation process as starting, if we say it started in July 2018 with the invitation or back in 2008 and earlier, then maybe the blurb should say "multi-year negotiation process."-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 23:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I will change the image to File:History of NATO enlargement.svg as it seems more relevant (includes North Macedonia in 2020), does anyone have a problem? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 09:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, purely decorative elements like flags or logos are not posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me to change it. A map also showing North America would be better IMHO, as it is misleading to focus only on Europe, but I don't have strong opinions either way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is one of those cases where if we were tired of looking at that politician we should drag up and image from RD. The Macedonian flag doesn't offer any value for our readers, and a highlighted map of NATO wouldn't do great condensed into the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The guidelines you linked above also suggest no maps, as they are hard to discern at small size. Stephen 11:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any options which are not maps (treaty parties, enlargement, NATO members) or flags (NATO/North Macedonia), all listed in order of decreasing relevance. Both flags and the enlargement map are protected and good-to-go. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So then put Matovic back or get a suitable image from RD. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The flag does seem inappropriate. It conveys no real visual information. (Also, my first association was the WWII Japanese .) – Sca (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it not be appropriate to use the NATO flag or map of member states (with North Macedonia now included)? The image is now back to Mr. Matovič, but his news item was a week ago already and the nomination is not even on the page anymore. - Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think File:History of NATO enlargement.svg works in a small size. If there is clear map of NATO members (without all the different colours which will be hard to interpret without the key) that would be good. Otherwise I have added Joseph Lowery to the protected list. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A NATO map without Canada and the United States is not a NATO map. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Any comments on this one? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Not sure what country that is in South America? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC))
 * French Guiana --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added two maps to WP:CMP the one linked above with all countries, which has weird lines (I'm guessing it links it to the mainland, but it just looks bad). The other one is the North Macedonia highlighted among NATO countries (leaves out French Guiana but looks better imo) which I've placed right below it. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 13:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have added the green map. Improvements to the caption welcomed though &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Andy

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Boris Johnson has tested positive for coronavirus

 * Oppose It is somewhat more anecdotal as he is not in a serious condition and will continue working. He is not the only head of government infected and surely there will be more. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew this would end up on ITN/C. Oppose at the moment. Tom Hanks also got COVID-19 but recovered from it. At the moment, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It would, of course, be notable if Boris Johnson became incapacitated from the virus.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If a national leader dies from the disease that might be worth posting, merely catching it is not. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip; nice idea though, an original nom. ——  SN  54129  11:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SNOW. Is this some kind of a joke? If the disease forces him to resign, then we're going to post his resignation; if it leads to complications and he dies, then we're going to post his death. But the diagnosis with no follow-up or, at least, indication of a long-lasting impact per se is not notable at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cripes! Crikey!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support We can't blurb every COVID-19 update but this one seems a bit noteworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How come? Because it's a head of state?--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, head of a G7 and NATO state specifically. I'm not gonna die on this hill, the update is literally one sentence, but still interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Currently the top blurb in ITN is another PM – Igor Matovič – who is stale news from about 3 weeks ago and attracting very little interest from our readership -- just 10K views yesterday. Boris does better than that on a quiet day and I expect his article will be 1M+ on this news.  If ITN keeps running the same stale blurbs then it is irrelevant and not helping anyone. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has yet stopped you from improving OTHER Wikipedia articles on current events and nominating them, are you? Wikipedia is a volunteer organization that only works because people who care about something fix it all by themselves. Since you want to see new topics in ITN, you are responsible for making that happen.  Browbeating other people to do that work for you is a waste of your time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this isn't WP:TOP25. If you'd like to replace WP:ITN with WP:TOP25, please raise an RFC to propose such.  In the meantime, please do stop complaining about page views, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently precisely zero impact. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Princess Maria Teresa of Bourbon-Parma

 * Oppose - Article is currently a stub that has a speedy deletion banner. - Indefensible (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment updated with translations from the French sister project. robertsky (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article still could use work and may not meet the threshold of RD guidelines, but good work updating the article. - Indefensible (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stubby. (And "whilst" – ??) – Sca (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is much improved. TJMSmith (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for RD now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Marked as ready per above. Moved from the 28th to the 26th, as that is the correct date. - Indefensible (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to post MurielMary (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Sorkin

 * Has a couple cn tags which should be addressed, in particular the orange banner should be resolved. Looks good otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above fixes. - Indefensible (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose referencing work required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I know your default position, but article has now been referenced. User:The Rambling Man what is it you think is presently lacking?  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What's happening about the dubiously "useful" "Reporting, selected" section? Most of it is unrerferenced, and I'm not convinced I can see any value in this, do we normally list a "selected" (by whom, what criteria?  One suspects, just whatever someone kind find...) list of mentions of someone?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man Per your suggestion, I removed the section. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted though technically stale, due to four from the 27th and four from the 28th.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolf Huisgen

 * Support - Meets the requirements, good work updating the article Gerda Arendt. - Indefensible (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Balázs Csákabonyi

 * Weak support basically an orphan, and not seeing much news coverage. What's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naomi Munakata

 * Support per nom. Short, but with statements supported with references. robertsky (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * support: short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet minimum requirements for RD posting. - Indefensible (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . El_C 18:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Jimmy Wynn

 * Comment There are a lot of sections that need referencing Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready as Joseywales1961 wrote. - Indefensible (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John O'Leary (golfer)

 * Support as per nominator. short but decent article Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support one citation missing as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - lead needs to be a bit longer, and the lead says he played in the 1975 Ryder Cup while the body says he missed it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you take another look? DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it's already been posted anyway, but for the record it's all good now. Nice work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to meet the requirements, the 1975 Ryder Cup detail per Amakuru's comment above seems to be consistent now. - Indefensible (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - It is RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 07:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind posting the credit bit on my talk, so that I can claim this for the wikicup (unless not doing so was intentional)? DannyS712 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * New to the posting side of ITN. Sent! { --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 13:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Curly Neal

 * Weak support one cn there, otherwise alright. Bit slim considering he was a Globetrotter, but meh. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Michel Hidalgo
Oppose there is only one reference in the article (which doesn't even mention his death) updated since I added oppose Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is not ready yet, needs referencing improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs references, needs tone issues to be addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Mark Blum

 * Oppose still in need of drastic referencing updates. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Nicolás Maduro indicted for drug trafficking

 * Comment. I think there is merit to posting this, but it is debatable as to if Maduro is the legitimate President or not, so I would suggest leaving his title out. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with regard to his legitimacy, but most of the RS sources are referring to him as president so that's what I went with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * RS's call Maduro president when they want to throw shade, and call Guaidó president when they want to de-legitimize Maduro. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind WP:FORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's relevant in this discussion given that for the last year RS has been calling Guaidó the legitimate preisdent of Venezuela and have suddenly changed their tune for this narrow case. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis that RSes are generally recognizing his legitimacy as president, that the indictments against a sitting world leader are a major news factor. Article seems fine, but it would be nice if in the blurb if there was any specific of the cases that we could link to - I can't tell immediately, for example, if this is related to Operation Car Wash or other similar things, just to provide better context. --M asem (t) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * LMFAO (oppose). The absurdity of the rightists MDS notwithstanding, the target has a one-liner update, Maduro won't be extradited or tried in the United States, and we have a long standing (albeit a bit silly) policy on not posting indictments. It does bar him from attending the UN though. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on grounds of notability and unusualness, which isn't the typical politician indictment for corruption. If it helps, I would like to note that the indictment refers to Maduro as "Former President". I have added an altblurb without a position to avoid disputes regarding his legitimacy. If I may, I would also like to support adding a related image in the Main Page. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - What's the long-term impact of this event? Because maybe I'm just not seeing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose-On the grounds that this is only of political relevance, represents an American viewpoint and Wikipedia should not engage in furthering political smears as it damages our image of neutrality. --Willthewanderer (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * These charges are being widely reported in RS sources. We don't refuse to post news because we don't like it. Your use of the word "smears " also suggests a certain bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are to accept national bias then I must object to the entire concept, we are not a news site and it shouldn't be up to us to dictate what is and isn't news- This is an encyclopedia. We leave ourselves wide open to accusations of national bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willthewanderer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Maduro is never going to be put on trial in the United States, and we don't post indictments that are only for show. Even if Maduro is arrested, brought to America, and put on trial at some point in the future, then the circumstances that led to that (his removal from office) are what should be posted here, not this indictment. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A pretty sad attempt at political histrionics to distract from COVID-19.--WaltCip (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip. It seems like a purely political ploy with no impact on reality for anyone in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question. How many nations have indictments against heads of state of other nations, even for 'political' reasons? 331dot (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that one or two countries had charged George W. Bush with war crimes.--WaltCip (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So it's a pretty rare thing, regardless of the reason? I mean, the US has not indicted Vladimir Putin for election interference. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely there's a reason for that.... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Manuel Noriega was indicted in the US -- and then the US invaded and abducted him. I'd support posting that if they did it to Venezuela --LaserLegs (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be incredibly newsworthy, likely for all the wrong reasons.--WaltCip (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Little chance of it being enacted, and not of lasting significance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, wait to see if anything concrete happens. This is clearly politically motivated, and we wouldn't post a drug dealer being charged if he wasn't the president of a country. The US has no way of arresting Maduro. If this turns into a major diplomatic incident then maybe it could be postable, but more likely everyone shrugs and nothing happens. Maduro's article is a POV nightmare and has just one sentence of update, with no more information than the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we might post sentencings or convictions but certainly not indictments. Banedon (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius and WaltCip. Jusdafax (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we posted every time the US announced Maduro was guilty of something, the box would never be empty of one. If something happens, please post. (I have made an update to his article) Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Guilty plea in Christchurch mosque shootings

 * Oppose although it is mildly surprising he changed his plea, it was 100% inevitable that he would be found guilty having filmed himself killing all these people. The initial posting of this crime is sufficient.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Calgary's deadliest massacre seemed 100% inevitable to be Calgary's largest murder when first news broke, too, but nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per reasons above. Admittedly surprised the entire trial took over a year. Juxlos (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The long and winding trial hadn't begun yet and won't now. That's why pleading guilty is noteworthy. Maybe blurbworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Effectively cancels the most high-profile trial in New Zealand and alt-right history, but without using the coronavirus defense. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting the resolution of this case(essentially a conviction). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – Per TRM. The ramifications of this plea were effectively a foregone conclusion a year ago. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A year ago, most figured we'd see a guy and his legal team try to justify this for a week or so. There were publication bans and controversial testimony in the works, the whole damn circus was coming to town. But that just changed forever today. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article is high quality, has a high quality update, and news sources are covering the story. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well it's a turnout. And such a notable case, separate to the crime, that the surprise result is some news. Kingsif (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Dropping my opposition in deference to foregoing. However, the article's updates re plea are quite thin. More RS-documentation would be advisable. (Three offered above.) – Sca (talk)
 * Support per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is pretty good, item is in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. There was never any doubt who did it, we posted the original story, this isn't really startling news in itself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Suggest removing the suspect's name, replacing the appropriate section of the blurb with just "a suspect pleads guilty".--WaltCip (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero point at this time to hide the name now that they have confessed. I could understand that if this was a trial just starting (which we would not be posting) we'd probably be careful, but the issue around naming the culprit that existed in the weeks after the event no longer exist here. --M asem (t) 19:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in addition to the above, per NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern, it's preferable not to speak this person's name or give him any publicity. Banedon (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike past cases where the gov't courts or the like have had orders to keep the name private, PM Ardern's request is only a personal one and certainly one that RSes across the board are not following. --M asem (t) 21:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the other arguments against this and not taking a position myself, this seems a bit like righting great wrongs given that the suspect's name is already publicly available and has been for a while. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. The fact that he reversed and pleaded guilty is not the important part, the conviction is the noteworthy event per preceding nominations. Altblurb is more concise and anonymizes the name. - Indefensible (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's far too simplification of the news. As pointed out above, the suspect had been claiming not innocent, and there was a big gearing up for a major trial on this. Then suddenly he pleads guilty, out of nowhere. That's the story. Yes, on that, he's convicted, and sentencing will come later, but it's not simply a conviction as the altblurb suggestions. --M asem (t) 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure that is significant. From a distant observer's perspective, there was a crime, a guilty plea, and a conviction. Those are the key events thus far, and the ones that matter legally. That there was an expectation of a major trial and an unexpected guilty plea seems like trivia, it is ultimately unimportant to the resolution of the case. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS, it does not seem like the drama should be the noteworthy aspect for expounding on. - Indefensible (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem to take "from the distant observers perspective". All court cases could be summarized "A criminal is convicted" which... yeah, is a massive understatement. The point is that the article on the shootings does explain that there was preparation for this trial to be a media circus and then for reasons we don't know, it suddenly didn't happen. We have to be a bit more aware of details to phrase it to draw interest on the main page, distant to be impartial but no so distant to be ignorant. --M asem  (t) 03:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be no penalty for being a distant, disinterested perspective, if anything it should be emphasized. 1) Most topics will be such for an editor because one cannot be everywhere, 2) an encyclopedia should be as objective as possible, and 3) being too close to the subject increases the chance of WP:COI. It is not true that all cases could be summarized as that, a case could result in acquittal and providing the outcome of conviction or acquittal is the key detail. That the article explains the details is exactly why it is okay to summarize concisely, because any reader can click the link to learn those things if they choose to. It is a slippery slope into click bait territory to try and make encyclopedic content overtly "interesting," and again Wikipedia is not primarily for news anyway. - Indefensible (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose altblurb 1, weak oppose overall Not only do I not agree with anonymizing the name as I said above, but a guilty plea is substantially different from a conviction, even if only for laypeople. As for this story overall, we posted the original shooting IIRC, and this seems more of a legalistic follow-up, although we have posted convictions on here before (but not generally sentencings or other post-trial legal stuff). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from preserving anonymity, the shooter is not notable enough to have his own article, thus my argument for not including him in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's notable enough, just that his notability is tied to events with a shared article, so a standalone bio would only be redundant to his article-sized biographical section. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per Amakuru. It's not like William Wallace pled guilty. It is just a mundane detail that ultimately changes nothing. It would be news if he walked free. Nobody that's not been watching this case closely, everyday since day one, is going to understand why this was posted on the main page. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it changed nothing, why would CNN, AP and BBC call it shocking and relieving? Those aren't exactly synonyms for "meh". And no, I'm not "badgering the opposition", I'm "just sayin'". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JM Wolfson above. Pleas and decisions are different things, and courts have in the past rejected guilty pleas for one reason or another. Finality will come on conviction. Anonymizing this is absurd; our own would-be bold-linked article on the Main Page gives the name in the lede, and there's no reason to entertain one PM's impossible and absurd demand on this.130.233.2.33 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This court didn't reject these pleas, though, so that's a conviction. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Man in China dies from hantavirus

 * Oppose way way way outweighed by coronavirus, and while more fatal (36% vs 2-3%), human transmission is extremely rare, hence why only 1000 cases. --M asem (t) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this doesn't stand a chance given the lateness of nomination and obscurity/triviality of the event; I do thank the nominator for the good-faith nomination, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Harry Aarts

 * support - indeed short but sufficient for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with BabbaQ. Looks well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to post but this death is now older than the latest on the template, sorry. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jennifer Bate

 * Support Looks ready to me. P-K3 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support given the length of the career, it's a bit lacking, but what's there seems satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some bits especially for you, but believe anybody could have done the same, - it's all in English, while I feel more needed when sources are in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 20:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Kurti cabinet

 * Support - Government collapse due to COVID-19 pandemic. Notable development. (Also proposing ALT1) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Kosovo lacks broad recognition as a state, and because the article is stubby. Kurti's replacement may qualify as ITN/R --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when was "broad recognition" required for ITN? Surely we'd post a story about Taiwan, a non-UN member recognized by 7.3% of members, so why not Kosovo which is recognized by a majority 50.3% of members? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We posted the Taiwanese which I opposed as well though the article was much better. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2 examples are not exactly the same because in the Taiwanese case there was an election of a new government, in this case there is not yet a replacement government and the government which was voted out continues in a caretaker role. However, not necessarily against this being posted, as the blurb can be updated as appropriate later. - Indefensible (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support it's a self-governing region which suffices. Banedon (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - it is notable with a government that falls due to the coronavirus.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a grey area that arguably could be covered by and is redundant with the coronavirus banner though. - Indefensible (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If needed, we could post this story without mentioning the pandemic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The Kurti cabinet continues as a caretaker govt., pending its replacement. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you'd rather add it then...? The Prime Minister will resign regardless, like when Theresa May resigned (which we posted) but was still "acting" PM for a while. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be very wary of directly connecting the COVID-19 situation with the govt's resignation. Sources in the article making such a claim also detail a long history of antipathy between the PM and President. This could very well be run of the mill politicking. Absent the COVID-19 angle, the time to re-nom this would be on the formation of a new government.130.233.2.33 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, but do you have an account and just forgot to log in? – Jon698 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added ALT2 with this in mind. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Per the ip comment can the blurb be changed to "Kosovo's Kurti cabinet loses a vote of no confidence after sacking a minister over disagreements on the handling of the coronavirus pandemic." – Jon698 (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Albin Kurti has not been updated! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated it a few hours ago. – Jon698 (talk) 3:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Is a decision going to be made on this article? – Jon698 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Stratton

 * Weak support very brief for such an "all star". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is currently 1800 bytes of readable prose, which is above the 1500 minimum that DYK requires. ITNC does not have any formal size minimums.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "AFL" is a very unclear term. Here in Wikipedia it links to a disambiguation page with around 35 entries! This Australian initially wondered who this footy star was that he's never heard of, and would never use such an abbreviation in a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm admittedly guilty of not following MOS in my nomination comment, though the comment field is optional for a nom, and the article does introduce AFL properly (and I did at least link it above). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - from what I can see everything seems legit and RD eligible.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment After a bit more expansion, readble prose size is now about 2,400 bytes.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Robert Alan Levinson

 * Comment Just noting family has stated they consider him dead as of this date, despite no evidence of body/etc. so this is a reasonable date to post. --M asem (t) 23:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I was just about to nominate this; it's clearly notable (three presidential administrations worked to find him) and has been making its way through the major news outlets. <small style="color:red">JOE  BRO  64  01:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 25 March was the death announced date, which is what we work on. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite possibly not recent at all, less possibly not dead at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And the article is about his disappearance, not him. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So if it's not a BDP, it technically doesn't have to be on Margaret Thatcher's level for a blurb. But it still has to be deadlier than the Zagreb earthquake. Or not related to you-know-what. Or possibly on a website's frontpage. Or maybe get a certain ratio of votes. Or...? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, he was no Nelson Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - RD is only used for people who are individually notable enough to have their own article, rather than an article about the political events surrounding them.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Opppse Valid point that there is almost zero about Levinson as a person in this article outside his profession related to his disappearance, so fails the basis of RD. --M asem (t) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per TheJoebro64 and Joseph2302. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is not biographical per WaltCip, and the announcement of his death does not mean his death is recent nor that he is actually dead per InedibleHulk. - Indefensible (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been the case in the past that when we have a notable person prior to their disappearance that is then declared dead (either due to certain laws or the familys consideration) then we have posted their RD as that date here. I forget who that case was in the past but we have respect this factor. That means the death could have been years in the past, as long as the official declaration of death is within the "freshness" for ITN --M asem (t) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ganz typisch. – Sca (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 India coronavirus lockdown

 * Weak Oppose We didn't do it for France or Spain, India is just one of many countries going under lockdown. --Rockin 12:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many other countries (Italy, Spain, France, UK to an extent) have gone into lockdown. It's why the coronavirus general thing is up at ITN, to avoid having to put all the specific articles on ITN. Also the article is only start class at the moment, would need improving. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covid banner is there for a reason. robertsky (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many other countries have already done so. There's nothing significant here. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose welcome, India, to the new normal. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anatoliy Mokrenko

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfred Gomolka

 * Support - I see no major issues. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent expansion, and so lovely that I don't have to do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been marked as ready for 10 hours, please can an admin promote it? <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready 17.5 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: William Dufris

 * Oppose major sourcing issues need to be resolved. Can we fix it? Probably someone can. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Stuart Gordon

 * Oppose - Needs referencing improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose filmography needs work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Bill Rieflin

 * I thought I added you to updater... it says it there ...--M asem (t) 00:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did mean, "I should be added" I meant, "This entry should be added to 'In the News', also, I am sad because Bill Reiflin is dead". Pardon me for being unclear. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry. Yes, obviously definitely to be added (and has been to you and others getting it up to quality). --M asem (t) 18:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose somewhat perversely, the discog looks fine but the prose needs multiple citations. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Working through those at the moment, esp. the bits around Swans and Ministry. Damn. The bad news keeps a comin'!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support All cited now. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to posting admin: I added myself to the updaters, but User:Lugnuts should be in there too, however the template only has 3 slots! Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support well sourced now. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks ok to go. robertsky (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Terrence McNally

 * Comment there are two orange tags in the article, will change to Support if these are addressed Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Are Huff and People considered RSs? – Sca (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I switched it to NYTimes and CNN per your request -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Huff is "debatable" and People is good for BLP - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post is well established as a reliable source; People would actually be questionable to a degree as it gets a bit more into celebrity gossip. --M asem (t) 23:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose multiple obvious issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready yet. Mostly looks good but a couple sections need additional referencing to remove their orange banners. - Indefensible (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Overall, the article is well sourced. Only the writing section has a tag left. Everything in the section is sourced or hyperlinked to an article. TJMSmith (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still one orange tag, and I'm afraid this nomination is now stale &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Reposted) 2020 Summer Olympics postponed

 * Wait only because (after searching for confirmation) this is one IOC member saying this. Wait until the official IOC statement. --M asem (t) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, as from the BBC story "The International Olympic Committee has given itself four weeks to decide on the future of this summer's Games, but veteran IOC member Pound says a decision will be announced soon. "It will come in stages," he said. "We will postpone this and begin to deal with all the ramifications of moving this, which are immense." So just wait for the "stage 1" announcement. --M asem  (t) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for a statement from the IOC, this is just one member(who may certainly know, but doesn't speak for the group as a whole). 331dot (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait as premature per Masem and 331dot. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just close this now It obviously hasn't happened yet. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reopened. Now confirmed per sources above. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Japan'sPM confirmed it. Starzoner (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now it's official. Let's get it up there. Quick, quick, hurry!!--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've written a present-tense blurb that avoids calling it the 2020 Games, as this will now be the 2021 Games. --LukeSurlt c 12:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has not been updated sufficiently as of right now. Fix the article and its lead to actually reflect the latest information, and then I can support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but only if the blurb also links to Dick Pound for some cheap laughs in these bleak times.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I've made an edit request to update updated the page. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the official confirmation I have gone ahead and lowered the protection level to semi-PP x 48 hrs. The article can now be edited by anyone who is auto-confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the IOC have said anything yet but obviously the Japan PM announcing it is good enough. This is the one sporting postponement that is worth posting in my view. Once the article has been updated take this as a support.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 13:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The "2020 Summer Olympics" should be bolded --Rockin 13:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull While I support in principle, far too many of the tables are poorly referenced. I would also note that there does not appear to have been a discernible consensus to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull per aO. Also questioning the "consensus"—excluding the nom, only two support votes, ?!? ——  SN  54129  13:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Official statement. Yes, this was posted too early but there's no question now. --M asem (t) 13:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull until consensus is reached per aO and Serial. Rockin 14:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep/Support. Fix the tables or remove them for the time being. The ITN process makes it take too long to pull a blurb and then have it reposted. Though consensus was weak, there's no doubt that this was going to be significant enough to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull until quality is fixed for BOTH of the problems noted above (sufficient update, referencing issues) UNLESS or someone else fixes those problems before an admin gets to removing it.  This should not have been posted in the state it was in.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled per the above comments. Consensus does not appear to be reached yet and some referencing improvements needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – For whenever the article issues are addressed, I'd just like to go on record saying the alt-blurb seems more appropriate. The format of the initial blurb doesn't seem to mesh well with other ITN headlines. Master of Time   ( talk ) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-post - I hate the practice of posting then pulling events of paramount importance. Let's post it and then improve it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Main page is too important to post sub-par articles and expect them to get improved. And Olympics - which were still 3months out - are not of "paramount importance" at this point. --M asem (t) 14:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, however this line of logic also suggests that non-emphasized articles in a blurb should meet the same frontpage standards in my opinion. For example, currently Prime Minister of Slovakia is up but is essentially unreferenced. - Indefensible (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Major news, even though it's corona related it still an important announcement. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 19:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Proposal - The article needs significant updating yet. Alternatively, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics, which is better maintained, could be featured here.Renerpho (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added alt2 The relation of the postponement to the pandemic should be highlighted. Clarified one year to 2021. Official title of event used in IOC statement is "Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games." Sleath56 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-post per WaltCip. Banedon (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is just part of the fallout of Covid-19 pandemic which is already conspicuously displayed. And this is not unexpected, many, many things much more important have been canceled, we need not start listing them. In fact, going ahead to do it, might be the unexpected thing here, and I believe if that were the case, MS sources would have given it much more attention than they do now. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-post article is good enough now. Although it's caused by coronavirus, this is a major world event, this postponement was worldwide ramifications. This is the only postponement therefore that I believe it's worth adding to ITN. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose re-posting – It was a major story, but as a one-time announcement it will have a short shelf-life in the news. Further, as noted in the past, such Pushmi-Pullyu waffling comes across as highly amateurish. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt1. This is the only sporting event for which I think a coronavirus-related delay is worth posting. The article is updated and of reasonable quality. It's huge and could do with a copyedit, but that shouldn't preclude posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either of alt1, alt2. The Tokyo Olympics is the only coronavirus cancellation/postponement story worth posting as a blurb. Olympics is a worldwide event with unique significance for the humanity, and in the past the Olympic Games were only cancelled because of war. In the case of Tokyo 2020 Olympics, the games could have easily been cancelled rather than postponed, so the current outcome was not inevitable. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support reposting, per Modest Genius. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the reposting now as per Nsk92 before it becomes old news Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ammarpad: nowadays, notability is more likely to be found in something actually going ahead. And, since events in the coronasphere are so fast moving, I'm afraid this must be deemed stale by now.  ——  SN  54129  14:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per Nsk92. --LukeSurlt c 15:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not stale. This is newer than than the newest entry about the Slovakian PM. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A week-old announcement certainly is very stale indeed. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who's in ITN for years knows, that's not how we suggest staleness. Don't be dishonest about this. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ZZZzzzz....Sca (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . Item is less stale than the item it replaced. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the yawning monkey loses this time. ;-) WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In terms of news, this is silly. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Suggest close as this has been reposted. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove I suggest removing this as it is just fallout of the Coronavirus pandemic. <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 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove. WTF? This is long-since stale, and clearly no consensus per the above discussion to re-post.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the case that it is “stale”, which has a specific meaning at ITN; the announcement was on 24 March, and Matovic became Slovakia’s PM on 21 March. P-K3 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Boo! Both virus news and old news, just like WrestleMania. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, there's no consensus to repost this, Martin. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep it's in the news, it's updated, the referencing is good enough, and the Olympics is a major multi-day, multi-sport, multi-nation event. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It used to be. But this year, it's nothing, the absence of all those things. Not even still watchable online, like bigger events will be. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)



I smell a rat. – Sca (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove no consensus, and it's definitely not in the news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: at the time of posting I judged there was consensus, because the only objections centred around the quality of the article which seems to have been addressed. The comments about being stale are curious, because if this is pulled it will be replaced by an even older item ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)



Things just get curiouser and curiouser. (And old news just gets staler and staler.) – Sca (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Everything we post is stale, and if this is pulled something even older will get dragged up in its place. One COVID-19 story slipped past the gigantic unnecessary banner -- just let it go. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull, then repost, then pull again - We can do this all day -- or even better yet, why not let's just close this discussion and finally put a lid on this farce.--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sca has provided and captioned three solid animal pictures. Should be clear enough to anyone what happened here. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You must admit that's much more economical in terms of cyberwork than posting 3,000 words of argument. – Sca (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull we have a big ol' banner for virus news, we don't need a separate article about something that isn't happening. Pointless entry, given the circumstances. It's also clear there is no consensus to post at all, so I'm not sure how the decision to post can be justified on that basis. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Manu Dibango

 * Oppose several citations needed and as usual, an unreferenced discography, worse than normal because many items not even linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very well known musician, leader in his genre and region. --Varavour (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs referencing improvement still as The Rambling Man wrote. - Indefensible (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Uderzo

 * Oppose not seeing any prose update and some referencing required.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some prose update has been added since. Which parts need referencing? Fram (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed, there were at least three [citation needed] templates. Now they've gone but most of the "Family" section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, the family section is now fully referenced! Fram (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. CNN, Hollywood Reporter, The Times, AP, The Guardian, Independent, BBC, DW, Variety, RT, Euronews. There should be enough content in there for a blurb. If not, definitely belongs in RD. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8458:7FA8:68FF:52B7 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb criteria is here, if that helps.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose til the big orange tag is fixed; looks like unreferenced family, awards, and some other information. Not a ton more work, close-ish. Haven't seen a good enough argument for a blurb yet.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd make an argument for a blurb when the article's up to scratch - if we're looking at the top of one's field, then storytelling comics (rather than the superhero-y/serial ones) is a field dominated by Asterix around the world. Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Storytelling was Goscinny's field, though. Asterix and Obelix are pretty iconic designs, but the dog and wizard are pretty forgettable. Compare to the dozens more memorable toons Matt Groening drew, for perspective on world dominance. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support This is beyond ready. Why hasn't it been posted yet? Manish2542 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, once concerns about content are resolved. KConWiki (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a few cns, but this is close to being ready. Fix those and I will support RD. Oppose blurb as 'number of translations of a French author' is a very narrow field to be top of; not at the Thatcher/Mandela level. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found reliable sources for two of these, and removed the third one which was simply incorrect (good tagging!). I think all "cn"s are removed now. As for the blurb: the "translations" was more a measure of popularity around the world than the sole claim to fame: having created a series which sold 370 million copies and spawned a dozen movies and so on (and has its own attraction park), and being arguably the last truly great artist from the heyday of European comics (i.e. before the advent of graphic novels and more adult comics) and one of the few who transcended their "local" fanbase and became universally known (like Hergé or Peyo or Morris), are the real claims to fame. But it's a borderline case for a blurb: when they were all still alive (those few, and Franquin, Jacobs, Vandersteen, ...), he probably would not have made the top 5 of most important ones; he just outlived them all. Fram (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I now support RD. I agree Uderzo was very successful and well known; I enjoyed his work. I'm just one of the ITN contributors who think the threshold for a death blurb must be very high, because we have the RD section where most deaths can be featured. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - However, the awards currently look unreferenced. - Indefensible (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks well-referenced now, also very prominent as the author of an iconic comic book series. --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good now which I didn't expect to happen when I first saw it, - thank you all who helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now still a couple of cites needed in the with Goscinny section, and awards. Good to go after that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have sourced everything now (and added a few awards at the same time). I hope we are finally done now and this can get some time on the main page after all... Fram (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to mark my own nomination as "ready"? Considering all the supports, and the opposes which just waited until the article was ready, I hope this may be considered "ready" before it is stale and falls of this page. If I stepped out of line, feel free to remove the "ready" indicator. Fram (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Maurice Berger

 * Support: good to go for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - everything looks cited. It would be great if someone could expand the lead. TJMSmith (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Spencer, Dr. Berger's nomination is almost out of time for posting, could you please review? There are a number of other Ready entries waiting on the list too, but this one is the most urgent. - Indefensible (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, things have been crazy offline given the field in which I work. I added myself to the ITNA template below, but I'm probably not the best person to ping for urgent requests in the next several weeks.  Spencer T• C 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to post, but the oldest item is now Mar 26. I'm sorry but I don't think I can post this now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What an embarrassment. This one was ready to go too. Perhaps it's time to start changing the procedure on RD, whether it's how we notify a posting admin or at what point a nomination is considered stale. WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people should make more use of @ITNA to attract attention by admins? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 *  Spencer , MSGJ, WaltCip - Thanks for your attention to this. Would it be possible to expand the active RD list from 6 to 10 to allow more time for names to be up (particularly during this coronavirus period in which the rate of notable deaths is increased), as I suggested on the talk page? - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look; I think having the discussion there is the best location.  Spencer T• C 01:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucien Sève

 * Weak support not much there but what is looks ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage at the present. What policies did the subject advocate for? For the subject's works, what are the main ideas proposed?  Spencer T• C 14:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of policies and some info on one work. Will look for more sources later (though lots of journals about his works are behind paywalls). <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum standards, thank you Joseph.  Spencer T• C 16:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per TRM above, although I agree that expanding the article bit more would be ideal. TJMSmith (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted must have been expanded since last comment, seems long enough for RD.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Stanley Sporkin

 * Support - Seems to meet requirements, although reads like WP:PROSELINE. - Indefensible (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose is a prose CV. But what's there is alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; per TRM, essentially a prose CV.  Spencer T• C 14:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) 2020 Zagreb earthquake

 * Oppose No casualties, and sub 6.0 scale. Not significant in the larger scale (Consider there was a similar magnitude in Utah a few days ago but outside of a power outage, wasn't much news either)... --M asem (t) 04:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true that there were no casualties, also not sure if verified but at least one death was reported. UPI, Macau Business - Indefensible (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was an initial report of 1 dead but was later corrected. As I suspect this will not get a sufficient support to get to ITN, I already nominated it for DYK. --Tone 07:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would otherwise support ITN, however, since I am the one who started the article, I will not take any admin actions. --Tone 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I lean towards supporting. Significant damage and impact on the country. Judging significance from magnitude is, in my opinion, misleading, because damage depends on seismic readiness. Similar quakes have caused numerous deaths in India, and a slightly more powerful one in El Salvador caused thousands of casualties. Conversely, a 5.7 in Tokyo, the most-prepared capital, would be largely a yawner. I feel if an equivalent quake hit the capital of a more-populous country, such as D.C. or London, it would probably be posted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Zagreb is a major European city and there was significant damage to the old city centre and many historic buildings such as churches and museums (e.g. ). The city's cathedral, which symbolises the city symbol as much as the Temple in aforementioned SLC, lost a spire (ref). There were also power and gas outages in parts of city, and other problems that go hand in hand with a major earthquake in a rarely affected region (ref), cf. Utah where the return period is 10 years (ref). Additionally, the strength still has to be ascertained for sure. Montenegro's seismological service estimates it at ML 6.0 (ref). Apologies for some non-English refs, am in a bit of a hurry.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  09:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - a day later, this is still on the front page of the BBC site, it's major news. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly unusual for Zagreb, but we can't post every <6M earthquake that kills no-one. See List of earthquakes in 2020 for the large number of bigger earthquakes we didn't post just in the last three months. The article is well-suited for DYK though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A death has been confirmed.  Daß  &thinsp;  Wölf  20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm not opposed to posting earthquakes that are minor if they cause major damage to historic sites, but it doesn't seem to be quite at that level. Blythwood (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Genius, Masem. Lacks broader significance. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - DYK is a better fit.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, it's a series of quakes with no deaths but if we marry together the rarity of the tremor in the area, the occurrence amidst the coronavirus pandemic and the damage it caused to many old buildings in the city, it's sensible to make an argument for. The main news in the Croatian media after this happened revolve around the fear of how letting people go out to prevent from potential aftershocks might impact pandemic's spread in the country. At the end, while the death toll is an important indicator for evaluating significance, it shouldn't rule out outright every similar story under unusual circumstances.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same issue with the Utah quake - several historical buildings damanged several aftershocks, concerns on the impact re COVID, but no deaths. I would agree there is a good chance of a major disaster that could strike somewhere in the world where there is a shelter-in-place or a massive medical response where the disaster would worsen the COVID spread or impact the medical response to the treatment, even if the disaster itself resulted in no deaths, but this one does not appear to be it - the articles suggest that everyone remained calm and after the initial shakes, stayed indoors as ordered. So I don't see that a story to post yet, especially if we're not posting the Utah quake story which was essentially of the same scope.  --M asem  (t) 16:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your point and this is not far from what you consider postable. The Clinical Centre for Pulmonary Diseases at the University Hospital Centre was evacuated because of the building's high seismic risk. Unlike the Utah quake that you're referring to, this one shaked a national capital where people from the entire country and the surrounding area are frequently admitted to hospital these days. The apparent disruption of this process is a big deal and seems to be of a much larger scope compared to the impact it made on the response to the pandemic in Salt Lake City.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support seems to be a damaging and disruptive earthquake in a national capital. WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is meaningless. Weak because the article is stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once the tag is fixed. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning towards posting once the article is fully referenced, anyone else have opinions?  Kees08  (Talk)   18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thought that the referencing was pretty good prior to nomination and it has been improved since, is there anything specifically you are looking for? - Indefensible (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not see it as notable enough for the News but I would fully support it for DYK.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no significant consensus to post this (by !vote 5-5) --M asem  (t) 05:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is none at all, so I have pulled it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As you know, its not a vote, but if it was, I count 7 supports to 7 opposes, am I miscounting? I thought the reasoning of the supporters was better than the reasoning of the opposes, a couple of which were that it was better for DYK than ITN, which as far as I know is not grounded in any policy (happy to be linked to it if it exists though!). A couple opposes cited that it did not kill anyone, which as of three days ago was not true anymore. Anyways my computer has an issue with its monitor when I have it on for awhile and it is very irritating, so summary: IMO, the arguments for posting were much stronger, grounded in policy, and accurate at the time of posting than the arguments for not posting, but its fine that it is pulled. If ITN is supposed to be based off of votes and not strength of arguments I would advise modifying the instructions however.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem; not a particularly newsworthy event. ——  SN  54129  08:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada withdraws from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics

 * Comment. Australia has effectively done the same, I imagine a host of other countries are in the same boat without making formal announcements. Probably best to hold off until the inevitable postponement announcement. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It will be if/when the critical mass of countries pull from the Olympics or the IOC announce they will postpone that we will post that story. Otherwise, this still all under the banner of COVID-19 events. The Olympics being postponed/cancelled would be "important" enough to be a blurb as its own compared to anything else that otherwise gets filed under COVID. --M asem  (t) 04:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the withdrawal is COVID-19 driven and the COVID-19 banner is still in ITN. robertsky (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for the inevitable cancellation/postponement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose more newsworthy to find something that hasn't been withdrawn or cancelled as a result of the virus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the above comments have it right. Blythwood (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would only consider the Olympics being called off altogether to be ITN worthy. P-K3 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lorenzo Sanz

 * Oppose inadequate referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is not ready yet, needs improvement before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Yokohama Northwest Route

 * Oppose It seems like just a regular highway opening to me. Happens all the time. What makes it ITN worthy? --Rockin 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good-faith nom, but this is a very trivial highway opening. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot see what make this special beyond a routine road opening at. --M asem (t) 05:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It comes with a four-kilometre long tunnel! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems like a DYK item. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd usually put something like this there, but thought I'd offer up something a little less COVID-19 related to put something positive on the ITN section. Oh well, you never know til you try.   Mccunicano  ☕️  09:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks significance. (The TFA folks seem to like items about highways, tho.) – Sca (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

La Modelo prison riot

 * Oppose Article is an underreferenced stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hellmut Stern

 * Support - Article is short, but seems to meet the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a book source, added a bit, and more could be added if someone has time. What a life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Known not only as a concert violinist, but also for educational talks about the Nazi era. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Janata Curfew

 * Strong oppose Everywhere is issuing various stay-at-homes, this is nothing special to make ITN that's not covered by the banner. --M asem (t) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment User:Masem. It is a very large scale curfew tomorrow. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. This is what we have the banner for. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is redundant with the coronavirus banner as Masem wrote, even if India is a large country. 14 hours is also not very long or notable. - Indefensible (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SNOW oppose California is sheltering in place indefinitely. That sure seems bigger than a one time curfew. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, this would be notable for how short the curfew is. This will probably be snowed out soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks, yes, length is an issue as well, until it is fixed, withdrawn. --Titodutta (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P. K. Banerjee

 * Oppose early life and honours sections need referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are four awards uncited, and one of the two paragraphs for his career are uncited. Bonus points if you fix the humongous infobox image :).  Kees08  (Talk)   16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a look now have added sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the retirement? That's kind of a big one.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks done anything else Kees08 .Please let me know.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   05:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed pending article improvement) RD/Blurb: Kenny Rogers

 * Oppose for now, given how much is unreferenced. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb even if the article is perfect. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now and I bet someone's going to propose a blurb - I don't know if Wikipedians like country music as much as Star Wars and glam rock but there's a good bit of referencing issues right now. -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  07:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The gambler he broke even. Can this referencing be sorted? ——  SN  54129  08:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose way off. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Editors are still updating the article. Give it some time, a day or two, for the updates to stablise the article first? robertsky (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb. Come off it - nowhere near meeting blurb criteria.   RD when article improved, of course.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now and also oppose blurb. This is a very long way off in terms of referencing unfortunately. And although he's a household name, I don't think it's the level at which we blurb. He's more of a Kirk Douglas than a Nelson Mandela... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD definitely not blurb-level here. He had an interesting trajectory that made him famous but wouldn't consider him top tier of country/western music. Too many sourcing problems for posting RD at this time. --M asem (t) 13:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality.  Lots of citations needed and unreferenced material.  Iconic and important singer, who at least merits a RD.  I fixed lots of the present citations, but the absence of citations on lots of material is glaring.  This is another one of those perverse results (long article, lots of good info), but it is an article with a lot of holes.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A Blurb would be OTT under any circumstances. RD acceptable if myriad quality probs. were fixed in a timely manner. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Blurb, Support - RD
 * Oppose blurb, fails the Mandela-Thatcher standard. Not the top level of country music despite being a household name, nor a former US President/British PM. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready yet, article needs improvement. Oppose blurb as well when the article is ready for posting, should only be a RD link. - Indefensible (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Until every concern taken care of. Ping me when done and I will change my !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Add to RD list only Mfernflower (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stats FYI, Kenny Rogers got about 1.5M readers yesterday while the blurb for the Wonderchicken attracted just 13K.  This demonstrates what's actually in the news and the extent of ITN's influence. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That, as always, is very interesting. But if the article is of insufficient quality, being an BLP and all, we shouldn't promote it on the main page.  If you think "popular" pages should not be subject to the normal quality requirements of items featured on the main page, or exempt from BLP, that's a different discussion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, note that Kenny Rogers even beat the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which only got |2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic 1.2M yesterday. My position is that we should replace ITN with Topviews as that does a better job of showing people what's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what TRM said? We can't put poor-quality BLPs on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) The Kenny Rogers article is rated as B-class and vital while its subject is dead, not living.  ITN's top BLP is currently Edwin Catmull which is rated start class and not vital.  Kenny Rogers has 58 cited sources while Catmull only has 38.  So, we see that not only does ITN not report what's in the news it is also not a fit judge of quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Andrew, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a fads tracker. If traffic is going to an article already then it does not need to be posted to get views, as you have shown. Conversely, posting articles that meet the quality threshold that people otherwise would not have noticed is providing education as an encyclopedia should. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Claude Bennett

 * Oppose Needs more sources  Kees08  (Talk)   04:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willigis Jäger

 * Posted (ps if you know German and can properly translate article titles, that is always appreciated on these articles)  Kees08  (Talk)   15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

2012 Delhi Gang rape

 * Oppose criminal sentences, whether being given or carried out, are not considered ITN-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support important news in a significant case of international attention. I think an exception can be made in this case. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Logical conclusion to a criminal event. Support on worldwide coverage. The criminal event was posted in Wikipedia's ITN when it had occurred seven years ago. Regards,  theTigerKing  10:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — important news. Justice is finally delivered.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  12:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Because it was covered by world media. Justice conclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted their conviction in 2013. We don't typically post executions behind that. --M asem (t) 12:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Wolfson-Masem; also oppose "per justice", which is one bizarre argument. ——  SN  54129  12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "justice" arguments, we are not here to right great wrongs. While we may record the righting of great wrongs, this does not suffice to upend our precedent against posting on criminal cases after conviction/acquittal in the absence of any noteworthy issues (of which there weren't any here). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose domestic crime story, uninspiring article. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This case is at least as significant for India as the Harvey Weinstein case was in the US. Article appears to be in good shape. Beyond which we need some new and non-Covid-19 stories on the main page. This is a good candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we posted the conviction of Weinstein and not his imprisonment, and we posted the sentencing of these people in 2013. Also, new and non-Covid-19 stories are not factors in the worth of a given blurb; coronavirus might have been a factor a couple of days ago, but isn't now that we have a couple of non-covid blurbs and a non-covid image, and that presumably all but a few future blurbs will be non-coronavirus with the banner up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd be okay with ignoring precedent on posting criminal punishment, but not ignoring the precedent on posting the same story twice.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Widely featured on RS sites. Highly significant in India, where many speak Eng. as a 2nd language. More noteworthy than the weak Asteriornis item, which has zero tangible impact on anyone. – Sca (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Actual execution is more significant than conviction and this issue is highly featured in reliable sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough. Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone please read and clean up this mess before it's rushed to the MP? The "Changes to the legal system" section has a whole section about a memorial held in London -- aka not changed to the legal system. Also has this grammar gem "From recordings made by a highway CCTV vehicle, a description of the bus, a white charter bus with a name written on it, was broadcast." among others. If we're going to paste irrelevancies on the main page at the very least lets not let the article be rubbish. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Wolfson. robertsky (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit strange that this is called the "2012 Delhi gang rape" case. Is the gang rape or the murder more significant? In a city the size of Delhi, this is probably not the only gang rape case that occurred in 2012; rather I would guess that it is noteworthy for its severity and outcome. However, the article is a Good Article. Since it is a noteworthy event in the news (although not locally for some editors), it may meet the requirements for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is denying it was notable, just that we posted the point when the men were convicted back in 2013. They've obviously been trying to get appeals which have failed and only just now the sentence carried out, but ITN doesn't duplicate posting the conviction and completion of the sentence. --M asem (t) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in the posting requirements does it say that repeats are not allowed? If it is just by informal principle or tradition, I would argue that the coronavirus items violate that as well then. - Indefensible (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, we don't provide "updates" on stories, particularly when the status quo is maintained which is the case here. There is a bit of concern with those arguing "justice served" which is a bit...righting great wrongs type of thought. WP wants to stay neutral and we respect appropriate legal punishments derived from fair trials and there's no doubt there was such the case here, but again, that they were executed now doesn't change anything at this point. Status quo is the same. --M asem (t) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When we get to the Olympics this year, if they do not get cancelled, I would think there would be a blurb for when it begins and when it ends. Would that not be the case? It seems arguable either way on whether the status quo is maintained or not, just based on the scope and how the event is framed. Now I do not feel that strongly about this specific event, but one could consider the difference being that 4 individuals are now dead whereas they were alive before, and the blurb is a sort of RD entry with broader social implications. - Indefensible (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The 4 sentences are not notable so calling the RD factor is not really appropriate. --M asem (t) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the same story twice. P-K3 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose criminals are executed daily across the world for heinous crimes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is quite rare that four men at the same time are executed. Five men have been executed since 1995 .  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  13:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per P-K3 and per TRM. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Igor Matovič
<b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We generally do not post mere swearing-in/inauguration/coronation of a politician, as it is their choosing that usually considered to be notable(i.e. the election they won). 331dot (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC),


 * Support  As I don't believe we did post this when he was chosen. I could be wrong, please correct me if I am. Thanks, Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as first appearance on main page. ——  SN  54129  08:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: What do you want, ITN or DYK, because you can't have both. Or do just wait what will get there first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Pro forma as new head of govt. & first mention in ITN. Not very timely, tho. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Could be improved further, but meets minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I would have preferred us to post 2020 Slovak parliamentary election when the results came in, but we didn't. The article is short but adequate. It might be a good idea to get a link to the election into the blurb anyway, adding altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – If we're going to post this, it should be done today in order to be even minimally timely. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything stopping it going up right now - no-one has opposed, the article is updated, and the quality is fine. I'll mark it ready, even though I !voted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * PPC – Suggest switching from Edwin Catmull pic, which has been up there for several days, to this one of Matovič. → – Sca (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Schwartz (pathologist)

 * Article is currently rated as a stub, which is not allowed per the WP:In the News requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Indefensible. Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article needs work, there seem to be some good sources but a few are Canada-locked? Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Article seems quite thin. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Italy coronavirus deaths top China's

 * Oppose We have a banner for COVID stories. This is not the type of thing to add a blurb about. --M asem (t) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, statistical observations like this are concerning but not so important that they need a separate entry. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per Masem. Very sad news, but barring a miracle we are going to see a lot of similar stories soon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One theory is that it's the belief in miracles that partly got them into this mess, with "holy" water, wafers and wine in churches being a major transmission method. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you find it funny. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. I find it sad. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - redundant with coronavirus banner, but the same is also true for the current WHO pandemic announcement blurb in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Whittingham

 * Support CN tags were fixed by Black Kite with previous nom. Hopefully we can find a source that gives a solid date, but it was definitely either the 18th or 19th, as per police statement yesterday. PotentPotables (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The reference says he died "Thursday" will Support as per above Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not totally clear - the sentence says "Cardiff City confirmed that the club legend succumbed to his injuries on Thursday in an emotional statement", which is ambiguous - the "on Thursday" could refer to the "confirmed" or to the "succumbed"... The Cardiff statement on Twitter didn't say either way. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've checked the BBC, WalesOnline, Cardiff's statement and none explicitly say when he died. I think c. 19 or "18 or 19 March" is the best we'll get for now. PotentPotables (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the way I read those. They all suggest the death was overnight having been in critical condition since the accident. I would use "ca. 19 March 2019" only because, with GMT time zone, that's when the sources are reporting it. --M asem (t) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * struck through to support - I will continue looking for sources with a firm date Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are any sources yet, it looked like all were feeding off the Cardiff City announcement, and that didn't say exactly when. Will probably become clear in due course. It doesn't really affect the nom either way though, we know he died recently and it was announced today, so it is eligbible for RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That ambiguous Independent article is once again being used to "confirm" the death as the 19th.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support good to go once the date of death issue is resolved. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine. If date of death is widely reported as 19, use that. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sir John Tooley

 * Support - a proper source for his death now exists, so I've reopened this. Decent sourcing, so it looks good to go to me. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Catherine Hamlin

 * Support. No issues that I can see. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted (tho the death should be in the prose and not the intro)  Kees08  (Talk)   15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Abel prize

 * Comment Per past discussions, we realllly would like the winners to be the target article. I know they're not in great shape, but these are the people we should be featuring. --M asem (t) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can't bold-link to an entry in a table. If there's no article about the thing they won it for, the two biographies will need to be brought up to scratch. Unfortunately they're a long way from being postable right now, and probably require the attention of an expert mathematician to sort out. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While we have a couple of images of Margulis, they aren't great in quality compared to what we have of Furstenberg. (no good tight head shot). --M asem (t) 16:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now unfortunately both peoples' articles are shoddy at the moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Asteriornis maastrichtensis

 * Oppose We've had another similar article on here quite recently. Now that the COVID map is no longer the picture and we've had two blurbs unrelated to the pandemic (and presumably all future blurbs barring something like an Olympics cancellation now that the banner's up), "non-coronavirus" is not a reason to post. While I won't strongly object if consensus develops to post this, I still think it's much too early to post another paleontology blurb (and I say that as someone with a background in evolutionary biology). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought I'll likely support this if we pull the earlier blurb, as this seems less scientifically controversial and more significant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am further aware that having topically-similar blurbs at the same time or close together isn't completely unprecedented, mainly happening with stuff like the Nobel prizes. Unlike those instances, however, these aren't deliberately scheduled together. I also know that pulling a blurb for the sake of a better one doesn't have much if any precedent, so I'm essentially relying on IAR there. I still weakly oppose given the scheduling, but I might reiterate that I won't strongly object if this gets consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can expand this article, it's the oldest undisputed modern-style bird and therefore more scientifically and popularly interesting than a controversial skull in amber.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did try to figure out if this was some special issue of Nature to happen to warrant to rather similar stories but it seems like these are just coinicidentally two similar stories that were publishers at near similar times. If it were the case this were a special issue, I would agree with focusing on the story with the lease scientific doubt (this one), but that doesn't seem to be the case. --M asem (t) 03:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now that the smallest dinosaur blurb has been pulled. It is adequately referenced and ready for the main page now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a replacement for the Oculudentavis blurb. I've made some substantial expansions, it should be as decent as Oculudentavis as an article. As a news item, it is much better, since the blurb about Oculudentavis being the smallest known dinosaur would be completely misleading if it turned out to be a lizard. From my perspective on the paleontology community's criticisms, that may very well be the case.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently the article is supported by a single reference, its Nature paper. Are there any other refs that can be added to support it? While Nature is a respectable source, the other current paleo article also had at least one Nature ref, plus others in addition. From a referencing perspective, the other article seems better supported. - Indefensible (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is this, a second article by a different author in the same volume of Nature explaining at a slightly higher level the significance of this discovery (eg placing the start of the modern bird development earlier than previously known). And then using the top level news sources like NYtimes gives some outside quotes from others that also qualify the result (eg the NYTimes says "The Wonderchicken, Dr. Worthy said, “appears to fill that gap.”"). Add articles to flush out what was known before about birds, and what this discovery changes, and you'll have about 6-8 sources I think, 4-6 of those as scientific journals. --M asem (t) 04:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get right to it.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cited eight more papers to elaborate on some of the info brought up within the article. Although the content of the NYT article looks good from what little I've seen of it, I don't have an account with them so I was unsure whether it was worth citing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, I just added a couple things from the NYTimes bit (only to point out the wonderchicken bit for the most part). This should be ready for ITN review. --M asem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A much better replacement for Oculudentavis. The article looks to be in good shape as well (although some discussion of the Valkenburg Member's palaeoecology would be a good addition). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks well-referenced now, good work Fanboyphilosopher. Suggest Wiki linking paleontology again as it is a Good Article. - Indefensible (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Arcane and not really in the news. Zero tangible impact on anyone. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfred Worden

 * Support I've removed all but last of the "citation required" tags. If necessary, we can comment out this line. Article is a poor tribute to a brave man. A pity never got a round tuit.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with above.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, we'll have 11 more of these to go. Should probably be a blurb though, only 24 people have been on or orbited the Moon. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure a blurb is warranted despite the notability. Maybe at the unfortunate event of the last Apollo astronaut's death? - Indefensible (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At least the four remaining Moon walkers would deserve a blurb (hopefully many years away) and as many of the others as possible. Thanks for the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Eurovision Song Contest cancelled

 * Oppose To be honest, everything is going to get cancelled soon. Also, List of major events affected by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is linked from the "Impact" link in the COVID19 box. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I've noted below, probably the only major event that would get into ITN if cancelled or postponed at this point would be the Olympics. --M asem (t) 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Mark E. Smith must be loving it. Leave the Capitol!  ——  SN  54129  15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As sad as this is, the 50th anniversary Glastonbury Festival also got cancelled today, which seems perhaps more noteworthy based on that. And, yes, wait for the Olympics. I feel this would be an obvious one to post in any other situation, but now... everything being cancelled is the norm, only the most globally significant gets posted -
 * Unless we argue that anything that would be ITN/R but is cancelled should get a blurb anyway... Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose more newsworthy to post the events are still going ahead. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons above. Even if the Olympics is cancelled I would still oppose. Juxlos (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The event is ITN/R, where do the guidelines say that it's only ITN/R if it takes place? Article is pretty good too. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the moment every event should be assumed cancelled until they say otherwise. This is just one cancellation among many. However, maybe "cancellations" could be added to the banner? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Turing Award

 * Support - looks like both articles are in decent shape. --LukeSurlt c 14:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Catmull's is undersourced, but it should not be that hard. --M asem (t) 15:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, nice nomination, important topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edwin Catmull's article in particular needs improvement as noted above before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, especially with the image, but Catmull's article has many CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me! Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 23:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment in case it's not clear, Catmull's article needs much better referencing. Stephen 23:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Catmull's article no longer has any CN tags. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now, still missing a ref or two but meets requirements for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted good work, thank you. Stephen 01:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the image been switched to Hanrahan? Catmull has had a couple days now, for the architecture prize I believe both winners had their image shown on different days. - Indefensible (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) Smallest known dinosaur discovered

 * Support Satis, and while not a reason for posting in of itself it's nice to have something not coronavirus-related. 05:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bee hummingbird is not quite up to the frontpage standard in my opinion, can that phrase be dropped from the blurb? - Indefensible (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * None bolded links are not required to be up to main page standards. --M asem (t) 05:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb to this effect; even if it is not required, paleontology is a good article and dinosaur is a featured article, so this would be preferable I think. - Indefensible (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping Bee hummingbird, linked, seems very important and encyclopedic because it is the smallest known living dinosaur. This also calls the "headline" into question, as the bee hummingbird, being a dinosaur, is equally the smallest known dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The suggested blurbs are dubious. Birds are dinosaurs and, moreover, this one was an avialan dinosaur. That said, the bee hummingbird is taxonomically the smallest dinosaur and it's unclear if this was definitely smaller. Additionally, the paper published in Nature points out that it represents the smallest dinosaur of the Mesozoic era, while NBC News have apparently generalised the context of the discovery in their news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re birds are dinosaurs, taxonomically that might be the case but in common parlance "dinosaur" is usually a paraphyletic group that excludes Aves, much like the Fish and Monkey categories tend to exclude humans from their definitions. If you can find a way to phrase this to make it unambiguous, please go ahead, but I don't think it should stop the nom. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should always deal with complete scientific accuracy as such, so arguments revolving around "common parlance" are not welcome here (Monkeys and humans have very recent common ancestor but belong to distinct subfamilies of the primates order. Humans are apes and have never been excluded from that subfamily.). The common notion of dinosaurs as extinct species of gigantic lizards as presented in many illustrated books and animated films has proven to be false and Wikipedia is the right place to break this misconception. I've suggested another blurb that clarifies it was the smallest dinosaur species of the Mesozoic era as indicated in the paper.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the scientific situation, but your point "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is exactly why we don't publish things in the same way as a scientific paper would. Using commonly recognised names rather than overly technical ones is enshrined in our policy. And let's be honest, even scientists don't regard humans as fish, and wouldn't find it useful to do so. Referring to the "mesozoic" is unnecessary detail, and dilutes the significance of this find. Using the standard term "non-avian dinosaurs" or similar might work though. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Birds, being dinosaurs, include the smallest known, the bee hummingbird. Saying that this new dinosaur skull is the smallest known should include clarification that the bee hummingbird is equally small. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone with a background in evolutionary biology, I have to agree with Amakuru that Wikipedia, being a general-purpose encyclopedia, is targeted towards a general audience and as such should stick to the common understanding of "dinosaur" excluding birds, especially on the Main Page. The comparison to a bee hummingbird can remain in the blurb, but should not be referred to as a dinosaur. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - not corona related, thanks. I personally think this article is ITN ready. BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I think alt 1 is the best of the blurbs but I'm not opposed to any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious support -- Very happy to see this. I was ready to nominate this myself when news first broke but gave up halfway through filling the form, because [excuses]. I have added a slightly adjusted version of Alt II as Alt III (Too many wikilinks and missing "known", IMO). I would also prefer "Mesozoic dinosaur" to "dinosaur of the Mesozoic era" if it's okay to have two consecutive wikilinks. Finally, I do agree we need to be precise with the blurb even at the risk of losing other desirable attributes. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale I recall reading about this several days ago and indeed both sources given are dated the 11th. At the very least this should be re-filed under the correct date where it is about to fall off the tracker. 3142 (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is newer than any of the other blurbs currently in the board. We need something to fill space. --M asem (t) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Add to the blurb "...bee hummingbird, the smallest known living dinosaur." for accuracy and informational data. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that: I have no interest in debating the merits of that point other that to say you will have a hard time convincing most that a bird is a dinosaur. Regardless, an ITN blurb is not the place to start grinding that particular axe. 3142 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ? There is no debate, birds are dinosaurs and are accurately called dinosaurs on Wikipedia. The blurb is essentially inaccurate in not pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The alternatives mentioning the Mesozoic would be preferable in this case, as it's factually accurate without needing to confuse people with true but not widely known taxonomy. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Nice piece of news, article good to go. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting item to add. Rlendog (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Rather minor and arcane for ITN. That it's "not coronavirus-related" (per John Wolfson) should not be a factor. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In these unique times, I think it may very well be from now on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted using alt1 which seems to be the least argued against blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the present use is inaccurate, which is why nobody argued against it. The smallest known dinosaur is the Bee hummingbird. Saying this new discovery is the smallest known dinosaur is encyclopedically not correct. Please add that it "and the bee hummingbird, are the smallest known dinosaurs" or some such language, but what we have up there now is not only inadequate but misleading. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose changing the blurb to state "the smallest known prehistoric dinosaur." - Indefensible (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do would be to say "non-avian dinosaur" if we absolutely must make such a modification; it is correct and the least awkward of the options. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak pull. It’s not even clear from the article whether this discovery is a dinosaur, a lizard, or a bird. The blurb is unequivocal that it’s a dinosaur. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:B9B7:3132:6C2D:910 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Implicitly we recognize its a theory by those that wrote the paper, its not an absolute and will never be able to be proven but we are relying on the fact it was published in Nature a top-level peer-review journal that the conclusion that it likely was in the dinosaur group to be a reasonably accepted theory. --M asem (t) 20:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As an editor from the dinosaur project, I have no strong objections to this wording (since it is, after all, the reported conclusion of the paper, and the controversy cannot be summarized in one sentence). However, I disagree with your reasoning, . To quote palaeontologist Mike Taylor, "the venue of its publication tells us nothing useful about the quality of a paper". One only needs to look to Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper for a clear example. Even in the domain of palaeontology, the majority of text written for Nature and Science articles gets dumped into the online supplementary information, which is reviewed much less rigorously. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I created the article and I have to say that the identification of the skull as avialan (bird) is very questionable. Many paleontologists have argued for an interpretation of the skull as a lizard both informally and formally, in the case of researchers at the IVPP in Beijing. The academic integrity of the primary author is also under scrutiny. We should not advertise a work as controversial as this on the front page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Misleading blurb. Pavlor (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled with regret as there seems to be agreement that the blurb is misleading. Please discuss if it can be reposted with a different blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that there is now a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed) of a scientific paper formally rejecting an avian identity for Oculudentavis: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 stock market crash

 * Previously I would have supported this, but now it is indirectly covered by the "Impact" link in the coronavirus box I think. There are also 2 Closed nominations visible below related to this same article. - Indefensible (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Euro Cup and Copa America has been postponed

 * Oppose The NBA postponement failed and this appears roughly equivalent. In any event we have the coronavirus banner and this doesn't appear to warrant its own blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only sporting event at this point that would be news if postponed would be the Olympics as the top event across multiple sports and countries representing the scale of the issue. --M asem (t) 04:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose + a couple of comments Too narrow a perspective, in commenting on just one sport. But at least, unlike the NBA, this is international competition. And to the OP, "summer" is a bad descriptor of a calendar time. Several of the Copa America teams come from places in the southern hemisphere, where summer runs from December to March. I doubt that's what you meant. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose probably more newsworthy to find an international tournament that hasn't been affected by Covid-19. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sophie Wilmès

 * The day after that she was sworn in. is uncited but otherwise I support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * She's been prime minister for nearly half a year...? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, I think the difference is that she was only a caretaker previously but now is not just a caretaker. Might still be notable enough to post, would probably need to update the blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated the blurb per the above. - Indefensible (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Williams

 * Oppose per nom  Kees08  (Talk)   17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article updated, left a single cn tag but should meet the requirements now. Kees08  (Talk) , please review again. - Indefensible (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted though one citation needed tag was added, if any of are able to take a look. Additionally, the Bush comment comes out of nowhere and should probably be expanded or deleted per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP policies. Also not sure if the Declaration of the Peace People text would be considered a copyvio; my instinct says yes but perhaps there is an exception I am not thinking of. If it is give me a ping on the talk and I can revdel as needed.   Kees08  (Talk)   19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Early human mammoth bone structure

 * Comment The History section is currently orange-tagged. Brandmeistertalk  19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this has been known about for years. In fact, they've had time to build a museum on top of it. Also, since nobody knows why the structure was made, it is hard to see how it has any "impact" on the field of archeology or anything else. It is in the news only because it turns out to be older then they thought before. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather trivial and not as important as the oldest modern bird. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thai Thanh

 * Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Eduard Limonov

 * Oppose needs plenty more referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a number of references and removed some unsourced statements. The article still leaves much to be desired, but I believe it is satisfactory VanHelsing.16 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Controversial but notable person. Support. TarzanASG (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For example Kommersant says: "Obituaries are supposed to tell about the biography of the deceased — but the life of Eduard Limonov is already known to every Russian person". TarzanASG (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Literary work needs citations, and the 'ographies. Also BLP information needs cited in Jail and protest activities, 2001–2013. Could be others, that is a lot of work.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Whittingham

 * Wait. There is no confirmation of this on BBC Sport's Cardiff City page, on Cardiff City's website or social media, or any local press. Just a minor English-diaspora newspaper in Spain citing tweets. This is completely unacceptable, and if I had a confirmed account I'd revert the news of his "death". 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A121:F6B1:502B:6CB1 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Until there's any news here, don't believe it 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A121:F6B1:502B:6CB1 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems like the right direction, did not realize there was an issue with the source. Thank you for pointing out the issue. Recommend registering for a Wiki account regardless. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait I haven't reverted this yet because I believe EWN to be a reasonably reliable source (and for other reasons). If true, then Support (I've fixed all the CN tags in the article). Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the cn tags Black Kite. The article should be good to go quality-wise if there is confirmation I think, although hopefully the subject will be able to say that the news is greatly exaggerated. - Indefensible (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. The Wales Online story has disappeared. I am guessing that this is sadly true but is waiting for family to be informed before being released, but for the time being I have reverted (and semi-protected) the article. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Stuart Whitman

 * Oppose agreed, needs some work.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pilar Luna

 * Support - SusunW (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Black Monday stock market crash

 * Oppose Nominating single days has become nonsensical. This can only be covered in summary form when things settle down. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now it is certainly a big deal, but hard to cover in the midst. For what it's worth this was about as bad as 1929 in terms of percentage - the raw numbers are just way worse because the marker started higher this time. -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  03:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I pointed out below, someone needs to make a summary page "Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic" that hits the impacts on financial, economic and other sectors beyond the medical and governmental responses, linking in this stock market crash alongside pages like Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on cinema and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on aviation, which we can then add to the new banner as "Impact", which would cover all future such news. --M asem  (t) 04:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have not seen it before, this is the page you are looking for I think to add to the banner: Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm being bold and adding that to the header now. --M asem (t) 05:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work to Starzoner, they deserve the credit for creating that article. Now that it is up on the frontpage, we can close this nomination and the previous stock market nomination I think. - Indefensible (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * well thank you. :) Starzoner (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per earlier comment(s), the blurb should be generalized I think to state something about being in a bear market or the bull market ending, that way it does not need to keep being bumped each time. Or maybe put it in Ongoing as Master of Time suggested. The stock market is a sufficiently different field that it can be posted on its own in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier today (or I guess what would be yesterday for some people) at the end of the previous section dedicated to the stock market (which Indefensible appropriately referenced), this should be added to ongoing if nothing else, since it acknowledges this very current event while bypassing issues of "how does this compare to 1929," "why should we single out a specific day," etc. I would have nominated it myself, but I'm not sure if nominating for "ongoing" is a thing. Master of Time   ( talk ) 04:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For future reference, it is a thing. See: Template:ITN candidate. For ongoing, there is an "ongoing" flag that just has to be set to "add" instead of putting a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. It was good that we posted earlier days, but I fear with some reason that the stock market might fall even further the longer this goes on, and we have the banner for a reason. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, I think we can now take it that each new market opening will be a bit disastrous... Black Mondays for this week, and that week, and all the weeks! When and if that does happen, there's already 'impact' in the coronavirus banner, which could be switched out for 'death of trade market'. Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Financial markets are inherently variable, especially these days. Ergo, single-day market news goes stale FAST. (We might consider an end-of-the-week story on Fri./Sat., though.) Suggest snow – to avoid another pointless 3,000-word discussion. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sagamihara stabbings sentence

 * There is only a single line currently in the article about this event. Given that the blurb and its referenced content are roughly the same amount of information, not sure this is appropriate to post to the frontpage of a major encyclopedia. - Indefensible (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: We posted the initial event on ITN. Not sure that a later sentencing is as notable at this point.  Spencer T• C 00:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the two comments above, I don't think the sentencing is notable in itself. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm likewise in the mood for some non-coronavirus news, but that's for the Slovenian government blurb below. I doubt the actual execution would be worthy of a blurb, much less this sentence. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous comments. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada closes border

 * Oppose it's just one of a plethora of border closures, and is in no way special. Let's get the Covid-19 banner up and running to cover this.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good news, the Covid-19 banner is up! This nom should now be closed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as above. Several countries have done it or are in the process of doing it, so not great to focus on just one. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is just the latest in a long list of events, any of which in normal times would be a "shoo-in" for ITN. Alas these are not normal times and things that would once have been considered unthinkable are now happening near daily. I believe we will shortly be adding a banner to the ITN section for the latest updates on the COVID-19 pandemic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But can still be addressed as the current blurb could be updated (if kept) to note multiple lockdowns led by Italy. - Indefensible (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the EU also announced border closures today - that's a lot more borders with a lot less physical borders than Canada has, which would be more notable if not for the fact every country seems to be isolating. That would be the blurb, though the banner seems to make it a little redundant. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose border closures are happening everywhere. Malaysia, EU, Australia also are having their borders closed. robertsky (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy Hudd

 * Support - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully sourced. ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nice short article with plenty of references Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it! Though I was going to ask if "GRO: June 1936 2a 883 Croydon – Roy Hudd, mmn = Barham" is a valid citation?  Kees08  (Talk)   16:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Vittorio Gregotti

 * Oppose until expanded.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's still marked as a stub although it's probably more like a start class. Does need some expanding per the nom.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Record low US box office

 * Strong oppose Its the global box office that is down, and there are much much much much much more serious concerns related to COVID that would be in ITN before stuff like this. --M asem (t) 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small a story in the scheme of things this year. I doubt this would even get to be put in the proposed coronavirus-specific section. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reopening While I don't dispute it's not fantastic, I seriously question closing this after 20 minutes. Even more views on why it shouldn't be posted would be at least useful in working out where the ITN-worthy lines for A. coronavirus blurbs and B. movie industry news are. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support it is a pretty big deal, the US movie industry has effects that extend into pretty much every country in the world. Plus, at this point it'll bump off the Pritzker Prize, and simce that's been up for 12 days, some random guy in Ohio eating a cheeseburger today would be a bigger story. 1779Days (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose was correct in his speedy close. With everything going on in the world, and I'm talking just in the last 24 hrs, this is almost trivial. There is not the slightest chance this will be posted, nor should it be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. On reflection my above oppose sounds a tad sharp. While I remain strongly opposed to posting, I don't want to give the impression that I am suggesting the nomination was anything other than one made in good faith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understood you, but thanks for clarifying. My reason for reopening, as said, wasn't necessarily to get it posted, but to hear some discussion, though that seems to have been fruitless, there's just a lot of 'no'. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is just one of many ramifications of coronavirus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Nowhere near important enough based on all the other COVID stuff that is getting more priority Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose - No one cares about this right now.--WaltCip (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. This is a fairly trivial part of the coronavirus pandemic's fallout. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the intention of this nomination, I'm of the opinion that only events that warrant blurbs without coronavirus (stock market crashes and changes of heads of government, for example) and the pandemic itself would warrant a blurb with it. Given that the NBA season story was voted down, I would say that that might be a permissive limit. I don't think that a 22-year low in the box office (which is quite frankly not that long a time), only in America (but even globally) would warrant a blurb if it just happened for no reason, and it's not blurb-worthy even with the coronavirus IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Reed

 * Not ready yet I think, many statements lack a supporting reference. - Indefensible (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article sections are now sourced. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Already marked Ready, but article looks well-referenced now per the above. - Indefensible (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Genesis P-Orridge

 * Comment I don't think I'm qualified knowledgeably enough to claim that an article passes all qualifications for featured articles, but I do want to add that Genesis was crucial to the advent of Industrial music. In fact the genre was named for the label s/he helped create, Industrial Records with her band Throbbing Gristle. JanderVK (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, pioneer in industrial music, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a long article but going through it now to verify it is ready to post (in case any other admin was working on this).  Kees08  (Talk)   15:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of citations needed, I could let it go for an article of this length but at least the marriage needs verified. That and the discography need verified prior to posting.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just the discog needs cited now, courtesy ping to   Kees08  (Talk)   18:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pitchfork? – Sca (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose mostly fine, but the discog and the reference seem at odds with one another at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - A couple cn tags, but overall meets the minimum requirements I think. If the discography section is an issue, propose just removing the problematic items. - Indefensible (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - I've removed the discography, because most of it isn't actually a solo discography anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Gustavo Bebianno

 * Oppose - Needs a bit more referencing and could use further description before posting in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose refs missing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment CN tags have been filled with refs. PotentPotables (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any thoughts since it has been updated?   Kees08  (Talk)   17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article could still use much improvement and has WP:PROSELINE issues in my opinion, but would not be opposed to it being posted as it may meet the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Giwi Margwelaschwili

 * Support - Article was not ready earlier, good work updating it Gerda Arendt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indefensible (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted could use some work but meets RD requirements.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

14th Government of Slovenia

 * Comment there are a lot of bare references (in the 14th Government article) that need attention - neither WP:Refill or WP:Reflinks could fix (for me) I would support when that is addressed Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC) add Support as per User:Tone Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister of Slovenia in particular cannot be posted I think, it has almost no referencing currently. - Indefensible (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I chose the cabinet article as the target. As for the references, those seem to be pdfs of the minutes, so the Reflinks does not work, I've tried as well. --Tone 18:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would still be included in the blurb though, I think every article that shows up in the post has to meet the standards for posting, not just the emphasized one. Would try to reword the blurb to only rely on articles that meet that standard. - Indefensible (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested an altblurb to this effect. - Indefensible (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I'll add Šarec to stress the point that this was not after an election. --Tone 18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks decent, but Janez Janša's article needs to have its cn and update tags addressed before this can be posted I think. - Indefensible (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the general requirement. Only the bolded article has to be completely proper. This is why Janša is not bolded. --Tone 17:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a little ambiguous, but in my opinion WP:In the news applies to all articles linked, not just the emphasized one. At least, that is the standard that I would prefer. If the 2 orange banners can be addressed, then I would feel comfortable supporting posting the blurb personally. - Indefensible (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle National heads of government changing are notable for ITN purposes. The blurb should note that the resignation was due to coronavirus (I was going to say "not that this matters, but it's nice to have something not related to the coronavirus up on ITN" before reading the article); I have added a blurb that mentions it. Ideally Janša should be bolded, although the government page will do in a pinch. Perhaps a photo of Janša should be used if one is found. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The resignation was not due to coronavirus but due to disagreements in the coallition, it happened in late January where most cases were still in China. --Tone 08:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I skimmed and misread; disregard that part. But the rest of my point stands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on quality grounds. The big sections of tables with the cabinet posts don't seem to be adequately references. Some sections don't have any sourcing, and the only sources that are there seem to be, which doesn't have detailed info on the names of the post-holders, and which is a deadlink. That said, though, there is no requirement to get non-bolded articles up to any particular standard, so once these issues are resolved on the bolded article, I would support on notability.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Take this as a support once the orange tags are gone; I'm not putting 'oppose' because hopefully one or two sources will cover all those tables and be added quite soon by someone who knows about the elections. Kingsif (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) (Pulled again) Black Thursday

 * Wait until the day is over. NOT#NEWS, we shouldn't have an article even on this yet. --M asem (t) 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It has affected other countries such as the Philippines where a newspaper has called it "Black Thursday" already, so let us not be US-centric. I posted this for if stocks close at a lower decline than Monday. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One paper. I looked and saw maybe a couple others. This makes the name fall under WP:NEO. Maybe at the end of the day there's something, but as when the Monday's situation, markets are volitile. I suggested the week's overall effect was the news story, and I will still stand by that since that's clearly the trend. --M asem (t) 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment todays drop is due to the COVID-19 US travel ban, and COVID-19 is in the box plenty. Monday was the OPEC civil war. Merge all these articles into 2020 Global stock market crash or similar and propose it for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a new, separate blurb. This is apparently what ITN is destined to be this month.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Worth noting for notability purposes that the US stock market has become a bear market after an 11-year streak (the longest in history). Today's crash is expected to surpass that of October 2008 be the worst since 1987. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Economic experts have been warning for years that the bull market is not sustainable and would turn around at some point. So this is not at all a surprise or its a news element. It's also far far too close to the event to try to be judging how much of an important this week has on the long-term. --M asem (t) 19:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Today is an important economic event regardless of what certain economists may have predicted. The article even states that the bear market had sustained 11-years despite challenges such as the American-Chinese trade war and Brexit. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - NY Times says this is the worst day for the U.S. stock market since the 1987 crash. I suggest we continue to post a separate blurb, possibly noting that investors were reacting to President Trump's Europe travel ban, which in and of itself is a significant moment in the COVID-19 crisis.--WaltCip (talk)
 * If this is added as a blurb, it will replace the Black Monday or or bring the Black Monday one. There is zero need to have two blurbs on the same effect news, negative market trends. Remember, the key facet right now is that thousands of people have died from a rather contagious virus that probably could have been prevented but instead due to a number of mistakes across the globe at all levels. That people have lost money in the short term and there may be long term consequences is not unimportant but the priority is far outweighed by the cost of human life going on here. --M asem (t) 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree they should be combined somehow. The cost of human life? Global stock markets are down 30%. Three years of gains are gone. People who depend on that for retirement savings are in a real crisis. This is just as impactful as 4700 deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The Dow dropped nearly 10%, the second-largest percentage drop since the Great Depression. Considering that the top three daily point drops in the Dow's history occurred in the past four days, I wonder if there's a clean way to combine Black Monday and Black Thursday into one blurb. But I'm fine with a separate blurb, too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The DAX 30 fell 12% today as well. As large as the NYSE is, we shouldn't focus strictly on it given this is a global phenomenon. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suppose the Dow's point-change stats aren't too informative for historical comparisons, either; most of the top 20 point losses occurred in the past two years, and the top three point gains also occurred earlier this month. Davey2116 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yawn - It will go up again, and we won't post that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The rightists have been saying that for three weeks. Sad! --LaserLegs (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, are you still yawning? Abductive  (reasoning) 14:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as combined blurb - we don't want two headlines saying practically the same thing, one of which is not even factually true anymore. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Crash of 2020 would be a great candidate if the Monday and Thursday articles were merged into it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – A relevant / noteworthy topic that would be a useful modification to the current blurb. Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support having already posted Black Monday, we should also post Black Thursday. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is a no brainer tbh. A decrease this large... the largest in over 30 years needs to be posted. <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 01:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we just switch out the target article right now and worry about the blurb later? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. If Black Monday was significant enough to warrant a spot, Black Thursday certainly is. I note that I oppose attributing causation to COVID-19 or the Schengen Area-US travel ban, as the market crash also has to do with the Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war—leave causation to the article. userdude 03:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. Someone has tagged this as lacking a worldwide view of the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some truth to it, but I don't think it's so unbalanced to warrant pulling the blurb. There was already mention of foreign markets, and I just added the UK's FTSE 100.  I also reordered some of the text, making the US details a subsection of the crash, instead of having it appear like the main point.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled, for the time being. The article is orange tagged at the moment, so is ineligible for ITN on quality grounds. Please either resolve the issues or, if there's consensus that the tag is invalid, then remove it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we at least put Black Monday (2020) back up if we're pulling Black Thursday?--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not as it was, since it's no longer true. —Cryptic 12:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now I go back to my original point about how it's impossible and silly to post news stories about stock market gyrations, for this very reason. But we live in novel times now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Neutrality issues resolved. Should be good to be reposted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The tagging makes no sense. All three articles discuss events and impacts on, at least, 3 different continents. Wth?130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-Posted Tagged issues appear to have been resolved. No tags currently on the article. Thanks to for pulling the page when it was tagged. Good job everybody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice one, thanks for the good work team. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And guess what? — "Stocks surge day after biggest percentage decline since 1987." – Sca (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to post a similar article like that. The weekly downturn itself is news and a blurb based on that would have been reasonable, but reacting on the daily downturns is really not what we should be doing, COVID or not, since there's nearly always been a major rebound the next day. --14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Damnit, Sca, you don't get how this works -- good news is no news.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with previous unsigned post (by Masem). A classic case of yesterday's news. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe there's "nearly always been a major rebound the next day", make sure to buy as many stocks as you can at market close of a market rout. Banedon (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment of yours, which I assume was sarcasm, sure takes on a whole new meaning as of this evening!--WaltCip (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So, uh... This is happening. ... Stock markets post their biggest daily gain since 2008. Where would you even put this?--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update the blurb and say global markets are highly volatile. Banedon (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am completely open to updating the blurb to reflect the volatility in the financial markets. Just give me a blurb backed by some kind of consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Financial markets are inherently variable – on a daily basis. Ergo, market news is problematic for ITN. – Sca (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: "Stocks post monster monster gains; Dow surges 9% adding nearly 2,000 points as Trump declares coronavirus emergency." – Sca (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can work it into the blurb, go for it. The crashes happened. They happened and things recovered just like floods recover and tornadoes recover and all the other disaster porn we post recovers. I'm not buying this "Financial markets are inherently variable" argument either. We've seen record swings down and up in a broad range of markets across the globe. It's ok if you don't care, but you don't get to pretend it's normal. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could take a broader approach that would have a longer shelf life – something like, "World financial markets (do such-and-such) in their (worst?) week since (sometime past)." Again, stock blurbs based on daily results get stale FAST. And I'm still not convinced this topic needs a separate blurb. There are many websites that catalogue market fluctuations, and they're well-known to investors. The Big Story is the virus itself. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Attention needed hi all, the target article has been merged, and the new article, 2020 stock market crash has orange tags on it again. The WORLDWIDE one, and a section that needs expansion. I won't pull immediately, but as before, can we resolve those issues or decide by consensus that they're invalid? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , pull the trigger. We do not need a separate blurb on the coronavirus crisis. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The better subject to post I think would be that the record 2009-20 bull market has ended, since that is a finished event which will be much more stable to record than the fluctuating state of the 2020 crash or every new Black Day of the Week. The current posting is much more news-oriented than encyclopedic in my opinion; for example, the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia obviously seems to have a partial causal role, but how is this mechanism encyclopedically explained? Currently it is not, it is simply noted as fact ex facie. The record 2009-20 bull market is also much more significant and consequential than the 2020 crash, encompassing over a decade of time and generating far more wealth and product globally than what has been lost thus far, yet it does not even seem to have a Wiki article currently; this demonstrates the bias and mental blind spot in the nature of the human Wiki editors collectively (to psychologically overemphasize loss over gain) I think. - Indefensible (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Being a human being, I'm mainly interested in the spread of the virus and its effects on people, not in what the politicians have to say about it or how the markets react to it. Still the No. 1 story. Period. – Sca (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course the coronavirus pandemic is an important subject and should not be overridden in any way by the economic or financial coverage which is posted in parallel, however the negative impact to humans may very well be greater in scale from the stock market collapse than from the direct effects of the virus. Whether or not this is the case is the sort of detail that one might expect to see in an encyclopedia covering the events. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When you're dead the market is of negligible interest. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia is for the living however. - Indefensible (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Concern/curiosity Hello all! I had posted to the Errors page asking if "global"+"1987" in the blurb constituted an inaccuracy/OR, but did not receive a response. Does that mean I was wrong or does no one keep an active eye on that page? TIA Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are seeing that, do you mean the short description? That looks correct. - Indefensible (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , hello! What I meant was (the pulled) blurb read (paraphrasing) "global stock markets broke 1987 records." The claim was in the lead of the article (now it's been changed, global -> US), and both there and here (see the OP above) gave CNBC as the supporting source. The CNBC article only says two US-based stock indices broke 1987 records. So, saying "global" stock markets did that could be original research even if true? Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, good catch. Well, hopefully that can be addressed before anything is reposted again. - Indefensible (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled again on quality, sorry guys but per above the newly merged article has orange tags again and it does not look like they're going to be fixed imminently. Once they are fixed or the issues resolved, please advise and ping me, and someone can repost (unless it turns out that consensus has changed regarding significance based on the above comments). Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the merged article seems to have stabilised with wider coverage and no tags. Stephen 00:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note, given (this being Sunday) that all the future markets are pinging as low as they can go, this might be another major change tomorrow this merged article would need to reflect. --M asem (t) 00:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. Markets are inherently variable, esp. [https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/%5EDJI#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%3D%3D these days]. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there were a broader article/blurb on this bear mark or the end of the bull market, it would not be an issue I think. - Indefensible (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * the orange tag seems to have been addressed, can it be reposted again? Added a new altblurb. - Indefensible (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Since there are issues with outdated blurbs, would it be better to add 2020 stock market crash to Ongoing, even if only until another blurb is created? Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe this should be posted to Ongoing instead as you suggested. Does it need to be renominated at this point? - Indefensible (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that as part of the banner, if we can make a grouped "Impact" page that links the financial and economic impacts not only on the stock market but on specific industry sectors, that could be added. It would seem weird to have a market crash that is directly tied to the outbreak as a separate thing from the actual outbreak banner. --M asem  (t) 00:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not re-posted unless a new consensus emerges. Apologies to those who pinged me above, that I hadn't yet responded, I've been quite busy with other things. I think looking at this and the new "Black Monday" discussion above, I'm not sure there's consensus for a re-posting at this point. The events of yesterday would appear to supersede last week's Black Monday and Black Thursday anyway and there is strong opposition to adding anything specifically about yesterday's "Black Monday". If something changes, however, please do let me know or another admin can make changes if there's consensus. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose re-posting – Stale, outdated, old news. Suggest we finally close this moribund topic. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Roux

 * Comment: the article is a GA and the death is being reported in multiple RSes. However, his death is not mentioned in the article, only the date given in the first sentence. Needs a one or two sentence update in the body of the article, then I will support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Good enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it's mostly fine, per Modest Genius, I made a few tweaks. At least one reference needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed the obvious cn tag. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) NBA suspends season

 * Support - Unprecedented interruption to a recurring event. WaltCip (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There are so many parallel stories with CV (Tom Hanks!) that we cannot post them all. If they were cancelling the season, maybe. In a few days, they will have restarted or everyone else will be stopping too.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, we might need a whole Coronavirus subsection to ITN, just to fit all these "unprecedented" events (only half sarcastic). PotentPotables (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The US ban on all flights to Europe is also massive and unprecedented. We can't post everything, but to omit recent developments out of variety concerns is to give undue emphasis to the Italian quarantine, which will very likely be dwarfed by something else in the next week. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Legit point, and we should pull back Italy at that point if it indeed seems dwarfed. The NBA suspension is itself small potatoes compared to Italy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose this is the type of "zeroth world problems" that we should be not even worried about amid everything else with COVID. There should be subpages off the coronavirus page for the various industries and the effects on them like sports and entertainment, but we are definitely not going to ITN those when death and strained health care resources is the first concern with COVID --M asem (t) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue this is more significant than the Pritzker Archetecture Prize. --Rockin 02:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Pritzker prize has zero connection to COVID. This is 100% directly connected, and thus becomes a matter of what COVID story is priority given that we should really only be having one blurb or one ongoing. --M asem (t) 03:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is going to be a tsunami of these stories coming. And per PotentPotables' comment above, we may need to consider how we are going to handle what is likely to be the biggest rolling event/news story in decades. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't oppose a subsection on the main page somewhere between ITN and OTD (or even at the bottom of ITN itself). I don't think its right to just have the Virus/Pandemic in outgoing where the biggest updates aren't being shown outright, but also am weary of undue emphasis like King of Hearts mentioned if the updates are left solely in ITN. I'm unaware as to whether such a thing has been done before, so it might be a very experimental move. PotentPotables (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN nor the front page is a news ticker. I've offered a suggest on the ITN talk page but this would require an intermediate page for the COVID pandemic topic to service as a landing/topic outline page in which then all recent major events (at the level of Portal:Current Event importance) could be included while this is still big news). But we can't flood ITN with all the stories. --M asem (t) 03:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We need to consider adding a Coronavirus template to the main page. Half of the space allocated to Today's Featured Picture should be used instead for important info that would qualify for ITN on every other day but for the Coronavirus. This is an ongoing event of unprecedented scale and disruption. We need to take unprecedented measures to deal with it. Heck Trump just banned all travel and imports from Europe (except the UK) for the next 30 days. That's billions of dollars worth of goods disruption. The effect of the cancellation of the NBA season can also be measured at that level; the NBA finals is an ITN item and the cancellation is even more notable. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support: This is the sort of content people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia's main page or open our app. Putting that a different way, this content is one of the primary reasons Wikipedia exists—major things are happening, and a lot of people want to learn more about why they're happening. We should be making these items as prominent as possible to help them learn more. There is no rule stating that we can only have one item per event, especially one of this size and magnitude; if there would ever be a time to deviate from our usual practices, it would be now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No it is not: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are covering the very highest levels of the pandemic and providing the link to the main page, but it is not our place at all to give this type of news updates to readers, particularly when this is a very very minor event relative to 1000s of deaths that have occurred. --M asem (t) 04:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a disingenuous reply to what I wrote, . I'm not saying we're a newspaper. I'm saying that people use us to learn the context and background behind major events that happen in the world, which include a world-leading sports league suspending its season. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If they are coming here to learn about that, they can find that by searching on "NBA" and clicking a few links, we don't need to show that to them. It is not our place to make these stories convenient to find via a main page link, particularly when there are several other, significantly more serious stories related to the same topic, that we have featured already. --M asem  (t)
 * Note: The NHL will announce something tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Why single the NBA out in particular? Serie A has been suspended for a few days now, and while the NBA makes a little more money than Serie A, they're still roughly comparable as leagues.  The UEFA Champions League is being suspended as well.  Personally the US travel ban on Europe is more newsworthy than the NBA shutting down for a month. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support would be worth it to mention other sports leagues such as the Serie A and UEFA Champions League. As for the Pritzker prize, any of the major COVID-19 related stories are more important than the continued featuring of the Pritzker prize on the main page. Pritzker's been up for 7 days, it's time for it to go. 1779Days (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Far too narrow a perspective. Things in their hundreds are being cancelled all over the world. Why single this out? We have a pandemic. Rather than news, it's nothing but an inevitable consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is a worldwide project, and many sports competitions have been suspended or events postponed, so no sense to focus on the first US one to do it. For example, Serie A in Italy is suspended, MotoGP, Formula 1 and athletics events have been postponed/cancelled. If we list one of them, we would have to list all of them. Which isn't the point of ITN. And just posting this one would be a clear American bias. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted many times above, why pick the NBA from the plethora of cancelled sporting events around the globe? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As covered by Ongoing. We may need to revisit some other option for dealing with COVID19 stories: an intermediate page; a more general COVID19 article with linkouts by subject; etc.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The general outbreak is no longer in "Ongoing".—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose times infinity MOstly local thing that hardly matters in the scheme of things. Maybe when the olympics get cancelled, if anyone cares by then. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Whitney MacMillan

 * support - fully sourced. barely long enough but sufficient. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the bottom of the list is now March 12; what is the proper way to handle a 'stale' inclusion? Any other ITN admins or others have insight?  Kees08  (Talk)   18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's stale and can't be posted now. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: War Emblem

 * Support - Well referenced, although there isn't much about his death. Poydoo (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From Paulick Report, The cause of death is perceived to be a fatal paddock accident, but exact details are unknown. However, a full necropsy report is pending. So I think more information will come out later.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   02:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, requesting retraction. Consider me the first to complain. ITN/RD regularly rejects nominations on the deaths of elder-statesmen in even English-speaking Asian and African countries based on some vague notion that Western celebrity deaths have more relevance to our audience. Now an American horse? I'm afraid the systemic bias is strong here, and I urge ITN admins to reconsider their decision to list this animal death. Deryck C. 23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deaths are only rejected if the article's quality cannot be brought to standards within a reasonable time. With few exception, as long as the death is reported, and the being already notable, we will post the death once quality of the article is shown to be there. --M asem (t) 23:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User:Thryduulf told me about the 2016 change which set out the current rules. I had become frustrated at RD a few years (read: about a decade) back after having a number of nominations of Asian politicians and celebrities rejected for "lack of relevance", and was unaware of the 2016 rule change until today. Deryck C. 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have recent examples of bias? As Masem wrote, articles are usually rejected on quality from what I have seen; and this nomination was made only on the basis of meeting the posting criteria. - Indefensible (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , quality, quality, quality. If those articles you mentioned had good enough quality, they'd be posted too. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See my comment above - it was the 2016 rule change that I was unaware of. My most vivid frustration with ITN was with Hong Kong elder-statesman Szeto Wah's death in 2011, rejected back in the day because under the old rules, the ITN community deemed him not relevant enough for the English Wikipedia front page. If he died between 2016 and now I'm sure he would've featured on the front page under the new rules. Deryck C. 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, I see. Yes I think the rule change has been beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Burkhard Hirsch

 * Comment is he an honorary member of the university, an honorary citizen of the city, or both? I assume Google Translate is just being dumb, but if you could verify that and add the citation we can post it after.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ref, Kees08, which led to the next. He was Honorary citizen of the Hochschule (not quite a university, - applied science), a rare thing I never heard of, sorry. Always learning. - Anybody to write a better lead than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - I think the lead scales with the length of the prose fine, but further improvements can be made while on the main page.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) COVID-19 global pandemic

 * Support, presuming this overrides both the ongoing and the Italy blurb. I've said this was a milestone to be posted, and there it is. --M asem (t) 16:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed this would be a third blurb, actually. This story is necessarily separate from the other ones we have up on the template.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make sense having the same story as a blurb and ongoing, but the two blurb option is one I would support as technically different news. PotentPotables (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This and the Italy could always be combined with a simple "while". They are the same story for all purposes. --M asem (t) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although related, I still contend they are two separate stories. Global pandemics are not necessarily unprecedented. Italy going into total quarantine is, at least in the western world.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - fairly straightforward, it's everywhere. Pie3141527182 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support per the WHO. <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 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Obviously. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This one's a no-brainer. --bender235 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Instead of a microscopic image, perhaps a map of the outbreak's spread would be fitting for the topic? 88.200.214.103 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, we should link to the outbreak page, not the disease page (alt blurb added). --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a bit hard to do that because of the short descriptions for ITN. It needs to be short and simple. The map currently requires a key to understand. That would be difficult to include for ITN. <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 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. I have combined it with the Italy hook, as suggested by Masem. Also removed from Ongoing, but I assume it can go back there uncontroversially once it rolls off again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: it would have been nice if we'd had even an hour to assess the update to the article. There isn't one. All that's changed is switching 'outbreak' to 'pandemic' throughout and one sentence of the lead; the section on the WHO response still says they are refusing to declare a pandemic. This should have had a prose update before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and the one sentence update doesn't have a ref. We're not a news service, there is no reason to rush things to the MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Oddly, given my recent history of pushing to get C-19 blurbed in some form, I'm nonplussed by this long-expected announcement. After all the froth, it seems anticlimactic. Everyone knew it was coming. I think the WHO didn't want to elicit panic and put it off for a while. In itself, I don't see how it changes things. But ... still dithering. – Sca (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Given the overkill-coverage, combing pandemic & Italy seems a reasonable compromise, I guess. – Sca (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. I like the combined blurb. I've tidied the update to pandemic. I assume that the main article has now been fixed, but I'll check (if I can get an edit in there edgewise). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure "while" quite works in the current blurb, since the WHO announcement came after Italy imposed the national lockdown. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment. My apologies if this is not the place to address the image in ITN, but Talk:Main_Page certainly didn't seem like the right place. With regard to the image, as mentioned by User:88.200.214.103, User:bender235, and User:Hurricane Noah, I would like to place my strongest possible support in favor of replacing the current ITN image of Alyssa Healy with a COVID-19 related informational video such as File:COVID-19- What Older Adults Need to Know.webm. As much as we'd like to believe everyone reads every word of our articles, some readers will certainly benefit from an authoritative video. Our first priority should be ensuring readers can quickly and easily access accurate and vital information. userdude 03:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that the last time we had an animated image/video on the main page of that type (that is in terms of length, not content), that was an issue for some readers. An animation or video a few seconds long is what we'd want, not a lengthy video. Separately, it is also not WP's place to try to offer medical advice even that posted by the CDC per our Disclaimers (we do not offer professional advice). It should obviously be linked from the COVID pages, but we should not be foisting that at the main page. --M asem  (t) 03:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment, after Spain declares the Alarm Status, should "and Spanish government implements a national quarantine" be added? Since yesterday the measures are very much like Italy. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting update proposal, as this is starting to occur worldwide, should it instead say: "while governments across the world implement quarantines and close their borders."? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, as Italy is no longer the only country on lockdown the blurb should be generalized to something like "while multiple countries lockdown, following Italy's lead." - Indefensible (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Mohammad-Reza Rahchamani

 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; little information at present about what the subject did in his roles as a politician.  Spencer T• C 03:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Spencer. Stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above; still a stub and plenty more info on his parliamentary career is needed. —&thinsp; J 947  (user &#124; cont &#124; ess), at 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles J. Urstadt

 * Support  Article looks good, subject notable enough. Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Guy

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Article has been "updated" to remove claim.  Is this a hoax?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Was not able to find death reported anywhere reliable, just Twitter and Wikipedia. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article says he's alive. I see no sources to say he's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: these were after I had closed it pending a better source --M asem (t) 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC) )
 * Question Is this reliable? ---> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pointed to that earlier, and I don't know, the about page for that site doesn't give me great confidence. I do see an edit on the page has one diff with a summary about the news from a "close personal friend" but I'd want to see better collaboration, and right now, I'm seeing a lot of citogenesis in social media. --M asem  (t) 17:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - see, from the institution he worked at. Connormah (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now were golden. Reopened for discussion. --M asem (t) 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Davey2116 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support robertsky (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 15:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a couple of unreferenced sentences, but none are controversial or worth holding the nomination up. Looks ready to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Taking TRM's prior withdrawn support over the lack of a proper death source as an implicit okay otherwise, now that this is confirmed. --M asem (t) 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Reposted) Italian lockdown

 * Weak Support WTF is a "lockdown"? The article doesn't really make that clear, and it feels like a hyperbolic term to begin with. Additionally Conte later clarified in a press conference that the decree was not an "absolute ban", and that people would still be able to use trains and planes to and from the region for "proven work needs, emergencies, or health reasons". Still, it's a significant reaction and a good chance to put the virus back up as a blurb, and the article is decent. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lockdown.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rename it - I used "lockdown" because of the 2020 Hubei lockdowns and a large number of news outlets used "lockdown" over, say "quarantine". Juxlos (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Are we still waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic? Because we've been waiting for a month and they might not do it. Support then in lieu of that not yet happening but I'm betting cricket will be posted first. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for now. I disagree with User:Howard the Duck. The article looks good, and is consistent with the other crises that go in line with the coronavirus crisis. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * Oppose. This looked significant when I first saw it this morning, but as noted above it turns out its less significant than thought,as flights are still running and many things continue as usual. Also, reject the ridiculous idea of a "good chance to put the virus back up as a blurb". We don't need to keep reposting this in a fresh guise every week just because it's scary and people are running around like headless chickens. It's already in ongoing, where it belongs. Repost once the pandemic is declared. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the decree was signed today - it could escalate implementation in the coming days (or hours), but I thought the appropriate time to post was when the decree is signed. Juxlos (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a blurb, but I would not see an issue adding, to the existing ongoing for the outbreak, something like "Italian lockdown" (eg . China's locked down before, as well as Japan, and Saudi is also now getting in on that, so to blurb out the Italian one does not make sense, just to get a coronavirus blurb in ITNC. --M asem (t) 14:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't China's lockdown get a blurb? Juxlos (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * China's lockdown was the blurb that fell off into becoming the coronavirus ongoing. It obviously made sense when it was the point of origin. --M asem (t) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that neither Japan nor South Korea has done something this extreme - akin to quarantining Seoul or Tokyo from the outside world. Even if the implementation is porous, clearly this is still a huge thing? Juxlos (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was also the fact that on 26 Jan, Kobe Bryant's death generated a blizzard of activity on WP:ITN/C that diverted attention away from modifying the initial novel coronavirus blurb, the discussion of which was started on 19 Jan and therefore archived later on 26 Jan. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Ever since my futile "elephant in the room" attempt to get the topic blurb-posted a couple weeks ago, I've been in two minds about this. I suspect the WHO is deferring on labeling it a pandemic in order not to elicit widespread panic. However, the situation in Italy indeed looks grim – 233 deaths, 5,883 cases – and threatening to the rest of Europe. I'm leaning toward support. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note - this nomination isn't about the 233 deaths and 6k cases - it's about the fact that Italy basically just shut down their economy. Juxlos (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is happening because of the grim, threatening situation there. – Sca (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The deferring to call it a "pandemic" involves a half billion USD in WHO bonds which get auto-called in the event of such a declaration. Those bonds otherwise mature in mid-Summer, so that's when "pandemic" goes official. In the mean time, Italy (10% EZ GDP) just shut down their most productive regions (30% IT GDP), which is 100% guaranteeing a EZ recession, at best.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Coronavirus is in ongoing, and that's where it should be. Putting it in ongoing doesn't make it any less significant, nor does it indicate we are undervaluing this crisis. WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To some readers I know, it does look that way. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then they are misinterpreting the purpose of ITN. WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're speaking from a Wiki-insider point of view, not a general-reader one. – Sca (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this is an exception - when since the start of Wikipedia has something like this happened? (Aside from Hubei, but that was a blurb). Juxlos (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support coronavirus outbreak is still ongoing but Lockdowns are coveraged by many Italian and international media. I disagree with many editors that oppose this to be posted just because it less significant such as Sca than events in China, world most populous country. The coverage of Italian Lockdowns need to get more attention from Wikipedia readers around the world as it was undercoveraged by many media's outside Europe and America. 110.137.162.190 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Alt1 offered above. – Sca (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support per the other IP. This is the second largest mass quarantine in history (the largest being the Hubei lockdown), it's a pretty big deal. Either blurb is okay with me. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose A regional quarantine is not a common occurrence but this whole thing is causing a lot of uncommon events. For now ongoing is sufficient. However, I do anticipate that this will be blurbed again when, as now seems all but inevitable, it is formally declared to be a pandemic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while notable, this entry would be redundant with the ongoing 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak entry. If other countries (e.g. South Korea, Japan, etc.) similarly go into partial quarantine, are they each going to be posted? Perhaps this might trigger a broader discussion on the layout of the ITN section and frontpage more generally. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Japanese and Korean quarantines weren't as major - though yes, if they do quarantine Tokyo and/or Seoul, we may have to make a special format change to ITN for highly unusual events like this. Juxlos (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not seem unreasonable to think that another country could expand a quarantine to similar scale of Italy's lockdown in the near future. We should plan what to do in that case, because posting this entry would create a precedent which could prove problematic. - Indefensible (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see here - I've posted a discussion in the talk page. Juxlos (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Prefer Alt1. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support because this lockdown needs more coverage by international media around the world. You are just not only count about significancy of their country such as Italy less than China, but how notable about information of this article. Alt1 prefered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.31.81 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Likely duplicate vote This IP is a single-purpose account. Likely same person as 110.137.162.190 !vote (16:16, 8 March) above: both geolocated from Indonesia and !voted "Strong support" while citing similar global need for more attention/coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as fearmongering. If 16 million people actually were locked down, that'd be remarkable. But the article describes more a widespread safety advisory and several cancellations, like Eastern Canada gets during "extreme" heat or cold. And like weather news, this is dominating headlines because it's timely and relatable. Everyone and their dog knows what it feels like to sniffle, cough and stay home for a few days (it's "the bloody pits"). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From the linked article: "forbidding their entry or exit without emergency circumstances under the penalty of fines and imprisonment of up to three months". How is this comparable to a safety advisory? What you're talking about are voluntary advisory warnings, but this is a legally enforced quarantine. It's in a completely different category. Btw, this isn't fear mongering at all either. It's a legitimate news event that is affecting millions of people, not a prediction about bad stuff that could possibly happen in the future. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose why would Italy doing this be notable, but the rest of the world not? Banedon (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that a mass lockdown in Italy is more notable than one another country. If Korea or Japan had taken such a drastic measure, I would have supported those making it to ITN. But the fact is that they haven't come close to taking action on the scale of this quarantine or the Hubei lockdown. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the scale of the lockdown as I've seen in the news, I'm willing to switch to supporting this, with the caveat that we'll have some issues if other countries start their own lockdowns. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no need to post the development of a story that already appears in ongoing. One possibility to make sure that the sticky reflects this is to expand its title from "Coronavirus outbreak" to "Coronavirus outbreak and responses".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – According to the BBC and the AP, on March 8 Italy reported 7,375 confirmed cases and 366 deaths. The existing article only says over 5,800 cases snd 233 deaths "at the time of the decree." In order to be timely, and not leave readers wondering how many people the virus has affected in Italy, the current figures should be included in the article – in the lead – and updated as appropriate. The statistics cited for "at the time of the decree" could remain where they are relevant, a third of the way down in the (2,000+ -word) article, in the section titled "Expansion." – Sca (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: – Note second paragraph in market report (which includes 6.5% drop in Dow this a.m. ). – Sca (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Not at all fear-mongering when the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, among others are citing the strong possibility that the paralysis of Milan and other industrial centers in the north could induce the European economy at large into recession. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support and suggested AltBlurb2 whole country has now been placed into lockdown per BBC. PotentPotables (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Mentioning Oppose votes:        The lockdown has been expanded to cover the entire country. This is unprecedented even after Hubei. Juxlos (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still seems redundant and unnecessary, but not a big deal. Good work on the article. Like Masem, if there are further quarantines of similar or larger scale, this precedent will likely have to be addressed again. - Indefensible (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would've flipped, but I wasn't invited, so still not scary. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to Support given the extension to the entire country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would only support this on the basis that this is the first such country-wide travel restriction in this outbreak. Even if, say, the US decides to lock down two weeks from now, we're not going to be blurbing that. The reason this is news is this historic first. -M asem (t) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but if nobody could travel in the US (or UK, for that matter) I'm fairly sure all the editors flooding into ITN would be a SNOW Support anyway. Juxlos (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm concerned about posting this outside Ongoing without establishing the precedent for posting this is not because shut down, but that this is the first country-wide travel shutdown due to COVID as a major milestone of the progress of the outbreak. Any further country shutdowns - barring for extremely unusual circumstances - are the type of thing that ongoing would be suited for. --M asem (t) 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There will be many more. We cannot post them all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Given the unprecedented country-wide scale of the lockdown, an influx of support here and some out-of-scope WP:SPECULATION, there is consensus to post. Article is referenced and in good shape. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just go ahead and supervote. No one really cares, I suppose. WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * !vote count is support +1 several opposes said OG was "good enough" pull from OG until this blurb expires off then repost NP --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 with a large number of votes is pretty contentious and not much of a consensus in my opinion, but looks like it has just been removed. We should still plan on what to do if there are further quarantines of similar or larger scale, regardless of whether this is posted or not and whether it stays up in Ongoing or not. - Indefensible (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pulled No consensus yet. Sizable support that "ongoing" is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair pull. I certainly saw absolutely no clear consensus for this to be posted, despite my personal thoughts. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Notifying here also. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support reinstatement. The article is developing nicely and the expanded lockdown is at the top of the headlines.  Sounder Bruce  01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Top of all news, article good. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:SPECULATION noted, but also WP:NOTNEWS. If this event is supported, what is the recommendation if other similar or greater quarantines follow? For example if France and Germany each start their own lockdowns, there should be a plan. Added altblurb2; more succinct and less redundant with the Ongoing entry. - Indefensible (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say Italy is especially notable as the first developed nation to go on lockdown. If France and Germany start lockdowns, it wouldn't necessarily be newsworthy because they're not breaking new ground like Italy is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not really convincing to me, a quick search shows that China had lockdowned 35, 50, and then even 780 million people a couple weeks ago, which would dwarf the event in Italy. The "first developed nation" is somewhat arbitrary. If Australia goes on lockdown, there will be the first continental lockdown with 25 million people affected, which would be noteworthy by a similar principle. But if France and Germany each lockdown, they are both adding more people affected than Australia would or are currently quarantined in Italy. That would be more significant in my opinion than simply being the first country. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a significant development. Meets ITN criteria of updated, significant, and quality.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support replacement. While China was starting its lockdowns we were featuring coronavirus as a blurb. The situation in Italy has been top of the BBC news for days. If France, Germany or Australia follow then that can be added. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I hold to my technical oppose because the development of the story is already documented in the article linked from ongoing. It doesn't mean that this particular development is not notable but it appears in the ITN section with a sticky, which is usually reserved for globally important lasting events in order to prevent navel-gazing from frequent posting of multiple blurbs. As per my previous comment, expanding the title to reflect the responses would be more than sufficient.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Still Oppose blurb, per Kiril. Italy is hardly the first country to face major restrictions because of this. Iran, Japan have done imposed such,even if not technically a lockdown. Saudi Arabia has sealed off a region today. More will follow. This will be an ongoing worldwide story for for foreseeable, with seemingly major developments all the time, and let's not reinforce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by only focusing on western and European countries. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, using alt1 or similar wording. We can leave the main coronavirus entry in ongoing if that assuages any concerns. It's been difficult to know when to put coronavirus back as a blurb, and ongoing has been a good place for it, but the quarantine of an entire country (a G7 member with a population of 60 million) is a major escalation. We posted the Hubei quarantine as well, so this would be consistent with previous coverage. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we must post one blurb about the coronavirus - this one, or the silly stock market "crash" blurb - I would opt to post this one instead. I guess in that sense, it's a mild support from me, reversing my previous oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It seems a coronavirus blurb is inevitable despite it being in Ongoing, and this is better than the stock market one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't support a stock market posting either. (Market appeared to be recovering in early trading Tues.) I do think the Italian 'lockdown' becoming nationwide is notable, and reported deaths in Italy have reached 464. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - How has this not been reposted yet? However, I think its worth commenting that I believe posting this story shouldn't affect posting about Black Monday. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-posted, with a courtesy ping to who pulled it early this morning, in case they strongly object to my re-post. Although I still have my own reservations about it, it is clear from the posts that have come in today that there is now a fairly strong consensus to post. Per Masem's comments I have included a note that Italy is the first to do a national quarantine, which may help offset accusations that this sets a precedent for future countries being posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Italian government becomes the first to implement a national quarantine ... Is Italy really the first and not China?  For example, CNN wrote that it was only one of the toughest responses implemented outside of mainland China ...—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, China's quarantine was centered on, and maybe limited to (?), Wuhan and its province, Hubei. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "first" in the headline. Checked the actual article, and the "first" claim there is not backed up by the cited source. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * actually it is in the source: "italy is the world's first country to place its entire territory under extraordinary restrictions". It's also sourced elsewhere: . Perhaps the source itself it inaccurate though, I'm not sure whether every part of China was on a full lockdown or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some cities surrounding Wuhan are also in quarantine, but the lockdown is hardly nation wide. Other cities are operating as per normal after an extended holiday break (with masks and all). robertsky (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-reposting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Important comment Now that many other countries (Spain, France, the Netherlands, Israel, etc.) are going on lockdown as well, let me ask this: is it necessary to list Italy as the sole example of a lockdown in response to the coronavirus in "In The News" anymore? I believe we should either list some of the other countries to establish balance, reword the blurb to something along the lines of "Italy becomes the first country to go under lockdown", or even remove all mention of the Italy lockdown from "In The News" altogether. It just doesn't seem fair that Italy is the only country mentioned here, but I guess that's a natural consequence of the situation being a current pandemic. What do you think? Victionarier (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With the addition of the new banner to cover COVID related links, I have removed the Italy part of the blurb. (the WHO declaration is still blurb worthy on its own). --M asem (t) 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sudan PM survives assassination attempt

 * Oppose would have been ITN-worthy if he'd have been assassinated. Right now, no.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this "head of state" is a powerless figurehead, the article is razor thin and the update is a single sentence. All in, not main page ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's head of government, not head of state, as is usually the case for prime ministers in a parliamentary system. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Once this is better described and referenced, the subject is notable enough to be posted in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and will support with article (BLP) improvements/if decent article on the attempt created. We posted a similar failed assassination attempt (or something like one) in 2018. Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Minor expansion to the description of the assassination attempt in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In principle this seems significant enough, as the sources seem to be reporting a plausible attempt on his life and a broader context involving the removal of Bashir. However, none of that is reflected in the article, which has barely any more information than the blurb. Substantial expansion is required. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No doubt important to the immediate region, but someone not dying still isn't of blurb-level significance. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Black Monday (2020)

 * Wait until the bell at the end of the trading day. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once the bell closes then discussion should begin.Elijahandskip (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. It's a record fall in points, but the Dow's average points value increases year on year, so that's not a valid metric (to give an example, the Dow stood at 27,000 this month whilst 10 years ago it was 9,000). The valid metric is percentage fall; the Dow is 7.1% down at the moment.  On Black Monday 1987 it fell over 22%.  At the moment, this is the 17th highest percentage loss in a day.  Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No larger percentage drops have happened since 2008 or so, I think a stocks-related post once a decade is fair game. Juxlos (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Black Kite; even the S&P 500 ETF opening drop is only the 3rd-highest on record, behind 17 Sep 2001 and 23 Oct 2008. Whether it even reaches the bear market threshold of 20% decline from the all-time peak earlier in the calendar year remains to be seen, and even then not sure if it is ITN-worthy. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 *  Comment  this is major business news, 20% is three weeks puts us into a bear market. The problem is, oil prices had been slumping for a while and today's sell off is in response to the price war, not COVID 19. Article needs to reflect the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support target article reflects the Saudi/Soviet price war, looks like this is going to claim the #20 spot in the worst percentage decreases in history. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And there we have it: The #10 worst percentage drop in history, and worst since the great recession. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is no "the stock market" so that's a bad start to the blurb. It's not great news, but it's not as significant as the ongoing Covid-19 issues which this community deem unworthy of re-blurbing. This isn't the coat hanger for a pandemic update. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have the coronavirus ongoing for anything related to that, which this is what it is. I recognize there's a oil price thing also going on too, which itself is also coupled with the coronavirus (saudi shutting off travel), but again, all related to fears from over the weekend, and was expected from the Italy lockdown. --M asem (t) 20:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Add'l Comment Calling this drop "Black Monday" seems premature based on sourcing. There is definitely a few sources today calling it that but its not universal, and this would fall into being a failure of WP:NEO. Only time will tell if this should be called a Black Monday, but it won't be today or tomorrow. --M asem (t) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you don't like the article title of "Black Monday" but you agree on notability, it's probably not an issue. "Black Monday" could be an inline reference such as "The stock market crashes| due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars." and then we can have the article naming debate on the article page. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with that, a one day slump noways most often is corrected the next day. Its a wait-and-see we need to watch for. If over a week we see global markets tank their worst, then that's a trend to hang a hat one, but one day, nope. --M asem (t) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oil had been slumping since last year on weakened demand due to the Trump trade war. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support but Revise instead of "The stock market crashes due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars," say "Global financial markets crash the most since 2008 financial crash due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars" ... because there is more than one stock market. The key here is that, regardless of cause it was notable because it was GLOBAL and the crash was superlatively bad (worst since 2008). Peace, MPS (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks to be in good enough shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Percentage is what matters. The real news is crude oil crashing: ~25% decline in a day, second-biggest ever. And following on from that, Treasury yields plummeted to unprecedented lows. Stocks are just reacting to that plus COVID worries. (For people who don't speak finance: Treasuries are considered the safest thing there is, so when people freak out they stash all their money there. Yield = interest.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support market just closed. This is potentially one of the most chaotic days in the financial world since the financial crisis. I expect this to be very headline news tomorrow, but I agree title may need to be more generic for the time being. Juxlos (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the alternative blurb. I nominated something very similar a few weeks ago, and still believe it is noteworty. Per discussion from last time, I agree with the point that we do not necessarily need to limit our focus on the DJIA; we could also mention the record drop in the S&P 500. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on principle. Largest drop in oil in nearly thirty years, largest percentage drop since 2008, largest net point drop ever, breaking a record from two weeks ago.  If this is not newsworthy, then nothing from the world of business is newsworthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * + alt blurb 2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment blurb 2 is doubly wrong: the crash is attributed not just to the coronavirus but to the oil price drop, and now the whole of italy is under travel restrictions. --M asem (t) 21:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw they extended the quarantine. I will have to amend the alt blurb 2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now. The oil crash is part of the cause though COVID-19 is a huge weight on the markets. We probably will have to blurb Italy going into national self quarantine. I don't think that's happened in modern times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) Oppose alt 2. This isn't a covid-19 hanger, nonsense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alt 2 has now been removed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if people want a story here, keep it to the facts, don't try to assert some kind of causality when it's clearly more complex than just "one thing".  "Dow Jones down by record X%" is fine.  Anything else feels like a crap way of restoring covid-19 to the blurbs.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Black Kite, TRM and Masem. (and if it is run, please try and remember there is more than one stock exchange in the world. One of them may have dropped, but it's lazy to say The Stock Market.) - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why the alt blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are we fixating on the Dow Jones? Is it because it's Amurican?  Plenty of other "stock markets" out there.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, as not a declines as large as 2008 global financial crisis. But the article needs to revised as stock market crash. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose What happens on one day in one of the world's many stock markets is never the full story. Do we post this, then remove it if the market goes up 5% the next day? Do we care what happens outside New York? While this might be part of a huge, longer term event, we can't know that yet. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, per the original blurb "The stock market crashes..." say no more. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as a note "The stock market crashes" is accurate for every stock market on the planet. Juxlos (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I do go along with the sentiment to avoid regional focus. In this case, every major economy's stock indices declined by similar percentages. But like I said above, the movement in oil and Treasuries is actually the bigger deal, and stocks are just reacting to that. (The Treasury market is the biggest securities market in the world, period.) A lot of the public tends to focus on stock indices because they're more intuitive and volatile (big numbers = impressive), but for gauging economic sentiment experts tend to pay attention to sovereign debt and commodities. I would suggest a blurb something like, "Crude oil sees its biggest single-day drop since 1991, while Treasury yields and global stock indices decline sharply, in response to COVID spread and an oil price war". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: stock index futures are bouncing back a bit at the moment, so it's unlikely that the markets will continue dropping like a rock. Tokyo just opened for trading if you want to watch that for an idea of trends. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "The ASX 200 index was up 1.3 per cent or 74 points to 5,834 at about 1.30pm." (that's forty minutes ago) from Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Note that says "UP"! HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note The huge sell-off in stocks was a global event and not limited to the US. The Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund ETF fell by 7.98%. The S&P 500 fell by 7.72%. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It looks to me that has already used his magical admin powers to post a coronavirus blurb to ITN. So one is enough. WaltCip (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the discussion above, this is a mix of COVID 19 and an OPEC civil war -- both on top of a three year long global trade war. Asian markets are down again today. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Asian markets would all still be open. Please see my comment just a little bit above about the Australia market have now risen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment/Oppose (at least for now) - While business and stock market-related subjects are consequential and underrepresented in my opinion, further market action of which this is a component may be more relevant and make this trivial. As noted elsewhere, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a news source, so subject matter coverage should be comprehensive more than timely. - Indefensible (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb above: "The stock market crashes due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars," say "Global financial markets crash the most since 2008 financial crash due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars". This is a significant event and its surprising that it is not listed. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is if the DJIA drops 8% tomorrow, is that going to be posted too? If it then drops 9% next Monday, will that again be posted? These noteworthy events leave open the possibility of rapid succession of the same or similar kind, which must be planned for comprehensively. Wikipedia is not a news site currently, it is an encyclopedia. If the record bull market ends and/or a recession begins, that would be the more appropriate event to post in my opinion because of its larger scope/impact and uniqueness. - Indefensible (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We could post the crude oil and Treasury drops, since those are huge events and won't be repeated anytime soon. Crude fell the most in nearly 30 years; Treasury yield curve is totally below 1% for the first time ever I think. Although I don't know if we have good enough targets to link. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a very notable event in its own right & isn't merely a small detail of the coronavirus outbreak. The 2 causes - coronavirus & the massive fall in oil prices need to be included in the blurb. The FTSE, AEX, Cac, DAX, IBEX & DJ all closed at 8% down yesterday. The MIB closed at 11% down. Jim Michael (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support And the notion that there's no such thing as "the stock market" makes no sense here; EVERY market dropped by historic amounts yesterday. Indeed, THE stock market is well into correction (-10% from recent peak) or even bear market (-20%) NO MATTER WHAT particular market you are referring to. The "Black Monday" phrasing is well represented in the financial press. There's no enough space in the ITN box to highlight all the superlatives that happened yesterday, so just getting something up and directing readers to the article is the best that we could do for this item. If this can't get posted, we might as well decide to never post business items on ITN, ever.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed - if this doesn't qualify for inclusion, no financial story does. This is a bigger story than the large daily falls during the 2008 crash, because they were part of a severe bear market that was caused by the Great Recession. Yesterday's was due to a combination of viral outbreak & an argument about oil. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support and don't forget to buy stocks because this may be the last time opportunity to buy stocks at such low prices! Count Iblis (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is important issue and the article is in good situation.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt2 added, linking to some background material and presenting the event in it's own right (sans commentary about viruses and oil, which can be found in the article).130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and other comments above. Also, if we must post this, please don't mention the Dow Jones Industrial Average. With only 30 stocks, which are weighted by the antiquated measure of absolute share price (essentially an arbitrary number) rather than market cap, it is a poor bellweather for the US stockmarket as a whole, and still less the global. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and now, the next day, things are returning to normal. Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As it did the last time we had a drop of this sort. This demonstrates how pointless it is to hitch one's wagon to the stock market, something that is prone to volatility. I think The Who were right -- let's not get fooled again. --WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved admin comment I see a rough consensus to post. However, "blurb" is too generic and "alt blurb" does not have a world view that many discussed. "Alt II" part about bear market is not mentioned in current article, and can be easily removed, but the bigger issue is the "dramatic fall" is not referring to a discrete event (e.g. "the X% drop", "largest drop since", etc) and now many markets are up today. Without consensus for a more concise blurb on a specific event, generic "falls" risk being quickly dated in a volatile market.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The "fall" happened on the date in question (9 Mar). Whether the market goes up later doesn't change history. Like I mentioned above, far too many superlatives achieved yesterday for a concise yet encompassing blurb.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment CNBC: Dow futures point to opening bounce of 1,000 points after Trump floats payroll tax cut. Not a "crash". We're in a volatile market environment. Wikipedia, face it; you're not investors. Look to the fundamentals. Look to long-term. Don't publish the moments of panic. --WaltCip (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Come now, every time there's 4 plus one deaths, the next day "things return to normal". That doesn't prevent us from posting our disaster blurbs. If more people were killed yesterday than on any day since 2008, we would certainly blurb it, whether or not there remained yet 6+ billion people still alive.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is precedence for this. When the U.S. government went into shutdown a year or so ago, a blurb was posted to that effect. Once the shutdown ended, there was a consensus to pull the blurb from ITN. News ceases to be news when the overall impact of it is reversed in short order. The government can be turned back on. Money can be put back into the stock market. In that sense, we handle these sorts of stories differently from disasters involving loss of human life, because of course you can't resurrect the dead.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Once again this is the wrong item to hang the coronavirus story on. It wasn't the largest fall in terms of percentages, and unsurprisingly stocks have risen again today.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 ALT3 - Crash not seen since 2008. Shows affects related to the coronavirus outbreak and the oil market. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposing ALT3 based on what MPS wrote above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Markets are inherently volatile variable. Wall St. appeared to be recovering in early trading Tues. Anyway, it's the virus spread and attendant deaths that's significant. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The financial effects are also very significant; markets are rarely this volatile. The virus has cost the world economy many billions. The stock market crash has greatly adversely affected millions of people. Travel has been greatly reduced, especially in regard to China & Italy. A lot of businesses have shut down. It's not just the deaths that matter, and in any case the financial effects of it will certainly have led to suicides. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that this significant crash was also caused not just by the coronavirus, but also a trade dispute between Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it's the epidemic itself that matters most. (Note that the Italian lockdown blurb has been re-posted.) – Sca (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think ALT3 is the worst blurb of the lot. As opposed to some of the other blurbs which focused speciously on the Dow Jones, ALT3 is unhelpful and vague and may as well just say "Coronavirus bad". I think if you're going to zone in on a particular part of how financial markets have been rattled, the oil price indices would be the most suitable choice. "Global financial markets" is just a series of buzzwords.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited for your sake. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More acceptable now.--WaltCip (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Alt III sourcing comment I dont see prose and citation for largest fall since the Great Recession—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any notation problems for the ALT0 and ALT2... However, I've cited it in the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Largest daily drop since 2008 and triggered futures to suspend operations and a trading halt just after opening. That alone is quite serious enough for ITN coverage. <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 19:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  Per  Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted modified alt III without listing the causes.  Some disagreement about whether there is causality and which ones to mention.  At least we have a starting point for further talks, if necessary. At the very least, the backdrop is in the article.  Without getting too technical on the order of blurbs on the same date, I applied the order of its current placement at ITNC.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - is the Great Recession really a widespread enough term that it can be included in ITN without comment? I don't think I've ever heard it (perhaps because Australia did not go into recession); perhaps it is a North American term? Suggest changing to since the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or simply since 2008. Adpete (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a common term. Obviously it's not going to have been anywhere near as much of a topic of conversation & media coverage in countries in which it did not happen. Jim Michael (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – "Suffer their largest single-day decline" is quite likely to be outdated – or stale – in a few days. IMO, we only needed one Coronavirus-related blurb in ITN, and Italy's national 'lockdown' was it. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is a good thing that this was caused by the OPEC civil war. Whatever happens in a few days, global stocks plunged by record amounts on Monday. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Today is Wednesday. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sca, I had forgotten what with all the fuss about Coronavirus. It's got me in a tizzy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2020
 * Me too, Walt. I dumped my two little mutual funds Monday.... Oh well. – Sca (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

(Closed) MH17 trial

 * Support - but only for Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a very significant event culminating a large investigation Cloud200 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we practically never post the beginning of legal proceedings. We could possibly look at this when it ends.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, and probably only if they are convicted/determined to be guilty. I read that there's still a lot of questions on what exactly happened so its not like they were caught with the proverbial smoking gun and its a matter of how bad their war crimes are. A "not guilty" result here leaves the question of what happened open and thus not really an end of the matter. --M asem (t) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the commencement of a trial as a blurb or ongoing. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the comment in the nomination, this is not a "significant development". The accused are not present in the court, and are never likely to be. Nothing will come of this, apart from further convincing those already convinced that the accused are guilty. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not against posting this event or waiting until its conclusion, but coverage of the trial itself is lacking in the article. Since it is not described very comprehensively yet, it should probably not be posted at this time. - Indefensible (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Trial in absentia and Bellingcat used as a source throughout that section doesn't bode well for this.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the mere start of a trial. Re-nominate at the end if anyone is convicted, at which point there might be something worth considering. Right now there isn't. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Bathersby

 * Comment ref 8 (permanent dead link) needs replacing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ref 8 fixed, article looks good Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max von Sydow

 * Support Pending all the extra work. I'll have a bit more time this evening to help.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: The power of Christ compels you! {to post this when ready} --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:2488:56FD:2A33:C0CF (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For what its worth, supporting RDs when the article is not ready is a bit counterproductive. I opened up all the tabs (including to review the article) in preparation to post until I realized it was not ready. Since article quality is the only criterion for supporting/opposing RDs, it would be nice for ITN template editors (at least for me) if we limited supports to when the article was ready. Thanks for nominating and working on the article, look forward to it getting posted later :).  Kees08  (Talk)   16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that nominators should improve the article so that it is ready or very close before posting it here as a candidate. - Indefensible (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit of work to do, but things like using IMDB for all his awards is verboten. IMDB is not reliable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That particular issue has been fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As referencing has been improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks complete and good to go. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: With the filmography section now having been split off into its own article, this page is ready. — Matthew  - (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to voice disapproval at sweeping the unsourced filmography to a separate page just to post an RD but unfortunately this has become too much standard practice. I'm not going to stand in the way of this RD being posted, but this type of poor sourcing activity needs to stop. The filmography is just as much a BLP issue right now as the main bio page. --M asem (t) 16:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The filmography is not unsourced. The sources are above the table. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen you have tried appropriate to move those per line (thank you) but that also shows my point is that often those bulk references often miss a work or three that we have included. --M asem (t) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Calling it unsourced was a bit of an exaggeration, however. Anyway, I finalized the sourcing for the filmography. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article ready to post, please do so asap, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

 * Not ITNR. Women's Cricket World Cup (ODI) is ITNR, not the ICC Women's T20 World Cup (T20 variant). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done some checking on this. So the ICC World Twenty20 event (since renamed to the ICC T20 World Cup) was included as part of the original list of ITN/R items in February 2008 after the inaugural men's event was posted in 2007. The inaugural women's tournament was played alongside the men's tournament in 2009. We posted the men's result but there was an attempt to include the women's result. 2010 was the same result; men made the cut but there was discussion to include the women's. In 2012 neither were posted but probably should have. 2014 and 2016 saw both results posted. The ICC cancelled the men's 2018 event leaving the women's event to be contested for the first time as a standalone event. We didn't post it due to quality concerns. Which bring us to this year. Cricket Australia won awarded the hosting rights for both the 2020 men's and women's tournaments. They recommended to the ICC that the tournaments should be separated and they agreed. The men's tournament will be begin in October. As a side note, the original items that were listed in 2008 were done so without a discussion. This was partially cleared up in a May 2013 discussion where the Men's Cricket World Cup was listed but not the Ashes nor this tournament. I will await the result of this discussion to see whether gets posted, but it would be great to confirm all the cricket items on the ITN/R list. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the notability here is in the entire tournament and not the final. If the tourney page were up to scratch it be worth considering. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Following on the last cricket item posted, the 2019 Cricket World Cup, the target article was the final (see discussion) – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Target article (the final) has been updated, expanded and fully ref'd.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in a good shape, decent amount of prose, sourced.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Support. Article looks good to go, and since the men's tournament is ITN/R it seems reasonable to post this one too. Particularly as it took place on International Women's Day... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Faulty Windows 10 update may brick your computer

 * Oppose - Maybe well-intended, but Wikipedia is not primarily a tech support site, and the article currently does not describe the issue in any case. - Indefensible (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is tech trivia and not main page newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not a repository for commonly held knowledge. WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...As well as the fact Forbes contributor articles are not considered reliable sources. --M asem (t) 11:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia and I cannot see an update to the article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: K. Anbazhagan

 * Comment - In-line referencing needs improvement, although probably should be able to post without too much extra work. - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose marked as a stub but clearly not, and several unreferenced claims.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you Please take a look now ? Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks improved, but still needs more referencing I think. - Indefensible (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have time to re-review this? Want to make sure your concerns were addressed.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks done.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We usually require sections like literary works to be cited (unless the citation just before it is supposed to cover it?)  Kees08  (Talk)   17:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * there are 2 citations.Please take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Could still use improvement, but meets minimum requirements and OK to post now I think. - Indefensible (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - unsure why the page name is what it is instead of his full name, but I suppose that's an RM discussion  Kees08  (Talk)   15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adamou Ndam Njoya

 * Support. Seems to be sufficiently referenced, and I think it may be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Limited coverage on the RD candidate. No major new sources covered this person's death, with the exception of his respective national media. Article still needs work i.e. loose hyperlinks and most sections are choppy.  DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * Respectfully, this Oppose makes no sense. As long as the death is attested somewhere, and cited as such in the article, then it's fine. And the quality requirements at WP:ITN only require it to be not a stub and adequately cited, without maintenance tags. It doesn't have to be B class or –anything like that, so "choppy sections" and "loose hyperlinks" don't enter into the debate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this response seems bias judging from the topics the user has contributed the most in. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * Posted Stephen 01:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elinor Ross

 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bélgica Castro

 * Comment - Added 1 cn tag to the article, but should be OK to post per the guidelines I think. - Indefensible (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - a ref needed in the lead, a couple of awards, and the -ology section has no cites at all. After those are fixed, good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, the filmography section is supported by the IMDb link listed in the External section I believe, was not sure how to turn that into a reference--does it go on every line or the subheadings somehow? And if a couple of the awards being unreferenced is blocking overall, the best way to get the article posted seems to be to just remove the offending entries. - Indefensible (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re IMDB, it's actually a bit dubious whether it's acceptable as a source or not. Even though it's almost invariably accurate, at least for mainstream films, the problem is that it is still crowd-sourced rather than being under specific editorial control. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, I see. In that case, would it be better to just remove the unreferenced movies and awards? - Indefensible (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and I've managed to source all but two of the films, and I've removed those from the list. Also fixed up the issues elsewhere so it looks good to go now. Changing to Support and marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amakuru, appreciate your help on this one. - Indefensible (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carsten Bresch

 * Support - Could use a bit more description & referencing, but seems to meet the minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – At nearly 500 words, looks adequate for RD. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Can we wait for a better source for the death? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems surprisingly difficult to find one. Now that I look closer, this entry should probably be moved to the correct date of March 1. - Indefensible (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, I think we need a stronger confirmation of death, and clarity over the date. Other than a couple of mentions on Twitter, there seems to be little affirmation that he's died. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thoughts I think the announcement from his university confirms the recent death sufficiently. We don't have an exact date though... Is that a pre-requisite for RD? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know but would be a strange prerequisite. For some who die during some night, or are found dead later, we may never know. In this case, 1 March seems likely enough, added by someone that day who possibly knows privately. - There are more details in the English souce now under eternal links, - just I have no time today - pleasantly busy in RL - and when I'll get back to it it won't be recent anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . El_C 13:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I too tried without success to find another source for the death, in German or English. I did add his age. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Rather oddly, Bresch isn't in German Wiki's RD section today. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW German wiki uses this citation and is listed on their recent deaths (they just updated it recently).  Kees08  (Talk)   06:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So it is, with the correct dod. Alles in Ordnung, then. Danke.– Sca (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: McCoy Tyner

 * Oppose - Article is not ready yet per nominator's comment. - Indefensible (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I added some things and cited others. Maybe somebody else will step up. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - added some more sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, one of the greats. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just marked two statements that absolutely need sources as they are subjective (not necessarily wrong, but can't be said in wikivoice w/o source) --M asem (t) 19:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One now sourced. One now commented out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Still could use better referencing, I do not think this should be posted yet. Getting there though. - Indefensible (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources added in place of your two tags. Any more improvements needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not on his bio page. I'd prefer to see more sources on the discography but that's a seperate article and issue. --M asem (t) 21:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets requirements now I think, good work on improving the article Martinevans123. - Indefensible (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Ready enough. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support still ready..... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henri Richard

 * Oppose - Article is not ready yet per nominator's comment. - Indefensible (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when others think it's ready. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I assume the previous vote is a joke. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is now fixed. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to meet the requirements now. Good work NorthernFalcon. - Indefensible (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marnie the dog

 * Comment - If /when this is posted to RD, I recommend using the label "Marnie the dog" as that matches the online handle that was used, rather than "Marnie (dog)", given that I think some would just object to "Marnie" by itself on the RD line. --M asem (t) 02:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks okay. For the record, I don't think it's necessary to say this is a dog. Outside of Hitchcock, I couldn't name a single other Marnie myself...Nohomersryan (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article states clearly that the dog was named after excellent musician Marnie Stern, so you can name at least one. -- Kicking222 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Just about everything looks fine to me, though I'm not a huge fan of the end of the very last sentence dangling unreferenced. -- Kicking222 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a source for that. --M asem (t) 05:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Troy Collings

 * Comment - Looks like it might meet the minimum requirements, but currently has an {Under construction} banner. - Indefensible (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not really seeing sufficient notability for this to even be a standalone article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeanette Fitzsimons

 * Support Definitely notable. Kiwichris (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose notability not in question, but article needs substantial improvement in referencing before we can post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support referencing, links, organisation improved. MurielMary (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fantastic now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. Still has a couple statements that could use references, but probably acceptable. - Indefensible (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   18:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: Vera Pless

 * Support Looks good to me. --M asem (t) 15:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is currently rated as stub class. - Indefensible (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Using DrPDA's prosesize tool, I get >5k characters, which is beyond the minimum for a DYK. I think it's ok even if the project rate it a stub. --M asem (t) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Current rules clearly rule this out per WP:In the news, if the article is not a stub then it should just be rated higher to remove this issue. - Indefensible (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that project assessments are not always up to date. There's no mainspace "stub" template tag, nor would I reasonably call it that. It's a start class for most wikiprojects. --M asem (t) 02:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A few concerns. First, the death is cited to a purchased obituary, which is not a reliable source. Second, the article seems to reflect a rather pedestrian career in academia. Are we missing something of her accomplishments? What's there doesn't seem to clear WP:NACADEMIC.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (if death verified). Pless satisfies WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 3, second part, 100% no opinion needed: she was a Fellow of the American Mathematical Society .  In fact, she was elected in 2013, the very first year the program was created. 2607:F470:6:1015:6DF9:D944:BEA5:E6CD (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed she was. I was confusing the membership numbers (which are not quite "highly selective") for the fellowship numbers.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question. In what sense is a purchased obituary not an RS?  I would agree that "self-promotion" is not an RS for most purposes, but perhaps the bald fact of death (and the date) is reasonable.  I have no real opinion either way, but the clock is ticking on the RD "freshness".  I expect UIC and the AMS will have something up in a few days.  (Disclaimer: I have a slight bias, having learned coding theory from her book way back when.) 2607:F470:6:1015:D512:22FD:EB48:91B2 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A "purchased" or short-form obit is not sufficient at all for notability, but is okay otherwise for facts. But that begs a question: take that obit out, and her death is not in the news at all. (as I check now). Can we still post it? I hate to say no on people that are otherwise notable that we can proof their death happened but not in the news (and in this case, nixing a female academic really hurts if we have to go that way). --M asem  (t) 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand your question, the requirement for RD is only that the report of death is reliable sourced, not that the death is prominently featured. The RS (Chicago Tribune) is not reporting that she died in its own voice. A purchased obit can be placed by anyone and is not vetted by the RS - it's like an ad. FWIW, if a RS emerges a week from now, we can post then without it being stale.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was more a hypothetical to everyone. Again, this is "in the news", and a paid obit alone is not "in the news". And I would argue that if some news source (even academy one) came out a week from now with this "news", that would make this death stale. I would reasonably expert her teaching institution to at least catch wind of this. --M asem (t) 03:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage: article lacks information about what she did in her career and contributions to the field of mathematics; at present, it is basically a CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 02:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Spencer, the article has large gaps of time in her biography. Even short articles should be relatively comprehensive, and this one jumps around too much and leaves too much unknown.  Would support if expanded.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Ingenheim derailment

 * Oppose How rare? This is at least the 7th train derailment this year. Adding additional qualifiers (rare for this line or country) is not pertinent unless we're talking about something like Quantas.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The 7th TGV derailment this year? I don't think so. Last TGV derailment was in 2015. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are interested in posting a story that is tied to your personal passion. That's fine! But understand that not everyone is a big train stan like you. Attacking reasonable opposition as weak (as you did just last month with another derailment) or deliberately misrepresenting an argument that is right there for everyone to see is a bad look.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not prominent in the news and article very short. Mkwia (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the sort of in-depth or widespread coverage one would expect for a story significant enough for the main page. Article is also insufficient for the main page in the state it is in.  Basically a stub.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose because it only happens in a single country in France, non-english speaking country. Any events which will posted should happen in English speaking countries like US, UK, India, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.95.122 (talk • contribs)
 * There is zero requirement for ITNC for the event to be in an English-speaking country. --M asem (t) 15:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible argument. ITN has news non-english speaking countries all the time. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is not rated yet, not even as stub class. No deaths or cancellation of service as a result of this event. Does not seem that noteworthy; neither of the more significant 2020 Wallan derailment and Livraga derailment earlier this year were posted to ITN. - Indefensible (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. The Wallan derailment in Australia last month was rejected, although it caused two deaths and was arguably more dramatic. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "class" of the article is somewhat irrelevant, the most pertinent issue here is that it's not particularly notable, probably would be covered by two lines in a "Derailments in 2020" article and certainly isn't something I'd expect to see as something our readers will be looking for, one of the pillars of ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The class of the article is not irrelevant, it's directly called out in the WP:In the News criteria. - Indefensible (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page. - The article is clearly above stub class, so let's drop this as a reason to object, shall we? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not particularly notable. If there had been fatalities it would be. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose fairly regular incident by the looks, and the lack of fatalities makes me doubt this will be headline news, even in France. Juxlos (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Javier Pérez de Cuéllar

 * Comment - This is not ready yet I think, a lot of statements seem unreferenced currently. - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For simplicity, I've reduced these ITNC to one, which we generally do for cases where a blurb for an RD is suggested from the start. --M asem (t) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality, opposed blurb on importance Article has a handful of CNs to be fixed before it can be posted. In terms of blurb, the SG of the UN is not as important as a world, though some have been more influential than others. I don't think Perez de Cuellar has that (or at least, our page is certainly lacking any significance to show why he period was significiant). A one year stint as PM isn't enough for the blurb aspect. --M asem (t) 04:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a commemoration for his tenure as the United Nations Secretary General rather than his Prime Ministership. I remind you that Kofi Annan was ITN.
 * @Masem Also, on the note of importance, I'd suggest you read this. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨


 * Strong oppose for blurb because it only significantly for only one country naming Peru, not involving English-speaking country. But i Support it to posted on RD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.33.239 (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I can barely understand your broken English. If you're saying that Perez de Cuellar isn't of international importance, than you clearly don't know that he was the United Nations Secretary General for nearly 10 years. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨


 * Oppose blurb Fails the Thatcher-Mandela standard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb UN Secretary General is very notable. I'll let others decide if/when the article is ready.-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notable politician and I believe Boutros Boutros-Ghali also got a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he got. Brandmeistertalk  11:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ghali was RD, not blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kofi Annan also got a blurb. The article needs updates and more references, though. --Tone 11:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Kofi Annan nom was rather contentious. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that we are not required to repeat the mistakes of the past. If we did the wrong thing before, we are not required to continue to do the wrong thing forever.  We're quite allowed to do the correct thing this time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Wikipedia is increasingly being edited by a generation of people that did not grow up during the eras of Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher and thus cannot appreciate nor understand the ridiculous bar that so-called "standard" sets for death blurbs. I believe our blurb standard should be grounded in reality rather than set at an arbitrary bar. I think this person meets it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if we go that route, our article better show why that blurb is thus then merited. Both Kofi Annan and Boutros-Ghali had significant sections on their bio pages on their time as SG of the UN to explain their contribution to that office. Here, we have two paragraphs. That's not sufficient at all. --M asem (t) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with you that Mandela and Thatcher are in the increasingly distant past, Cuéllar's main notability is also from that era (i.e., the 90s) so that specific argument doesn't apply here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not my argument.--WaltCip (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting on quality. Has too many cn problems, not properly updated with regards to his death, etc.  Would only support RD, not a blurb, because as the guidelines note, his death was unremarkable and there have not been any additional information we need to provide beyond that he died.  RD is sufficient to convey that information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD and blurb per Jayron.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Long absent from world stage (although the fact that he was 100 is almost news in itself) . – Sca (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb — The late secretary general is an important figure in the world scope if you check the UN page itself... Although the article could definitely use some work, this is an important event in comparison to other events in ITN. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * Oppose RD and blurb per Jayron. That the UN would note the death of its own leader is hardly an indication of greater significance. Major news sources are not even noting this on their front pages.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both as per above.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for the usual reason. Oppose blurb on significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support posted to RD only Given the significance of the people as Secretary-General of the United Nations, but Oppose on blurb because only happened in a non-english speaking country (Peru) and there are many grammatical errors that needs to be fixed. Some ITN needs a English-speaking country to be posted as blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.239.17 (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement for a blurb to happen in an English-speaking country. RDs need only be notable in the Wikipedia sense of that word (i.e. have an article that's not up for deletion), so pending quality this would already be posted to RD. Therefore, you should by your logic support a blurb (although I personally oppose one per above.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose CN's still present throughout article. RD only in the event that these get fixed. Criteria for RD blurbs states:
 * In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link; and
 * Comparisons to deaths of prior persons [eg. Thatcher & Mandela] are rarely considered sufficient to post [as blurbs] in absence of consensus
 * 130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb guidelines offer several distinct avenues to qualify. You're quoting the first bullet point, where this nom is suggesting qualification under the third bullet point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reference to Mandela or Thatcher anywhere in our guidelines. This is a standard some editors seem to have adopted on their own. Others, including myself, reject it as unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's covered by the line For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story. The deaths of Mandela, Thatcher, Bowie, Prince, and even Carrie Fisher were "major stories". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Centenarian dies. Obituaries are written, but there's no major outpouring of remembrances in the way there were for Mandela or Bowie. This is what RD is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support for RD only given the role of the United Nations as the Secretary-General of the organization is important part. Someone who suggest only Thatcher and Mandela be notable isn't relevant to this. Any persons which a role in the carrer should be posted as RD regardless they are less notability than Thatcher or Mandela. I only Oppose blurb because grammatical errors in the blurb.
 * Support - For RD. Time to post this to RD for now. Discussions can continue.BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Transformative world leader. As others have noted above, the Mandela/Thatcher standard is entirely unreasonable and is not policy. Davey2116 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the policy itself is the death making news as the Mandela and Bowie deaths did. This doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy allows for "transformative world leaders in their field" to be posted, which is the rationale I gave for supporting the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This person deserves to be posted, but unfortunately the article quality is just not there still. Multiple cn tags still on statements of basic facts. This is not ready for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amo Houghton

 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen, did not think this one would make it on the frontpage. - Indefensible (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indefensible, no problem, but unfortunately he won't be there for very long. Stephen 00:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosalind P. Walter

 * Support Good to go, but for the record it appears that she inspired the song, not the image. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support just about good enough to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was about to post but did not see a citation for her death, or any mention of it in the prose.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted I see a sentence with a citation seeing she died. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you kidding me? How is this person posted on the RD and the former Secretary General of the United Nations (Javier Perez de Cuellar) isn't? Don't take me wrong— I'm not angry, just quite disappointed. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * DoctorSpeed, it's very simple I think: Rosalind P. Walter's article meets the posting criteria, and Javier Perez de Cuellar's article currently does not. If you want to see it posted, you should improve the article and address the open issues. - Indefensible (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD is based on quality of the article and not any sort of notability criteria. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar has many citation needed tags; once you or someone takes care of those and any other issues it can be posted.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freimut Duve

 * Comment - Article looks decent, but is currently rated as stub-class which is not allowed per WP:In the news. Recommend re-rating the article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the class actually matters as long as the article is above stub length, but I’ve upgraded it to Start anyway. P-K3 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Referencing looks good. P-K3 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to meet minimum requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   18:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicolas Portal

 * Support as nominator and updater. The article is not overly long, but all statements are sourced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All citations are post-mortem. I don't recall if it's policy or preference, but RDs need RS coverage during their lives to demonstrate they are notable for something other than their deaths.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added some contemporary sources. But some people, whose work is done more in the background, are simply only acknowledged properly when they're gone sadly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: We want to be assured that their life before their death was notable, not that sources in the article at the time of ITNC are before the death. I think the example case that you might be thinking why we want this was that of a college basketball player, an unremarkable career to that point, that got drafted to NBA and then died in a college accident, and suddenly tons of sources about him because of the tragic death. But, take out the death, and the college career was nothing that we'd have documented before. A quick read of the Guardian article on Portal suggests we're dealing with someone that established their notability long ago. And a quick GNews pre-2018 search shows sufficient sourcing out there to not be an issue (eg ) --M asem (t) 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for taking to time to clarify. Aside, this subject specifically qualifies under WP:NCYC, which I should have checked first.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what state the article was in for GreatCaesarsGhost when they read it at 12:41 on 4 March, but as of right now, there are citations which were originally published on 23 January 2006, 19 July 2006, 9 June 2004, 20 February 2010, etc.  There's plenty of writing about his life that existed before he died.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but sufficient. Can't see anything to keep it off the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bobbie Battista

 * Comment - Those cn tags which are already noted above probably need to be addressed before this can be supported for posting I think. - Indefensible (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Pritzker Prize

 * Comment Working to see if we can find pictures, I found a properly CC licensed video interview with McNamara to pull an image from of her, still looking on Farrell. (Disappointing we have few of their buildings). --M asem (t) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As a caution there seems to be one free pic at Flickr of them in 2011 in B&W, but its flickrwashed and no good :(  I'll get a McNamara image up soon.
 * Oppose only on quality of McNamara's article. Farrell's looks fine. --M asem (t) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  both articles are too short in the context of them winning a professional award. List of works? Influence on peers? Expand it. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Architects tends not to have immediate effects on peers due to the time cycle it takes to actually construct works. --M asem (t) 18:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but after four decades there isn't a single other prominent architect who has ever said anything significant about these two? These awards are esoteric and we owe it to the readers to post content that helps understand why it matters. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I have expanded McNamara's article and everything is now cited. Most of that material could also apply to Farrell, but her article is currently much shorter. We could switch the order in the blurb so readers see the better article first, adding alt1. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 Meets minimum standards, agree with Modest Genius above.  Spencer T• C 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment McNamara looks good enough, probably could be broken out into Grafton Architects but oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both blurbs are ok. Great work improving the McNamara article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready it's ITNR --LaserLegs (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 03:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuzheado, the period is missing at the end of the sentence for this entry, unlike the other 3 blurbs currently posted. - Indefensible (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 04:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nashville Tornado

 * Oppose. Tragic, and an early March tornado is somewhat uncommon, but this is a very localized event in an area that regularly sees tornadoes. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – "At least" nine Nineteen fatalities, and extensive property damage in an urban area, is unusual, though. – Sca (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a bit early in the season but it is still ripe for tornado weather in that region. Willing to reconsider if damage becomes much worse per Sca. --M asem (t) 14:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's at least 19 dead across four counties (this included the 9 above), so that might be a better scope, though still... this is not yet uncommon. . --M asem (t) 16:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a one-sentence stub whose full text is basically the text of the blurb. Cannot post that.  Since news sources are clearly covering the event, this has already met the "significance" hurdle, but the "quality article" is a major problem.  Fix the article, and I will change my vote.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update vote to Support. Article has been expanded to sufficient length now.  It could still use more work in general, but it's over the line for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, obviously 'article' needs major expansion. Link to local Tennessean, Washington Post articles added. (It's also on NYT but I hit their paywall.) – Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment it's too small, but expanded it would be no worse than the standard disaster stub we post. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose two sentences a main page article does not make. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article needs expansion, indeed, but given that the death toll appears to have risen to nineteen or higher, the event has a severity that would make it worthy of a mention. NovumChase (Talk) 16:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on inclusion and oppose on quality for now. Having a hard time finding stats for tornado death tolls in the US recently, but hitting a big city is relatively rare, and 19 is a pretty high number. Its not Joplin, but last year there were 100 deaths in the world from tornadoes, and 17 total in 2018. I get that it is tornado alley, but this is unusual.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article is arguably postable, but IMO needs more narrative prose telling the story. Listing deaths in a chart would be OK at the bottom, but is not writing. – Sca (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting close. Table needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's in acceptable condition and the page is being worked on. Subject is ITN worthy and sadly passes my version of WP:BODYCOUNT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, echoing Ad Orientem. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AP now sez 22. Still needs prose. – Sca (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Event section needs expansion and there are a couple of bare urls and a citation needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation issues should be fixed now. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the tornadoes have killed at least 22 people. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support significant event with lots of news coverage in the US. Not making a death toll threshold, it is the deadliest outbreak in a year (depending on what the death toll ultimately becomes), and perhaps the deadliest since the 2013 Moore tornado. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready quality is up, consensus is clear. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I wish the article gave a better sense of the timeline (and places) but I guess it's good enough to have it up while updates continue. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, the huge charts in the middle of the article disrupt narrative (story-telling) prose and don't belong there. Oh well. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pretty standard in articles on tornado outbreaks. --M asem (t) 05:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I only added prose but the table helped make the article look a decent size at the time of posting. So, no complaints on that from me. Also, not at all familiar with how tornado articles are written, so... Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment A picture related to this story should be the picture shown on the Main Page. 1779Days (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not currently the topmost story. Pictures are usually posted for the topmost story (that has an eligible picture to use).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Everyone is now accounted for with a total of 25 dead. Change “killing at least twenty five people” to “killing twenty five people. (USA Today) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: James Lipton

 * Oppose Number of CNs and the usual unsourced -ology problem. --M asem (t) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any citation needed or ureferenced section tags. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Two clear CNs in the body, and not a single source in the -ology sections which is required. --M asem (t) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I must have missed them (or they were added after my earlier post). I added templates so they're easier to spot. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019–20 Iraqi protests

 * Comment - There are a few cn tags which need to be resolved. Agree that this should probably be in the ITN box though, similarly to the 2020 Malaysian political crisis as noted. - Indefensible (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged article should be nowhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If something meets the criteria, why shouldn't it be posted? Your oppose vote doesn't explain what this nomination is lacking with regards to the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment probably refers to the Assassination and intimidation campaign section, which is covered in CN tags and orange tagged. This is a show stopper for the front page, regardless of other merits. Oppose for good measure at least until this is resolved.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it quite abundantly does explain why the nomination is lacking. Cheers now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM. Article has already been tagged with fixes that are needed.  Read the article, find the tags, and fix the problems if you want this on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged proseline with no pertinent update since Feb 27. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Welch

 * Comment Now the death part is in prose and sourced. --M asem (t) 15:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. An inline cite would be nice for the 30 Rock appearance, but the details are sufficient we could consider this an explicit attribution to the episode itself.  I don't consider that a hold up.  The rest of it is well-referenced and well-written.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Inline cite has been done for 30 Rock. PotentPotables (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Agree that the article looks good, there is a single cn tag currently but I don't think it should hold up the overall article from being posted. - Indefensible (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment - CN tag has been replaced with a decent 2002 reference. PotentPotables (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present)

 * One thing that is missing from this article appears to be the issues with refugees fleeing to Europe via Turkey which probably should be documented as well. I believe this wave of refugees is from the latest offensive. --M asem  (t) 14:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - for ongoing. This situation is escalating again.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Syrian civil war has been ongoing for nine years. This is another grim chapter in a long and bloody saga. We should have blurbed the fall of Aleppo. The proposed article has a number of CN tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was nominated recently (last week?) and nothing has changed since then. Reiterated: the writing style of the article is play-by-play/crime-blotter which gives no indication of consequence of the event; the article is part of a series which historically results in orange-tagged NPOV messes; CN tags are many and cover events that are not even recent. It's just not suitable for the front page.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. Just like last time, it's sad that this war is still going on but not newsworthy in of itself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only. Article suffers from major WP:PROSELINE problems.  A bit of a re-write to eliminate that problem, and I would fully support posting this to ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support that the Syrian civil war has been ongoing for years isn't an argument that it shouldn't be on ITN for years. Banedon (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing substantial promotes this. It's like saying we should be posting the "war on terror" to ongoin, nonsense.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)