Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Jane Manning

 * Support Albeit somewhat weakly since a lot of the depth of the article depends on multi-sentence quotes. But what's there is referenced and fine.  Spencer T• C 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support loks okay for RD, there's almost 3k of text (excluding the quotes). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient for RD, decently referenced JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go for RD. Sourced. BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Reitz

 * Support Marking ready. Referenced, meets minimum standards for depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Collins

 * Support well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Turing Award

 * Oppose Both bolded articles need work on referencing, and Ullman's has a "Controversies" section which is a concern. P-K3 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Controversies" section has been removed in keeping with WP:BLP guidelines. Joofjoof (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ullman sourcing is complete. Joofjoof (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aho sourcing is complete as well. Pinging P-K3 for another look. Joofjoof (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support now that the articles have been improved. P-K3 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article look good now, award is ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I haven't added the image as (a) it is waiting for protection at WP:CMP and (b) this isn't the latest story. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * New accounts are reverting edits to Ullman's article. Can we protect it? Joofjoof (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan

 * There are still quite a few uncited assertions in the text. BD2412  T 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose awards section is unreferenced (and mostly not sourced elsewhere), and couple of other citations needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Claude Callegari

 * Oppose Born in the early 1960s, nothing about his life before 2012. Too much focus on a couple of negative incidents for a BLP. P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But, it's not a BLP?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP still applies to the recently deceased. P-K3 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:BDP: "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: G. Gordon Liddy

 * Oppose Referencing is going to need serious work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * all referenced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have added a single CN tag but otherwise the article is vastly improved and IMO meets the customary standards. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks flawless. Mlb96 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good work on updating the article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, well done. BD2412  T 22:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice job! Seems ready to be put in RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gianluigi Colalucci

 * Support Bare but meets minimum standards. Marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 04:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Acceptable length and properly sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Constantin Brodzki

 * Comment Where did he die? Mind if we get a verified POD? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could not find information about place of death so far, having searched through obituaries. Added another source (RTBF) to the template. Oceanh (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * comment: i've placed the three entries that were commented out back into the text. also, someone possibly connected to the decedent changed the date of death without leaving a reliable source.  how does wikipedia generally handle such edits?  dying (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-phrased the cited sentence about his death, to be more strictly according to the (last added) source, to say, "On 28 March 2021 it was reported that Brodzki had died, at the age of 96." The first source we had (bx1.de, which is cited in Deaths in 2021), said he died on monday (which is 29 March), while the RTBF source which also reports his death, is dated 28 March. Oceanh (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * support. significant sections have been rewritten.  a few relevant photos have also been added, including one of  one of the houses he designed, which interestingly appears to have been uploaded by either his old client or a relation just a few days ago.  dying (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems reasonable, though the article could use a general cleanup by a native speaker. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - sources looks OK. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Schmautz

 * Support - everything looks cited, and article is sufficient in coverage. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 15:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well cited Vacant0 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; looks ready. BD2412  T 22:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Palma

 * Support Article is well referenced, very comprehensive, and significant in the current situation. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support But may make sense to make clearer who the attackers are, maybe change it to islamist insurgents or islamist rebels rather than just islamist forces. Llewee (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've edited the slug as you suggested. The article uses "rebels," which is clearer than "forces." Jehochman Talk 12:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on quality and significance. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. Nice work with the article! --Tone 13:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not my work, I just nominated it. There were took many people in the article history for me to add to the template, but I'll go through and send credits to the major contributors - Dumelow (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no opinion as to whether or not the article should be posted, but this was posted in the span of 3 hours. That's not enough time for consensus to form. I suggest undo the posting, it's too soon. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed – I've seen articles with three support initial votes turn out to be no consensus, and articles with three initial oppose votes get posted. This is too soon. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I want to make it clear that I don't actually think this... given that it's all admins commenting and approving the article, if I haven't been on Wikipedia for 14 years, I'd think there's something suspicious about how quickly it was approved. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many admins watch this page. There’s no time requirement. We like to promote things from countries that aren’t often covered. This event is significant and it showcases the breadth of Wikipedia’s coverage. Many readers of mainstream media could be unaware of this event. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)]
 * So, were you saying that ironically? Or were you trying to bait a reponse? Why would you say something like 'Oh, this is too short. Boo!' and then recant your statement? (Not mad at you, by the way. I was just wondering why you did it.) Fakescientist8000 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that statement have to do with my statement that this was approved too quickly? I know there is no time requirement, but there was no time for anyone to contest the posting of the blurb, either. The time requirement should at least demonstrate the formation of consensus, right? --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, why are you saying that you think this article was posted too fast but then later stating that you don't actually think this?--WaltCip- (talk)  13:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think the article was posted too quick, but I do not think that there's anything suspicious about why it was posted as quickly as it was -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Article is in good shape; thorough coverage of event.  Spencer T• C 23:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Almost all of the sources are in English, which indicates the international importance of this event. Well cited. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Certainly ITN/significant, but I'm a bit uneasy with the beginning of the article, which says, "The Battle of Palma is an ongoing conflict." That raises the question, why isn't it in Ongoing? Perhaps change article to "a continuing conflict" – ?? — Sca (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liu Kai-chi
Comment Filmography section is way too long. Maybe you should make a new article for it? It would be much appreciated, or maybe just shorten it. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've split the filmography off to Liu Kai-chi filmography. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 18:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well. I change my vote to a Support respetively. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Nice and well referenced, but not much to read. Probably add 1 or 2 paragraphs and it'll be ok. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added some additional information here and there and a small paragraph on his awards; I'll add more to that one later on. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bibian Mentel

 * Support All paragraphs and sentence referenced. All good. I have removed a reference from the lead which cites her death date because it is already mentioned in below. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose a few things that need inline sourcing (2002, 2014, 2018 results in the text, and amputation). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, there's 3 places with note "This statement translated from Dutch Wikipedia article"- this isn't a reliable source as per Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Can we either source those statements to a properly reliable source, or just remove? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have made most of the corrections requested by Joseph2302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.2.245.17 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing is good enough now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support178.153.13.235 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Malcolm Cecil

 * Weak oppose for now - Long enough and well referenced, but I do see from his obits that his main claim to fame, and somethign that made him "revolutionary", is being co-creator of TONTO, which as far as I can gather (including from our own article on the subject) was the first and to this day the largest analog synthesizer. TONTO is mentioned, but I don't get the sense from the article that what Cecil did was revolutionary. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more sentences re TONTO and its significance. Hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, that's great thanks. Support and marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Hill (diplomat)

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Blurb) RD: Didier Ratsiraka

 * Support and support blurb Majorly influential former world leader. Serving as president twice, he converted Madagascar to socialism and was the country's longest-serving president, only removed for the second time in a soft coup that has had effects on the nation's politics to this day. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and support blurb per AllegedlyHuman. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per AllegedlyHuman Vacant0 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Wait– I think we should clean up the article before heading straight into an ITN blurb. (e.g. add a new picture). Support now that the issues have been solved. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a better picture we can use (I'm not saying there isn't, but I couldn't find one on Commons at least), that issue can't be solved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I managed to find a larger image on Commons - it had not been categorized. Joofjoof (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good job! Pinging now that this has been fixed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Support blurb Heard his name often while reading books about History of Africa. Definitely deserves a blurb. Article condition is prime and passes hygiene checks. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb longest leader of that country, article is good enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not seeing a justification in a blurb here for a former head of state. Good enough for RD but neither is the article too good to pass nor the subject notable enough for a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb & RD only as he doesn't rise to the level of Mandela, Thatcher or even Vajpayee for that matter and wasn't a world transformative figure either. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support for blurb per AllegedlyHuman. Very notable. Dan the Animator 17:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-Instate Blurb, for Time Being Why was the blurb pulled after two comments when the majority remain supportive of a blurb? We kept the RBG blurb up even after much fiercer opposition; it feels like pulling the blurb before we can have a discussion about its merits is over-hasty. I misread the news box, apologies. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb I don't think he rises to the level of a blurb, and I also think the blurb was posted after insufficient discussion on the matter. I understand if we don't pull because the blurb and picture are already up, but this should not be in of itself an argument to not pull the blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - just to be clear. Clearly a hugely significant figure for many years in that country. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Edward Duncan

 * Support Very significant, as was on death row for 7 murders. Article is in good shape, comprehensive, and well-referenced. You should clean up the intro, however. It's too long to navigate through. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and thorough (as most article on serial killers tend to be.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well cited! Vacant0 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Petr Kellner

 * Support article seems to be in good shape now. --Jklamo (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support everything looks in order for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RIP, article is good Vacant0 (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leon Hale

 * Support article is in good shape now Vacant0 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Howard Schnellenberger

 * Comment Article is very comprehensive, but there's a huge amount of text that's unreferenced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I added sourcing in several areas over the weekend. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There remains almost a handful of paragraphs that are completely unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Venezuelan clashes

 * Wait Currently a stub. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the clashes intensify. This is fairly minor - much less than the Battle of Palma, which has a better article & isn't nominated. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing stopping someone from nominting it, is there? I would understand the rationale if the article had already been rejected, but this is not currently the case. Besides, context is also important: the bar for events that are commonplace is understandably higher, which is the case for insurgency in the Middle East (and taking a look at the Insurgency in Cabo Delgado article's timeline, the same appears to have here). On the other hand, these type of attacks from Colombia have been uncommon for years and some aspects are unprecedented, such as the use of landmines. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article doesn't actually describe a single "clash" --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has now been expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support following expansion. Also, if we blurb this but the event continues for some time, I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to ongoing after it naturally rolls off. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per AllegedlyHuman. Pinging and  on expansion. Dan the Animator 14:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now the article has been greatly improved, the only issue is its importance - which I'm neutral on. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Unless the events escalate to such a degree it begins a massive event (i.e. UN gets involved/NATO condemns it), then I will keep my neutral stance on this. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a major aberration from the usual turmoil at the border including those killed? Doesn't seem so with the current info and blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How come? How could this be fixed? --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am only asking and putting a point forward here, because 8 killed in a major ongoing conflict probably can do without a blurb. Though if this escalates or tensions continue it can be added to Ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, gotcha. It isn't as major as unprecedented, this is the first type of conflict that undergoes for several days and cause thousands of displacements, let alone in Venezuelan territory. I don't have problems nominating this as an ongoing article, but I wanted to have a blurb first considering the estimates. I have updated the blurb as of this date. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape, topic is being covered by news sources. Meets all requirements.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem that significant in the grand scheme of things, and death toll is thankfully quite low. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar protests

 * Comment The CNN and Fox News sources above say 91 on this single day rather than 114. This should be sorted out. Brandmeistertalk  19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Brandmeister They just need to be updated. Both are using Myanmar Now as a reference, but the Reuters article updated 40 minutes ago does the same and they're giving the 114 number. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. Brandmeistertalk  19:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is overly WP:DETAILed cherry picked POV proseline trash that's been festering in "Ongoing" for months. The death toll is utterly arbitrary. Article makes no mentioned of the 100s of prisoners released because it doesn't fit with the hysteria. Posting this would bump the first female president of Tanzania which is infinitely more consequential than this minor flare up in news coverage. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @LaserLegs if there's an issue, you're free to fix it. That's what Wikipedia is all about. When I've added information about an arrest and the person is later released, I add the release. And besides, I think coverage of someone being arrested is more important than them being released, especially if they weren't arrested for cause in the first place. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix that article, I try to avoid POV laden articles until long after the outrage has subsided, and I honestly don't care about the subject at all. What I do care about is the quality of what ITN features on the main page and while I know better than to try and crowbar this trash out of the Ongoing section, that doesn't mean it's in any state to be featured in a blurb especially for something as inconsequential as some death toll milestone. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We disagree on the article quality, and we're not going to change each other's minds on that, but "I honestly don't care about the subject at all" sounds like the reason for you thinking it's inconsequential. It's headline news in every newspaper and news site I can think of, so it's hardly just some "minor flare up", and a ten-fold death count to what's normally posted in ITN. It's also never received an ITN blurb, so it's not as if there's overexposure. Anyway, we won't change each other's minds so I'll leave it at that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It got a blurb when the uprising started, and it's been festering in ongoing ever since. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not just civilians that were killed. I've created a section on it; there's also conflict between the military and the ethnic armies. See: 2021_Myanmar_protests#Armed_Forces_Day. I recommend changing the blurb to not say "civilians", and changing the nomination to link to that dedicated section. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a correct altblurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel the article needs a bit of help on dates/timeline via headers as I was struggling to find where this event was addressed. I think this would be reasonable to have as ITN but I do think it needs to be clear to the reader what section is the news story. --M asem (t) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Masem I've done a bunch of re-organization to the article, and it's much clearer now. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this is already, rightly, in "Ongoing", but this particular event does not fundamentally change the nature of the protests or government response, just the size/severity, so I don't support mentioning. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv Ethnic military groups are now involved, including a raid by one on a military outpost (killing ten) and a subsequent airstrike on that group's village. I've added an altblurb, and I'd like to hear your thought on this. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have given examples of what a fundamental change might be (in general, not saying any of these make sense for Myanmar specifically): a government acceeding to a most major demand of protesters; an additional party joining the conflict (such as a state invading a region); protesters occupying a legislature or a legislature's suspension. A raid and an airstrike are not of that nature, and though I'm struggling to evaluate what change has occurred in the military group makeup, I don't see that it would count either. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not again please. STSC (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close - part of ongoing already. Albertaont (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support since this is clearly a huge death toll and the highest since the protests have started. The article can be removed from the ongoing section and be replaced with a blurb, if that's an issue, without prejudice of returing to the previous version after the blurb is removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in Ongoing, which is a better place for it. P-K3 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a notable development. It involves more deaths than the Rohingya refugee camp fire. Already being in ongoing isn't a big deal - it can be removed from ongoing while it is a blurb, and then reinserted to ongoing afterwards. Banedon (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in Ongoing. I considered nominating it for removal last Friday, because the updates were sparse (a few paras in the last week concerning events from weeks ago). This new development is merely fulfilling the  portion of the Ongoing criteria; there's no need to feature one update in two different places of the Front Page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in Ongoing. Cherry picked POV and indeed overly detailed. Hope we do not have to discuss this now every weekend. Death toll arbitrary, Myanmar Now as a final source...well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SNOW closure, cherrypicked and overdone. Next! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, covered by ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Bangladesh anti-Modi protests

 * Oppose for now. There appears to be a lot of bias in the article. For example, it says "This resulted in stone pelting from both sides", then when you go to the citation it only makes mention of protestors throwing stones at police. The selection of citations is also biased, with the sole citation on one part titled "Modi is not welcome in Dhaka: rally". You also need to state the police side of it since that information is out (accusations of vandalism, self-defence, etc); you don't need to believe it, you just need to state it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per @Uses x's stance. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't personally feel qualified enough in the subject matter to assess whether or not the article is still biased; however, it's been a few days and some of the concerns highlighted by appear to have been resolved. The article is currently nearing 25,000 bytes, and something should be done with this. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The protests are over now according to the article, and the most recent articles I can find were posted 3 days ago, so it's stale. The tags I had placed on the 28th haven't been fixed anyway so I still wouldn't give my support, which is a shame since I agree it had potential. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nabindra Raj Joshi

 * Comment Will need expansion beyond stub if it's to make the grade JW 1961   Talk  19:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Weak article, not very comprehensive, not referenced much at all. Expand it or close this nomination. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done what I can. I think it meets the requirements. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but even if you did do what you could do, it doesn't meet the requirements. It's mostly just useless fluff. I mean, who *really* needs a quote of someone to say how 'heroic' someone was? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not padded fluffing you got from 10 articles. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not seeing what 's talking about here. This is pretty good; on the shorter side, but well-sourced and discusses the subject and what he did in office better than most politician RD noms. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage of subject's political career. Disagree that this article is better than most politician RD noms.  Spencer T• C 02:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work!  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  17:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Insufficient detail on what he did during his career, both as deputy mayor and as minister of industry. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Cunningham (baseball)

 * Support Sufficient for RD JW 1961   Talk  19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It'd be good if his "Professional career" had a better citation than a data sheet, but you can't expect much on sportspeople who played before the internet. Otherwise, it's comprehensive enough for RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  AP obit's title, "... boosted Cards at bat and as exec ...", mentions his executive career, but there is no information on this part of his life in his bio currently.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done. I've added a "Post-playing career" section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient breadth, sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My late !vote aside, no outstanding oppostion after two days (and another RD posted even while this was "ready").—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mike Bell

 * Support Short but sufficient for RD JW 1961   Talk  19:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Essentially a resume in prose format. Not much to say about him, but at present too brief for me to support.  Spencer T• C 00:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs some more detail I think. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beverly Cleary

 * Support What a throwback seeing this news is. Davey2116 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in quality shape for posting. --M asem (t) 22:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't look far from GA status. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very well-cited. rawmustard (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this one be blurbed? She's a household name and a titan of children's literature, with 91 million book copies sold. Per the talk page, she's WP:VIT5. I'm not adding a blurb to the nom because I'm somewhat on the fence myself, but wanted to hear what other people think. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would wonder if she was well known outside of the US. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and I don't see the Vital Article scale as that relevant either. P-K3 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb Big in Canada once, still fondly remembered, but as a relic of a bygone age. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb Her article got 270,000 views yesterday, and 153,000 views the day before that. I think she's popular enough for a blurb. In contrast, the individuals beside her are getting less than 8,000 views a day. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, it might be stale by now though. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll stress again: ITN is not driver by reader views - we would like to see pages features at ITN to get more reader views, but we don't let reader views determine what we feature at ITN, or otherwise this would become a popularity game. --M asem (t) 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Alba Party

 * Oppose local politics. The formation of a party that's done nothing to date isn't notable. Uses x (talk • • contribs) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Snowpose Nowhere near important enough on a wide-enough scale for inclusion on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and suggest WP:SNOW closure. ITN doesn't post leadership changes of major national political parties, let alone a schism in a regional party. We won't publish the results of the Scottish election either, as it's sub-national. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Sohag train collision

 * Comment needs background, reactions and map --LaserLegs (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and probably ready - meets the minimum requirements --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly ITN worthy, but it's too short right now. Uses x (talk • • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think we'll be getting that article. "Public Prosecution calls on all parties not to issue any data about the train collision in Upper Egypt's Sohag." [1 ] Uses x (talk • • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * once the article is cleaned up.  I Need Support  😷 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article remains a stub to this day.  I Need Support  😷 18:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - article in good enough shape to post now. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – According to this RS report, on Saturday Egyptian Health Minister Hala Zyed revised the death toll down to 19. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - only 1800 page views; I don't think this is of sufficient interest to readers to post at ITN. It's only been a day, though, so my !vote would change if the next day's page views spiked. Levivich harass/hound 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not cater to reader views at ITN or WP in general - otherwise we'd transition to covering primarily celebrity news, Pokemon, and other more trivial nonsense. We're not a newspaper and not meant to be used as a news source, but instead ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news (that are otherwise not routine) and that we have quality articles for, ideally as to potentially to draw more readers to see that. --M asem (t) 15:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do cater to readers at ITN and Wikipedia in general. The purpose of ITN is to help readers find the articles about topics in the news that they're interested in; it says so right at WP:ITN. A lack of page views demonstrates a lack of reader interest. ITN is not for highlighting stories for the purpose of drawing more readers. It is not a tool to drive the news cycle, and editors shouldn't use it as such. "Wikipedia should follow, not lead." Levivich harass/hound 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Egyptian government's statistics have recorded nearly 11,000 accidents on rail lines between 2008 and 2017, including a high of 1,793 in 2017." Yet no one is here shrieking that rail accidents are routine in Egypt. No one is making sarcastic comments like "The pope is Catholic. Trains crash in Egypt" and no one is posting snide French language "good jobs" after those sarcastic comments. It is 60% filler, very light on actual details, follows the template precisely, will be stagnant in a few weeks and unchanged for years just like all the rest and you can no more stop it from being posted than you can stop the sun from rising in the east. Just go with it, it's easier. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the ITN reasons is to help readers find news stories they may be searching for but it is not the only reason. And one reason for ITN is to highlight stories that may not be top-of-the-fold news stories but are still in the news that have quality articles to draw more readers. This is why we are very selective about what stories we post. --M asem (t) 20:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added some additional material regarding international response, et cetera. Article looks somewhat better now. --Osunpokeh (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - it's notable enough & the article is sufficient. There's no minimum number of readers to qualify for posting. Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready. Article seems sufficient, though it could maybe be a little longer. -- Calidum  20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting without further evidence of notability. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm ready. Per WP:ITN, In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting. This article does not have "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs."  Spencer T• C 00:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the last 3 days, the only new information added to the article is a statement by Egyptian PM. Seems to have disappeared from RSs. Stub appears unlikely to grow at the this point.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Haseena Moin

 * Oppose – Several paragraphs in "Actors and actresses", "Later work", and "Awards and achievements" unsourced. "Filmography" is completely unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kamalesh Chandra Chakrabarty

 * Support Marking ready., one comment: "During his time at the central bank, an off-the-record comment on the bank's inadequacy in controlling inflation resulted in him being relieved of many of his roles" should be shifted from passive to active voice. Did Chakrabarty make this off the record comment, or did someone else? At present that isn't clear.  Spencer T• C 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Changed and clarified. Please see if this works better. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rais Abin

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 22:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: WAG Pinto

 * Comment A nice article. Some CNs added to Post-war Career. What's the MOS for this? Can someone confirm that "WAG" is his actual COMMONNAME in Indian RSs, and how should acronyms-as-names be treated?130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry McMurtry

 * Completed citations of list items ("Film" and "Television" sections). Added updaters to list of updaters. Oceanh (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Albeck

 * Support Referenced, adequate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bertrand Tavernier

 * Support when ready. Very influential film director. Personal life and filmography need sourcing. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Brown (third baseman)

 * Conditional support Referenced, adequate depth of coverage; added 1 CN tag for information not supported by the following reference, when added, support no longer conditional.  Spencer T• C 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I provided a reference for the CN about his Korean War service and reworded the sentence to match the source. 2601:204:D400:7310:FC71:F80:E4FA:1676 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that! I've used the original AP ref (which got deleted by another editor earlier).   done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tornado outbreak of March 24–25, 2021

 * Oppose Seems like a normal weather event <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Georgia voting law is above the tornadoes on every American news outlet I've checked. So it's not exactly the "top headline." Mlb96 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's tornado season in the US. There will be such outbreaks and small numbers of death with most of these, and this is thus "routine" in that sense. (that's assuming there's no further late-breaking storms that drastically increase that death toll) --M asem (t) 04:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Unless you're trying to doomcast a tornado to cause a ton of damage and kill a lot of people within the next couple of hours, I don't see why this article should be posted in this current state. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  05:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually maybe. A major tornado just hit Newnan Alabama.  Debris was hitting as far north as Atlanta, far enough away that the TV meteorologists were shocked by it.  Outbreak not over yet. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you knew what you're sending to ITN, you would've known this was in Georgia, not Alabama. Anyway, the storm's over and it seems to not have caused no more fatalities than yesterday. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not major news, even in the U.S., right now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really a major outbreak. It seems to be a run-of-the-mill tornado outbreak at this point. Let's be thankful that more people weren't hurt. <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 12:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This appears to be the third tornado outbreak this month with a separate article so it's really not a rare event or one with significant death toll and damage that merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Like many other things nominated here, these are becoming more and more common. It's sad, but these are normal. It's not really ITN-worthy at this point. CodingCyclone!  🌀 📘 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uta Ranke-Heinemann

 * Support Short but sufficient for RD, decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  12:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose for now. I've checked out the citations and some statements are not referenced, I've added tags for these. I can't verify some citations myself. I'm not convinced beliefnet is RS either, and it hasn't been rated on the reliable sources noticeboard. Uses x (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * has addressed most of those and I added a couple of sources as well, hopefully not interfering too much in their work (had an edit conflict but I think I resolved it gracefully). Regards So  Why  14:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please give me some more time, later today ;) - I try to keep edits short. What we have right now is just bones. Her father became president after was the first woman in the world to be habilitated in Catholic theology. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I've changed to support. Let's wait until is happy with it though. Uses x (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Die allerhöchste Autoritätin. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's cute ;) - ok, I think it works now, - still not the greatest but major aspects covered. Perhaps we'll have more sources tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support I concur with Joseywales1961 above. While the career section has gaps in coverage (e.g. 1954-1969), this article isn't a stub so I think what we have is sufficient for RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Morris Dickstein

 * Comment: Article has a huge lede and needs some reorganization.  Spencer T• C 23:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Heffington

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage in career section. At present, mostly just a list of groups and his bandmates.  Spencer T• C 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some more info to the "Career" section. Hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Relatively bare but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Finian's Rainbow

 * Support Good depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 16:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jessica Walter

 * comment: there are no longer any citation needed tags in the main body of the text, though i am not sure if the filmography needs to be thoroughly cited. dying (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Needs SAG award and filmography references. Removing cn tags doesn't mean they don't still apply. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * i couldn't find the removed citation needed tags that you were referring to, although my history search was admittedly not very thorough. feel free to add them to where you think they'd be appropriate.  i also added some sources for the screen actors guild awards.  also, while i was finding sources for the film credits, another editor moved the filmography to a separate article, so i suppose my earlier point regarding the filmography is now moot.  dying (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Abolition of capital punishment in Virginia

 * Comment good faith nom but it's almost certainly doomed. VA has been bluing for some time now it's hardly a surprise that the Democrats 86'd the death penalty. ITN has a certain aversion to "US-centric" stories, and I doubt the 23rd of anything is going to get posted around here. Good news for VA though. Just don't get discouraged when this is snow closed in an hour. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for your interest in ITN but this has no chance of being posted. As LaserLegs says, Virginia is a rare Southern state that is now pretty solidly blue so it's not really a surprise. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily think so. This is a huge event; as stated by the nominator, it shows that the death penalty is declining in the U.S. This won't get closed, I'm afraid.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Huge event for the death penalty in the US; definitely deserves posting. Also added an altblurb.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly because this is subnational news. On another note, how many of those thousands are post-1976? The most "modern" post-1976 executions, IIRC, is Texas (and Oklahoma per capita). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 113 post-Gregg, second behind Texas. P-K3 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose intra-national event. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another day, another regional news. 180.244.192.11 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not receiving major coverage in the U.S. Maybe would support if it were at the federal level. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Congratulations on 1/50th of a country catching up to the rest of the developed nations it claims to be one of. Kingsif (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pigeonholing. The first Southern state; misleading blurbs make it seem as if 1700 people executed recently.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I'm looking forward to the day that the death penalty is abolished nationwide. Until that day, I don't think this would qualify as ITN as it's not much of a change. But from here in Florida, I'm praying for the day that we join Virginia in ending this barbaric practice once and for all. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not novel, positive news no doubt. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Plager

 * Comment Early career section has some uncited information. I added one tag for now. I'm pretty busy right now so I don't have the time to look up any citations for Plager.  I Need Support  😷 00:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * added two more sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * what are your thoughts on this? Does it meet the minimum requirements for ITN? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Suez Canal obstruction

 * Note: a new article March 2021 Suez Canal obstruction has now been created. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: Rare occasion and interesting (bit funny) too. Although we can consider the Alt Blurb2 to not make it seem sensational. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a rare inconvenience but it's probably better suited at DYK than ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, target article is tagged and needs plenty of work to get close to main-page standards. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ever Given is a bit stubby. But the main target in all three existing blurbs is Suez Canal which seems a pretty clean and robust article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unprecedented and has the potential to affect the trade between many countries. You'd think today's technology would be able to prevent this from ever happening. (Also not a mass-shooting or a sports event, so should cause less squabbling here!) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the same about modern science until last March. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 "While traffic has slowed down, there is little risk of shortages in goods.", "There are existing stocks. If you look at oil supply, it is only the one from the Middle East and we have other supply sources," Uses x (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatevs, I'm fine. I've got Amazon Prime. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless there is a new article about the specific incident (indicating its international impact/notability/etc.), this has limited lasting impact. Ship article is relatively new and would be eligible for DYK if it meets the other criteria.  Spencer T• C 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ever Given couldn't be much newer? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose; article about event created.  Spencer T• C 16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd support the blurb with the ship's article bolded, if the incident part is expanded a bit. --Tone 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The picture's absolutely awful though. ——  Serial  16:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's almost unusable. Maybe a better one can be found and uploaded. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is unusable. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be used in a "try-and-guess-what-this-is" pub-quiz round? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ship blocking a waterway viewed from space might've been my first guess. But without a Neuralyzer we'll never know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for being in the news. Better to use the infobox picture at Ever Given though. Einsof (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This one File:Ever Given container ship.jpg also available at Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) ... but it's a different ship, with the same name...


 * Support Oppose for now. The update is too short (people clicking want to read into it), and until stated in the article I'm going to assume it has a limited impact. Uses x (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The update has been expanded, but it appears this won't have a major impact if it's resolved. Multiple sources are trying to WP:CRYSTALBALL this, while right now there appears to be very little impact. We can wait until then to see. Uses x (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's looking more likely that this will go on for weeks, so I've changed to support. It's a good story, it's certainly in the news, the article is fine, and even if a lot of the damage can be mitigated with existing stocks and sourcing goods from elsewhere, what damage there will be is still huge. Uses x (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Reading the CNN article, it is a matter if it takes too long to dislodge it that it might impact oil shipping which will impact prices. Otherwise, the way its being discussed, its an inconvenienced to a lot of people but no one's lives are threatened yet. --M asem (t) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also there is an aspect of WP:BLP1E here to the ship article, even though its not a BLP. If the only thing it is really noted for is that it blocked the canal, it really doesn't need a separate article, it should be a section in the canal's article (and that's if this is a significant event in the first place per NEVENT). Again, NOT#NEWS and all that. --M asem (t) 17:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support in that it is clear this won't be done in a few days. They have to remove the cargo and whether that can be done in days or weeks is of a question, but its already starting to hit financial markets. But it was appropriate to wait to make sure it was a long-term problem. --M asem (t) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Several reports indicated the Ever Given was in the process of being refloated/moved.  – Sca (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "BSM, the company that manages the ship, denied earlier reports that the vessel had been partially refloated." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be blocked only a few days, how long is the average leg? Asia to Europe? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment is it also not the case that an older channel is in use for shipping now, albeit temporarily, so the impact is significantly lessened? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear they're planning to pump millions of gallons of castor oil into the canal at its southern end. – Sca (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Article says this is a rare monochannel section. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: "Although there is an older section of the canal which could have helped bypass an obstruction, this particular incident happened in a section of the canal with only one channel." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support if and only if the blurb mentions the dick pic --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The new standalone article is fine, the economic impact is real, the item is in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait I'd like to see the wider ramifications of this incident. If it gets resolved quickly with no issues other than some minor shipping delays, then I would oppose posting. Mlb96 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Post-posting support This clearly isn't going to be resolved soon and has already disrupted billions of dollars in commerce. Clearly notable enough to be posted. Mlb96 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. If the canal is blocked for long enough that ships start going the long way around Africa, this is a major event. If it's cleared in a few days it's a minor inconvenience to a few logistics companies. I suspect the latter is the more likely outcome, but let's wait a few days to see what happens (and to improve the article). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was going to nominate this several hours ago, but thought otherwise given that this'll probably be a minor inconvenience at worst. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AP quoted unnamed Egyptian official as saying refloating the ship would take at least two days. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That (days, rather than, say, months), combined with the reopening of the old channel, factors into my oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, note the "at least" caveat. OTOH, when there's big money involved.... – Sca (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, "reopening of the old channel"? It's not stuck in that part. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reopening of that part means the canal's not completely blocked (merely delayed/sludged), so the significance is reduced. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "On Saturday, Adm Mameesh also revealed plans to build another canal near East Port Said on the Mediterranean Sea. It is expected to cost around $60m and will be 9.5km (6 miles) long, Reuters reports." That might take a while? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support not the most interesting event since it's apparently already resolved (per Reuters source in nom) but it's an international incident and it's in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not resolved (see this sequence of recent updates) and I have removed the Reuters source that incorrectly stated that it was. Einsof (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement. The incident is widely reported, and it links to a very nice article here. However, the Timeline section of the article is orange tagged, and must be resolved before appearing on the Front Page. The update is suitable a well referenced. I have edited the nomination to point to the proper section of the Suez Canal article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - ship article really needs a description section, but is otherwise good to go. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is now an article about this specific incident: March 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there is no "old channel" the ship is wedged in the south end and check out the traffic jam --LaserLegs (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is an old channel, along one section, but it's further north. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (Alt1) – No progress. Coverage indicates the gargantuan vessel may remain stuck for weeks, as it may not be refloated/moved until containers are unloaded and other things weighing it down removed.   Lloyds estimates $9B worth of delays daily.  In terms of news, it's a great story (and one that doesn't depend on fatalities) . – Sca (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially now we have the "dick pic" angle for the blurb, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aber natürlich. – Sca (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, do we get to use that image of the "world's biggest wedgie"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support — We need to be sure to link to the article on this incident. Some have pointed out that the article is nothing more than a stub, but it has been much improved since last night. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a lot of incorrect and uncited information being added, so it's not ready yet. I'm working through it. For example on 2021 Suez Canal obstruction it's stated it is "is also expected to send oil and gas prices soaring according to several experts", but when you click on the citation it's attributed to other reasons (i.e. investors overreacting), and that "a few days of slowdown in [oil] delivery is not critical to the market". Plenty of things like that Uses x (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Uses x (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: While it is making news right now, we don't know if this is just going to be like the MSC Fabiola (where, just like now, a container ship ran aground and the canal was basically closed off for a few days), where the incident is eventually deemed not notable to the point that it's just one line on the ship's article. Y'know what I'm saying? Like, yeah, the article's good, I think it's newsworthy, but at the same time, what if this thing's resolved by tomorrow morning, and everyone just drops it and forgets what an Ever Given is? If this thing takes a while, I'm moving to full support, but for now, I dunno, it might not be much. AdoTang (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when quality is there, linking to 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. The New York Times just published a headline reading "Giant Ship Blocking Suez Canal Could Take ‘Days, Even Weeks’ to Free," so it seems unlikely that this will be fixed shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment come on, come on, someone just post this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Roll 'em. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted ALT1 Most of the opposition was like mine the other day, from the lack of a dedicated article. Now that that's sorted, let's get this news up. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's stuck. Count Iblis (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ever Given has been released from the canal after 6 days. Advise update to blurb. --Osunpokeh (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article has not been updated correctly yet. You'll need to fix that before we can change the blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also not actually freed. Per  they have only dislodged the stern, the bow remains stuck fast to the bank.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear not all the trafficked children ordered by Hilary Clinton have been unloaded yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See Poe's law, for the record. BLP-violating jests should probably be kept out of threads such as this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated blurb. Okay, it looks like developments in the past hour or so have freed the ship, and the article has been properly updated.  I have made some tweaks to the blurb per these new developments.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum

 * Oppose - article is missing citations in several parts. TJMSmith (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article requires citations in many places and is a little short. SolarTheSunGod (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Segal

 * Support Article appears to be in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – filmography, discography, and awards and nominations sections are unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support list sections could use some work but the prose is decently-well sourced and honestly those lists are a bit of a mess to source anyway due to the nature of their information. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire article has to meet the minimum ITN standards, not just the prose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose several sections contain info missing citations. TJMSmith (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose per recent updates. TJMSmith (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support well known actor for many many years. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While filmography, discography, awards remain uncited JW 1961   Talk  12:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * striking oppose and adding Support for the improvements made today JW 1961   Talk  18:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article has been improved and source-up to the point its good enough to post. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that the filmography section is adequately sourced.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Cabinet of Joe Biden

 * Oppose. Routine government activities.  There is a small amount of significance in that Biden is the first president since Reagan to have all his cabinet positions filled on the first try(Neera Tanden was a cabinet-level nomination, not the cabinet itself), but that would only be significant if this was USApedia, which it isn't. 331dot (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your nominations are appreciated- I would gently suggest that you keep in mind that this is a global website and perhaps consider if you would make the nomination if it was related to a different country(like UK/French/Equatorial Guinea government ministries). Thanks 331dot (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Appreciate the credit, but this doesn't merit the main page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine government stuff. Uses x (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Dmoore5556 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tony Greaves, Baron Greaves

 * Oppose Limited depth of coverage at present: what did he accomplish in his various political roles? Most of the article covers his criticism of sexual harassment claimants, which is not balanced coverage of his political career.  Spencer T• C 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alberto Ciurana

 * Comment: 1 section lacks references; early life should be moved before career.  Spencer T• C 16:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David McCabe (photographer)

 * Support Short but sufficient for RD, decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  12:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Julie Pomagalski

 * Oppose If an article is a stub, maybe improve it before nominating it to RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Anomaly in lepton universality

 * Three sigma is starting to be evidence, and far from the gold standard of 5-sigma required for things to be considered discovery. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. But it is ITN worthy, I think. There is a ‘cautious excitement’ by the results. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be better than once the results are confirmed? The BBC article is full of calls for caution, confirmation, more analysis by scientists. The research also apparently hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet, only being submitted. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. It's very interesting, and I think it'd warrant a blurb if confirmed to 5-sigma and also had an article (or section of an article) explaining the impact so even non-physicists can read into it and see the importance. I don't think this is the end of it, so hopefully this can be re-nominated some day. Uses x (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two sentences about the relevant story. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Atop the above, this is only a preprint paper and thus not yet passed a peer-review. --M asem (t) 23:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This hasn't been peer-reviewed and the universal standard in particle physics is a 5 sigma detection; this is only 3 sigma. Maybe this will become an important measurement, but it's far too premature at this stage. It will probably take several years to collect the required additional data. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought it was six-sigma, but in any event not enough sigmata. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Boulder shooting

 * Wait -- we don't even know the name of the shooter, or indeed, anything about him. Details remain quite sparse. In the absence of any further evidence of motive or something which would lead us to believe that this shooting is notable in its own right, I do not think that we should post this. Should more information come out to indicate otherwise, I will change to support. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to support, see below. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  17:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mass shootings like this in the US are far too common, and even here, this isn't even something the possibility of a targetted hate crime as with the Atlanta spa shootings which may have merited that. --M asem (t) 05:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Likely to change to oppose, unless there is something specific about motivations to attribute to. USA shootings are more common so should have a higher bar for notability. Albertaont (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very sad these things happens, but another day, another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, leaning oppose. Very unfortunate news, but the number of deaths isn't in the range that would be posted to ITN absent some ideological motive or something more. At this point in time there's nothing that suggests otherwise, but since the case is still developing, that might change. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support According to List of mass shootings in the United States, the last shooting with a two-digit death toll in the US occurred in 2019, i.e. two years ago. So meets the uncodified minimum death criterion. Brandmeistertalk  08:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - per Brandmeister. Plenty of deaths. World wide coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose To reiterate for a zillionth time, such shootings in the United States will happen on a routine basis as long as the authorities don't do anything to restrict acquisition of firearms and increase gun controls. When you know that something is likely to happen and no-one cares to prevent it, implicitly meaning that it's not considered a priority, then it's not really newsworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you need to rethink the no-one cares to prevent it part of what you said. There's a big legislative struggle to accomplish gun reform. It's not like everybody here is okay with the status quo. The Senate is holding a hearing on gun violence today. Some of us care to prevent this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian authorities did it as an immediate response to the Nova Scotia attacks last year. I don't believe that such scenario is impossible for the United States and that the 'big legislative struggle' is well justified when it's all about saving lives. There's surely a way to impose restrictions or push a law through an emergency procedure as such possibilty exists in virtually every country in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. We're awaiting such law to be passed at least for a decade but still to no avail. This clearly implies that either there's no will to change anything or that the US legal system is highly dysfunctional.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In Canada (to my knowledge), there isn't an old piece of paper that the Founders said is supreme law, with a minor clause regarding "well-regulated militias" that suddenly a few decades ago archconservatives insisted read wildly differently. In the US, there is. That's the primary barrier to the (many) people aiming for progress. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose the 107th mass shooting in the US of the year so far. I suppose there's an angle here, like "most people killed in a grocery store shooting in March" or something equally contrived.  No, this is business as usual.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 107 but 10 deaths hasn't happened since 2019. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, another record! I suppose the "most people killed in a store" record was set today too?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most people killed in a store since the 2019 El Paso shooting on 3 Aug? Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until a motive is known. This likely wasn't domestic violence or a gang beef or any of the other things that haters label a "mass shooting" but it does appear to be "demented white man with a gun" and we have a far more consequential act of terrorism in the US in the box already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ahmad Alissa's identity had been known to the FBI" interesting angle, if this turns out to be terrorism it may pass the notability test --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strange comment. What do you mean by "haters"? Are you suggesting we hate mass shootings? Because that wouldn't be terribly incorrect. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment A double-digit death count last occurred in the US in 2019 and puts this on the list of deadliest shootings in the US since 1949. Not saying that merits inclusion to ITN, but to pretend as though this is "business as usual" is disingenuous. It would be nice to see an objective discussion of this Belugsump (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There you go: "makes it onto the "deadliest shootings in the US since 1949" list. I knew there would be some kind of "record" list it would break into.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Masem, shootings in the US are unfortunately commonplace in the nation. While the event is indeed tragic, these kind of events almost always have short-term impact and are quickly forgotten by the media and public after a week or so.  Also, unlike the Atlanta shooting, it’s unlikely that the perpetrator motive was racially or sexually driven. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape and this is in the news. -- Tavix ( talk ) 11:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Masem. ——  Serial  11:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for being in the news and having a clear article. Einsof (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Routine incident. Dog bites man, the Pope is a Catholic, Americans shoot each other up.  Sandstein   12:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sehr amüsant. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Showcase new dedicated article of sufficient quality on notable topic in the news. Dog biting incidents are unlikely to have standalone pages, let alone national or even international coverage. Mass deaths are mass deaths, whether by shooting, car ramming, train accident, etc.—Bagumba (talk)
 * Oppose ITN's attention span to U.S. mass shootings was already scraped raw with the prior event that took place in Atlanta not even a month ago. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I get the feeling this is going to be a non-starter as far as ITN is concerned – but note that Boulder Police plan a news conf. at 8:30 a.m. MDT (14:30 UTC) which conceivably might offer significant new info. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I didn't even realise this had happened for a while; it wasn't on the BBC news website at all this morning and is now in the small "other items" sidebar, next to an article about Cineworld. Ditto The Guardian.  On Sky News it's down behind the Rohingya fire (which is clearly a far more important story than this - 400 people missing - does it have an article?), Germany's COVID lockdown and Australian parliament sex videos.  In La Figaro it's about the 12th story, Die Welt I can't find it at all (presumably buried in the "World News" subpage. Clearly much of the international press is treating it as routine, which I suppose in the end is not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , here, and thanks. ——  Serial  18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , it's literally on the front page of BBC right now. Nihlus  16:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think that this is totally deserving of a current event news. If a spa shooting killing 8 should be up here, so should a supermarket shooting killing 10. There are not a lot of coverage on news websites because it is fairly recent. there was not a lot of news coverage just after the spa shooting as well. I can guarantee that news websites will be pumping out info once they have enough time to write things about it and find out motives. EDIT- The police have released the identity of the shooter. KommanderChicken (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - This is on the front page of multiple news websites, including CNN, NYT, LATimes, etc. Yes, unfortunately this is a common occurrence in this country, but this is the second mass shooting in a week after an entire year of no mass shootings. The Boulder PD is holding a press conference as I'm typing this where they announced the gunman was charged with 10 counts of murder and read the victims' names.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppjj123 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "after an entire year of no mass shootings"? List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 and in 2021 document several hundred. (This all in the context of a pandemic where large crowds should be as limited as possible...) — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those hundreds are close to or at the minimum of 0 deaths 4 injuries and only 1 is above 8 deaths or 10+1 shot. Also a lot are gang fights that aren't scary to non-gangsters. Lots of American COVIDiots ignored social distancing, sure there was a lot of distancing but if you really wanted to mass shoot a crowd you could've found one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really change anything. It's a tragedy, sure, but already this month 47 people have been killed in unrelated mass shootings throughout the US, and just being the biggest so far doesn't mean much. It's a shame I have to say this, but 10 people being shot to death in the United States really isn't notable anymore. Gex4pls (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Update: Boulder police say the shooter is a 21-year-old man from Arvada, part of the Denver megalopolis, and identify him as Al Aliwi Alissa, who's been charged with 10 counts of first-degree muder. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an Ongoing section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would a mass shooting that has ended be in Ongoing? Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Think about it a little longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Très amusant. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I did, and your comment is still unhelpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought about it. I thought about it some more. I've concluded it's not ongoing.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we could probably nominate List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 for ongoing and it wouldn't be unanimously rejected. And that, I'm afraid, is the problem.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A re-occuring local issue that's not in international news, and with only a short-term impact to those unaffected. This will just be pushing out another US terrorist attack. And as a side note we'd be better off not giving these shooters attention. Uses x (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , In the news/Candidates 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing it because it only affects the US, I'm opposing it because it's routine in the US, is always forgotten by the next week in the US, and has a low and short-term impact when it happens in the US. Uses x (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I hope you agree with me it's not appropriate to put every shooting on this list on ITN, else ITN will just be a list of "what US terrorist attack happened this week". I'd reconsider if there's something particularly notable about this, but that's not the case. Uses x (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you may forget and move on, don't assume tht the rest of us do. How many of those shootings on that list have been nominated for ITN? Do you see them all getting nominated? No, they don't all have articles. The notable ones get articles, and some of them get nominated here. It's already filtered down. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't give me any ideas! Anyway, I've made my point and I stand by it, so I'll leave it at that. Uses x (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's newsworthy, covered by the big publications, and the article quality is good. It was a stub last night but has been expanded substantially. We want to feature new quality content on the ITN template. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle – Pending expansion and polishing of current article, which at 450 words is rather brief. It's not every day that someone is charged with 10 counts of premeditated murder. Given the suspect's name, something on possible motives would be appropriate, but that could take quite some time. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: already a recent U.S. shooting featured on ITN (even if this story would bump it). The point is not that this is the first double-digit death count since 2019, but that these sorts of incidents (mass killings in the U.S.) are routine and there's not much pattern or semantic content to individual ones of them (unlike other routine events like elections, which reflect the current mood of a country). TRM's point about statistics, I think, is that if you have a hundred possible stats to pick from ("double-digit death count", "first by a perpetrator of age range X since", "first with this type of firearm since", "first in this type of location since", "first in this state since") then every event will have something unique about it. Black Kite does some excellent analysis of how this is not front-page world news with respect to high-quality sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - It's well written and it's in the news. High-profile US mass shootings have rarely been routine during the pandemic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by TRM, this is the 107th mass shooting in the US this year, making it on the average of at least one per day. That's the very definition of routine. --M asem (t) 16:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , how many of those 107 have articles on Wikipedia? Differences in the shootings and their coverage are the reason some have articles and most don't. That shoots holes (pun intended) on the "definition of routine" argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Kim Kardashian also has an article and her updates make world news for passing moments, just like mass shootings in the US do.  This shouldn't mean we post Kim's every routine movement.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A second question is: how many of those that have article should have articles on WP, given the weight of WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT? We're looking at enduring coverage of these types of things, and with shootings particularly in the US, it is very iffy that many will have long-term significance. There may be something to be said for the Atlanta shootings as it is right in the middle of a large campaign fighting anti-Asian hate crimes and does appear racially motivated, but this one so far seems to have no odd motive. Sure it will be the subject of coverage for a while, but as others have pointed out, a week from now, it will likely be forgotten outside those in the local area. There is a reason we have Wikinews for people that are interested in writing on breaking news stories without worrying about notability or long term coverage. Just because something is reported in the mass media - which covers events 24/7 - doesn't mean WP has to cover it too, since we're meant to be trying to summarize history, not document it. --M asem  (t) 17:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The same people saying this one will be forgotten in a week said that last one's would be forgotten in a week, too. WP:CRYSTAL balls don't work so well. Sadly, many of those 107 are routine and don't have articles because they don't meet NEVENT. This one does, clearly, and will endure. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Last week's major mass shooting has already disappeared off the news radar. There's no interest in it around the world at all.  As for this one, it's not Covid so it's getting five minutes, but it definitely will not endure, it's of little encyclopedic value, nothing changes, the statistics testify to that, it literally is business as usual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mass protests following the Atlanta shooting – yesterday. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Already disappeared off the news radar"? Are you out of your mind? Racism against Asian-Americans is one of the biggest topics in American news right now, which is entirely due to the Atlanta shooting. I know that you hate the United States, but at least stop acting like nothing that happens in the U.S. matters. Mlb96 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure it's being obsessed over in some parts of the US, but the rest of the world has moved on. I don't hate the United States (I've even been there several times, but avoided the redneck zones...), I just pity the ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of people every year.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to oppose nearly every U.S.-related nomination. For example, you opposed the Texas winter storm which was known to have killed almost 50 people when it was nominated, but you're supporting the refugee fire in Myanmar which killed 15. Mlb96 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Another routine shooting in the U.S. with little long-term significance (the Atlanta Spa shootings at least highlighted the anti-Asian sentiment in the United States). Edit: This might be an ideologically motivated shooting according to recent updates, so crossed out my oppose. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All knee-jerk "America bad" comments should be ignored by the closing admin. We consistently post bombings and other violent acts in the Middle East, provided that they have an article, so why would this be different? Nihlus  16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the point really though, isn't it? People aren't opposing because it's "America bad", they're opposing because it's "America everyday normality". Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of this callous take. The difference between everyday gun violence and mass shootings that should be posted are the extent of the coverage of the event and the availability of a well-sourced article. This article meets both. I am not sure why, but WP:ITNCRIT seems to be consistently ignored, especially when it comes to topics concerning America. Nihlus  16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Callous"? The take is accurate and relevant.  Gun crime of this nature is prevalent in the US and in almost every case barely even encyclopedic.  This is tabloid fodder right now, as nothing will change, no links to terrorism have been offered, and this is not a US mass shooting ticker.  The bar is high now, this kind of article really needs to be significant rather than run-of-the-mill.  And however "callous" that may be, it's the sad truth.  The rest of the world (and half of the US it would appear) just switches channels with "yet another" mass killing, and this is in every sense, more of the same.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nihlus The argument is against the significance, and under significance there are two rules, one of which is "There is consensus to post the event". "Any user may, of course, support or oppose a candidate for any reason", with the rest only being guidelines for typically unpopular reasons. If the concensus here is that it's not significant because it'll quickly be forgotten, is routine, etc, then people looking at the front page of Wikipedia would probably think the same; it's all about quality control. Uses x (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose After reading the article, I can conclude that the layout suggests this will be another mass shooting that will become forgotten in the near future, as with previous ones that have been nominated in the past, it has a standard play out: shooter opens fire on an area where a lot of people gather, killing/injuring several of them in the process; police arrive, killing or arresting the perpetrator; mass confusion, hysteria, and brief mourning occurs; several top government officials (both state and federal) offer condolences; and then the event is soon forgotten with little to no further impact.  As several users have noted this is not the first nor will it be the last mass shooting (unfortunately) in America this year.  It fails to garner significance, other than perhaps the fact the U.S.A has a serious problem with gun violence, which is obviously known worldwide, and thus is not new in any way, shape, or form. 2600:1015:B005:39AC:7888:F97B:33C1:39C1 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – If it were to come out that this was an ideologically motivated crime, that would push it into the box. If that were the case, a confession might substantiate it fairly soon. Maybe. Again, still developing. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Mass shootings are, unfortunately, quite common in the United States, but the death toll in the Boulder shooting is especially high (10). As other users have noted, this was the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. since 2019. The Atlanta spa shootings, which are currently in ITN, caused eight deaths. -  Crossover1370  (talk | contribs) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by routine, just saw "Around the time of the shooting, reports emerged of another armed individual in the city. Boulder Police later confirmed that this incident was unrelated." So not only is gun crime routine in the United States, it appears to be routine in Boulder on 22 March 2021.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very, very unfortunately, there are millions of armed individuals in the U.S., and in some states, in rural areas it's even legal to carry a concealed handgun without a license. That doesn't mean all those packing heat are crazed killers. – Sca (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can carry guns like cowboy without a license in Colorado (except Denver). Open Carry of a 9mm Browning Hi Power in Eagle, Colorado.jpg used to be this Coloradoan]] If anyone gets worried of course they'll call the police and then the guy probably feels righteously indignanted at whoever called even though he probably secretly enjoys the rise he gets out of people from carrying visible guns in the most urban place he can (some states ban county or city gun laws stricter than the statewide one). The reports might've even been of someone who carried a visible gun because of the shooting, either to get a rise out of people or "for protection" (a mass shooter would probably just shoot Cowboy from behind, he'd be Victim 1) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Double-digit death toll should be significant enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- it is ITN, and the death toll is high. Now that we know who the shooter is and more information is available, I think it should be blurbed. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Guess what weapon the shooter used? A cheaper version of the AR-15 assault rifle. Figgers. – Sca (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Biden urges Senate passage of House gun laws. – Sca (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speculation, and with 50% still GOP and a waffling fraction of Democrats, its unlikely to happen without more pressure. --M asem (t) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, don't get me wrong, if they ever ever manage to do anything about this idiotic repeated slaughter which stood a chance of surviving a Republican term, I'd be all ears. But they won't, this will not change.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is just a usual waving that something might change but deliberately done with reservations to defend the rhetoric 'We did everything we could'. A worried head of state/government honestly working to counter the gun culture would have come up with concrete measures.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mass shootings like this in the US are unfortunatyely too common. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Double-digit death toll passes the significance test.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment so would that mean a triple-murder by stabbing in the UK would be notable? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A triple-murder? Especially one which was indiscriminate vs domestic violence? Sure, if you got one and it's got a decent article then nominate it. This is about a posible terrorist attack in the United States though... --LaserLegs (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, but not 2019 London Bridge stabbing? I mean, in 2019, almost 40,000 people in the US were killed by a gun.  In that same year 250 people in the UK were killed by stabbing.  So perhaps even a single murder by stabbing in the UK should receive prominence?  It seems reasonable given the context right?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you remind me, did 2020 Reading stabbings get posted? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems very WP:POINTy and personal for you. I don't need to remind you that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I'm afraid we continually get brow-beaten for somehow "hating on the US" or other such crap, yet it's pretty clear that posting this kind of routine shooting while other non-US attacks are just ignored demonstrates a total pro-US bias.  I don't need to remind you that OTHERSTUFF is a deletion argument, not anything to do with establishing a reasonable common ground on notability for such attacks.  Thanks for trying though.  And please, how is it "personal"?  You'll be removing that.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies; meant to instead link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (for some reason we have two of the same thing, one of which only pertains to deletion discussions.) My point still stands – it's an unhelpful attitude based on harboring grudges that some editors bring into any kind of discussion (even when they themselves voted against the other stuff that does, indeed, exist). If you want more UK stuff on here, then nominate it. This nomination isn't the place to air it out. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You completely miss the point I'm afraid. I'm not harbouring grudges.  I asked a simple question based in statistics: 40,000 Americans are killed by firearms in the US every year, 250 Brits are killed by stabbings (we don't really have firearm deaths) so I wanted to understand the general vibe on the equivalence.  I do not believe that either should be posted but if we're happy to post run-of-the-mill shootings like this which only account for (on average) 10% of one day's worth of shooting while we reject multiple stabbings (which account for 1% of the year stabbings) in the UK with terror connections then the bias clearly isn't against US mass shootings in this context.  There's nothing personal here, so you need to stop casting aspersions.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you opposed the London Bridge attack. I did too. Maybe I was wrong. It happens, a lot actually, and if I was, then I'm sorry. I don't think the Reading stabbing was nominated. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, that's the whole bloody point, I don't support either, but... Either these are both way worthy (and Reading too, I wonder why no-one bothered nominating it then..... hmmmm....) or neither.  How can one get blanket opposition and this one get even close to support?  US bias.  Anyway, we all knew that.  Instead of wasting time here on another inconsequential US gun crime, take a look at a real tragic news story (2021 Rohingya refugee-camp fire), that's the kind of thing that warrants an article and being ITN.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, that fire is about as inconsequential as the Las Vegas country music festival shooting. The story we should be talking about but aren't is the bombing in China but the article is a 1 sentence stub and state media hasn't released enough info to expand it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one's denying that the 2017 Las Vegas shooting is very notable. No-one has nominated the 2021 Guangzhou bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Higher body count than the ITN-worthy and not run-of-the-mill mass shooting we posted a few days ago. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by a straight !vote count the supports are +4 but there are three waits (a fourth converted to support) hinging on a motive being released. I sense that this one is going to come down to it being "routine" gun violence in the USA or being politically motivated and there is still no official word from the authorities. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Concensus is not a vote, so that's a pointless comment. --M asem (t) 22:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What is consensus, if not a vote? It's not a plain majority vote, sure.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly this kind of thing is just no longer notable, and just because it's the highest death toll this year doesn't make it notable. Just this month more people have been killed in other mass shooting incidents, and since this one already 2 have been killed in Cleveland and 1 has been killed in Detroit. Gex4pls (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mass shootings can still be individually notable, but I'm not seeing anything especially noteworthy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support due to the significant number of deaths. (Also, the callousness in some of the comments above is frankly horrifying. Let's conduct ourselves better than this.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 10 deaths.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:9183:124A:84DD:9603 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Real curious. A contrived anti-Asian terrorist angle to a shooting gets breathless nomination, slanted information in the article, and posted to the Front Page. An equally contrived Islamic terrorist angle to a shooting, gets shut down immediately, and the only time "terror" appears in the article is in reference to White Americans.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Find some sources to back it up (like the many sources that exist re anti-Asian motive on the Atlanta shooting page), and take it to the talk page for the Boulder shooting. Otherwise, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta shooter says he wasn't racially motivated. Where's the definitive link to terrorism or similar for this event?  I don't see it.  It's just a standard domestic mass shooting, a handful more victims, but otherwise very much business as usual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Dmoore5556 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: While I am aware that mass shootings have been commonplace in the United States, the fact that it is the first major mass public shooting to reach ten deaths since August 2019 makes it quite notable. I understand their has been “mass shootings” per convention of “four deaths” even throughout the pandemic, but many of them have barely been in the news because mostly they are too small on a public scale or happen to be private. Many news outlets such as Los Angeles Times and New York Times have acknowledged that mass public shootings of this scale during the past several months have not happened. So, I feel based on these facts, this is worthy of placement on the Main Page.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose got to love the blatant political use of statistics in support rationale's above. "First to hit double digits since 2019!11!#!!" sounds much better than "2 more dead than the mass shooting the previous week. 3 more than September 2020". You know when you intentially phrase stats in order to big up scores about hitting double digits it comes across as you are *proud* of reaching that number right? That may not be your intent, but that is the impression it gives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's also interesting that censorship is being applied to the stats I provided relating to 40,000 gun deaths per annum  in the US vs 250 knife deaths (and practically zero gun deaths) in the UK, and a consequential contextual significance.  It's only gun crimes in the US which have this kind of fervent misguided "it's relevant" clamour and the usual rounds of record-breaking stats... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing about being "proud" of. Just deadliest US shooting in two years, sad truth to be impartially reported. Now ask yourself a question: if someone kills 30, 40 or 55 people in a US shooting, would you still type your "business as usual" or "meh, still short of 2017 Las Vegas shooting"? Brandmeistertalk  12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are we so fixated on numbers? Surely the surrounding circumstances are more important, as was the case with the Atlanta shootings.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just a blip amongst the other 39,990 people killed every year, or should we say it's just 10 out of 130 people killed that day in the US with firearms. I think you fail to see the picture we all see.  And the "numbers" per se don't make it any more interesting or encyclopedic in value.  Really, literally nothing has been done about these heinous crimes over the years, we should treat it like a world record and only post shootings that surpass the actual record.  These shootings make headlines and fade to nothing very quickly because we all know nothing ever, ever, ever changes.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know 2/3rds of those 40,000 are suicides, suicide is not a crime. Our suicide rate is apparently only (USA! USA!) twice yours ("age-adjusted") or 14/11ths (not adjusted for UK having more elderly or something (our healthcare sucks balls)), and our murder rate (all method) is a whopping 4 times yours. You should start whaling on Scotland too cause their suicide rate is above USA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Second-day coverage portrays the suspect as a lone nutcase, albeit with some Islamicist leanings. That puts me on the fence re ITN. Suggest we resolve this nom. one way or the other soon. Everyone's had their say. We're already up to 6,000 words. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, that's all that's needed to declare it a terror attack these days... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * P'raps we should call it an error attack (as in synapse malfunction). – Sca (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is close to an even split between supports and opposes, there clearly is no consensus to post. Let's close the discussion and be done with this. Mlb96 (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I was going to nominate this for ITN, but someone beat me to it. 🔥<b style="color:red">Lightning</b><b style="color:orange">Complex</b><b style="color:dijon">Fire</b>🔥 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * People, people... at ~6400 words, this discussion is literally five times as many words as the fucking article. Can this be closed, or posted, or anything but be a total quagmire? ——  Serial  15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – FWIW, it is still in the news. Note WAPO main page. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Serial. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kim Janey becomes mayor of Boston

 * Oppose That's great for her, but doesn't really affect anyone else. There are 20 larger cities in the U.S. alone; even still, I honestly don't think there's any city in the world where an event like this would be prominent enough for ITN, in my view. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also (being extremely technical here), it does not appear as if she formally assumes office until March 24, per the article, and thus for the next 24 hours will be "acting mayor." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Being the first woman and black person mayor of Boston does bring some significance, but it's quite a localized significance.  I Need Support   😷 05:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Historic and good for Boston, but this doesn't meet the high bar for local politics to be put on ITN. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not notable enough to merit ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local elections take place around the world literally every other day and similar first-time events do regularly happen so I really don't know why this is particularly important. Also, note that she serves as an acting mayor that wasn't elected in a direct election and the next mayoral election in the city is later this year..--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peng Shilu

 *  Conditional support once 2 CN tags are resolved; otherwise article is in good condition.  Spencer T• C 16:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Crichton-Stuart, 7th Marquess of Bute

 * Comment: Article needs some refs.  Spencer T• C 00:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Guangzhou bombing

 * Oppose Stub article.  I Need Support  😷 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, this doesn't seem to be significant enough. I didn't notice this from the news a lot even in Guangdong or Hong Kong. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 02:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub article, and less than 1,000 page views per day, which suggests to me readers aren't interested enough to post this on ITN. Levivich harass/hound 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) March 2021 Rohingya refugee-camp fire

 * Support large event with a huge impact. I've checked all the citations and everything is properly referenced. Article is also of good enough length for now. Uses x (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support genuinely tragic, article is decent enough too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Big impact, and the article quality is fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral when you strip out the background and response filler, there isn't much there. Follows the standard template pretty well. For a fire that burned for 8 hours and destroyed "17,000 huts" a bit more analysis would be great. Still of course it's going to go up, even though nothing will change regarding the plight of the Rohingya people either in Myanmar or among their diaspora I guess it's good enough --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Reasons are already listed above Sherenk1 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: the page has recently been moved to Balukhali fire as there was apparently another major fire in a rohingya refugee camp in january, so the link in the blurb might need to be updated at post time to conform with wp:mpnoredirect. dying (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Balukhali fire is not a suitable name either, since the name is not commonly used. I think March 2021 Rohingya refugee-camp fire should be a better name. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 10:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed. i wasn't sure if it was either (i didn't move it, though i understand why it was moved), which is why my comment didn't suggest updating the link to the current name.  dying (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved. please update the blurb. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do that yourself. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Worthington

 * Support I addressed all the CN's and cited the honours, looks to be a neat little article now suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way a suitable amount of searching has been done since his death to justify fair use image. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that has been removed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, looks ok. P-K3 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guy Brice Parfait Kolélas

 * Comment: Probably RD for now, since the election article needs a good amount of expansion/improvement.  Spencer T• C 00:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for RD, oppose blurb. There's one uncited paragraph, which shouldn't be hard to source but it otherwise looks fine for RD. Since the death isn't suspicious, it definitely can't stand on its own, and the election results (which would be ITN/R), still haven't rolled in.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The paragraph is now cited. Joofjoof (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD only Assuming that the reason for posting it as a blurb is unnecessary because Guy Brice Parfait Kolélas contribution is unknown overseas. 36.77.93.112 (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elgin Baylor

 * Support Have added references. Not sure how we've done NBA player articles before with regards to sourcing stats: while the sections themselves don't have references, the first external links are to NBA/Basketball Reference pages for his career and coaching statistics.  Spencer T• C 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually put a small text 'Source:' and the citation in each section for completeness. Stephen 22:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good, rated C class. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robina Asti

 * Support looks alright to me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting article that is well-sourced. Perhaps "see also" section could be trimmed. TJMSmith (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion—done. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Niger attacks

 * Comment The article seems to be more broadly about all attacks in Niger that have occurred this year. The relevant portion is only two sentences long. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added another sentence using details from the article, but the update is still on the short side. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but target is weak. But On 21 March 2021, militants riding motorbikes attacked Intazayene, Bakorat and Wistan, three villages in the Tahoua Region close to the Malian border, killing at least 137 people BLOODY HELL.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It is in the news. If the blurb mentions ISIL then the article ought to as well. Einsof (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still seems rather sketchy in relation to magnitude of reported fatalities. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a one line update is not adequate, and the article being a list of shootings really sums it up: Routine incident. Dog bites man, the Pope is a Catholic, Nigeriens shoot each other up. Hilarious right? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The update isn't long enough for ITN, as people clicking onto it want to read into it. I'll reconsider if it's expanded. Uses x (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not enough of an update per others above, and it's only getting a couple hundred page views per day, which suggests to me it's not of sufficient interest to our readers to merit an ITN blurb. Levivich harass/hound 15:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muchtar Pakpahan

 * Oppose Yellow template at the top, a few unrecoverable dead links, large sections unreferenced. Uses x (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * which yellow template, which dead link, and which unreferenced large sections. please help. thank you. --61.94.66.18 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears your edits had been reverted as they didn't include a summary, but you've sorted those problems out so I've retracted the oppose. I can't verify the citations myself as most appear to be subscriber-only, so I can't give my support right now. Uses x (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Thorough, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Budge Wilson

 * Weak support Would like to see some more depth of coverage about her writing career (e.g. common themes), but article hits main points and is fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article is sourced. I concur with Spencer's comment. TJMSmith (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adam Zagajewski

 * Comment – He seems to have been quite well known. Perhaps a Polish-speaking ed. could glean from this article in the Warsaw daily Wyborcza. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most important contemporary poets (and a great essayist), certainly not only in Poland. Article in acceptable condition. Yakikaki (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Presentable. Could perhaps be expanded a bit from the cited (Eng.) AFP article. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – portions of the bibliography lack citations or ISBN numbers. TJMSmith (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support- My comment above was addressed. One citation needed tag remaining, but otherwise the article is in decent shape. TJMSmith (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. CN resolved.  Spencer T• C 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nawal El Saadawi

 * Support overall the article seems fine. It would be great if someone can cite the rest of the prizes that she got in the "Selected awards and honors" section. Vacant0 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added refs. Vacant0 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Selected sources (outside of the works published online) is blanket-referenced by myAfrica. That page says, "myAfrica is an open resource. Most profiles, such as this one, are editable by logged in users" and thus doesn't look like a reliable source. Otherwise article has good depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 23:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Else Hammerich

 * Article has been updated (url problem resolved, and some expansion is done). Oceanh (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is sourced and updated. TJMSmith (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Could use more depth in career section but meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 23:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Admin attention requested) RD: José Baselga

 * Support well referenced, notable Vacant0 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited coverage of his research career; article at present has disproportionate weight on his financial disclosure controversies. Possible sources for more information include, with a paragraph of information about his breast cancer research, this should be pretty fixable: StatNews obit and AACR biography, AACR bio 2.  Spencer T• C 23:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CV as BLP. Only a single sentence relates any non-professional information. Given popular media coverage, there must be something more to add. Even if the professional aspects were fleshed out, the article could still reasonably be moved to Career of José Baselga.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Have done a reasonable rewrite of the article. Rater.js says B-class biography, but, I think it is atleast a C-class biography. Article can further be expanded with actual research, but, given that we have ~6 hours before this nomination becomes stale, I would say this is ready for homepage / RD. Please see as appropriate. Ktin (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @all: this article goes stale in ~1.25 hours. Appreciate a look. Ktin (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yevgeny Nesterenko

 * comment: i lack the experience to determine the seriousness of this, but significant sections of the of this article, dated 2008, appear to closely paraphrase or outright copy sections of either its listed english.pravda.ru reference, dated 2003, or its listed vor.ru reference, dated 2002.  although the intervening edits do not appear to be similarly problematic, much of the structure and diction of the two older sources still appear to remain in the current version of the page. , unfortunately, this may explain the lack of inline citations, as the sections that lack them appear to be surviving passages from the first edit, which contained no inline citations, but simply listed the two references used at the end.  dying (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the old days, before I was even here, articles were written differently. He died now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * understood. back then, it seemed like everyone had varying standards regarding what was considered acceptable paraphrasing, and as a result, many editors effectively turned a blind eye to things that were clearly taken from other sources and had only minimal paraphrasing.  this article, created in 2008, was probably a decent article back then since it actually listed two sources, and i can't claim that i always cited sources myself back then.
 * i discovered the close paraphrasing when i was working on this article and was trying to add the proper inline citations, per your request. because, in the intervening years since the article was first created, we appear to have developed some ideas  about close paraphrasing, and because i don't have much experience on where our (possibly vague) line is drawn nowadays, i did not think it was appropriate for me to just slap on some inline citations and consider the job done.  however, in the case that the wording is unacceptably close to the original, i also don't know how we currently deal with unacceptably close paraphrasing.  if standard operating procedure is to wipe the offending sections and start anew, i didn't want my efforts to be wasted if they would be deleted shortly anyway, and was hoping for guidance regarding this issue.
 * to be clear, i support the eventual posting of this article, if we can get the quality of the article up to standard. if we are going to link to this article from the front page, i am assuming that it should follow our current viewpoints regarding plagiarism, and if i were to be the one adding the inline citations, i am assuming that it would be my implicit responsibility to make sure that the sections i am adding a citation to are properly vetted.
 * ultimately, if Nesterenko was a great man, i want him to have a great article. dying (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I rephrased some, and if you still think something is too close, please be bold and rephrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * post-posting comment: as guidance regarding wikipedia's current stance on copyrights doesn't seem to be forthcoming anytime soon, i've taken the liberty of doing a complete rewrite of the main text of the article, in order to leave no doubt as to the provenance of the wording used. i've turned some of the prose into lists in order to make it even more clear that the original structure of the sources is no longer being used.  by adhering to wp:factsonly when rewriting the questionable passages, i hope copyright issues will no longer be in play.  i also added some information about nesterenko's life before his career so that the article would read less like a curriculum vitae, which the original two sources essentially were.  if anyone feels that the article was in a better state before, or that the rewrite was perhaps a move too bold, feel free to revert it or replace sections that you feel were of a better quality before.
 * i apologize in advance to anyone whose contributions may have been misinterpreted by me when i was rewriting the text, and to anyone who believes that their pertinent contributions have been dropped. feel free to correct the text or to add your contributions back in.  also, apologies for not posting the rewrite sooner; i was still working on it when the article was posted to rd.  dying (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Dan Sartain

 * Oppose - needs more sourcing and there isn't enough prose. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taryn Fiebig

 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage, mostly a resume in prose format as article is mostly a list of roles and awards.  Spencer T• C 23:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article ok and sufficient sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: ... after you added ;) - I added you and me as updaters --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine; sufficiently referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Like footballers, many singer's articles simply tend to be a list of things they have done. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Lorimer

 * Support Agreed it's now looking good for RD. RIP JW 1961   Talk  14:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Assuming citations are all good, article does look ready. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Is good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited Vacant0 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment still good to go.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Fagradalsfjall erupts

 * Wait Interesting, but article is currently a stub. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. Not yet threatening. --M asem (t) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Does this eruption have an any casualities of it, for example deaths and injuries? 36.77.74.149 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, as it is not in a populated area, although there is a risk of sulfur dioxide pollution which could affect health in other areas. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose re-nominate if there's a significant and encyclopedically valuable impact. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. So far the only impact is to close the main airport, but that seems to happen every time there's an eruption, so nothing special and ITN-worthy so far. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Volcanic activity is quite common for Iceland. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting but no casualties or significant air travel disruption like 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull. Unless something changes, this is better suited for WP:DYK (it seems to pass all the criteria at first glance). Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Officials said the eruption was small and did not represent a danger to people." [1 ] Uses x (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Jackson (bassist)

 * Support Good enough length, references all check out. Uses x (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luis Armando Bambarén Gastelumendi

 * Comment: Several unreferenced paragraphs.  Spencer T• C 23:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose- not enough in-line citations. TJMSmith (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glynn Lunney

 * Support - Sad to see him go. Definitely one of the most important people in the U.S. space program.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t know the ITN rules, but the article has some uncited text. Now cited, and Support. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I am biased as I wrote most of the article, but agree that he was one of the most important people in the US space program! I have cleared up the uncited text. MLilburne (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have commented out minor less-than-important uncited text; it can be dealt with later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elsa Peretti

 * Have added some more citations, and removed uncited claims. After this, the article apparently looks fine. But when checking all the (old) links, I found that at least seven of the urls were "dead", plus two give me trouble (one is "unsecure", one does not support my browser). Next step, maybe find/search for archived urls (or alternative links for citation), or is that too much trouble? Any archive expert with access to proper tools that can help? How is the ITN practice for treating dead links? Oceanh (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few ways, which WP:404 says best. Archive.org seems to be having problems right now, but I'll deal with the dead links when it's working again. Uses x (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found and recovered all of them. Uses x (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Oceanh (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Thorough, referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) John Magufuli / Samia Suluhu

 * I agree this should be a blurb; the article quality is close but isn't good enough yet. Depending on how the succession works, we may want to include the new President in the blurb. 力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added in alt-blurb. Sceptre (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources that say that Suluhu has been sworn in; the only sourcing in the Wiki article is the constitution of Tanzania. If we're going for a merged blurb, we need to wait (hopefully only an hour or two) for coverage of the succession. 力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose a few citations needed. And we ought to include the current reason for his death having taken such a different approach to Covid.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite widespread speculation this is Covid, the government statement said "heart illness" (Bloomberg News). 力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they would, of course! It wasn't in the article when I looked, that's all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article President of Tanzania is not in good shape; it currently has only three sentences and a chart. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not being targeted. But you could have List of heads of state of Tanzania if you like.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The death of an incumbent head of state is not ITN/R. The succession of a new head of state is ITN/R. So, I oppose any blurb that doesn't include Suluhu. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We generally post the deaths of heads of state while in office anyway though, no? A recurring scenario doesn't have to be ITN/R to get posted. Mlb96 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we? The death of an incumbent head of state means a change in head of state. So, what are we actually posting? The death, or the succession? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're posting the death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the deaths of incumbent heads of state (and heads of government) are almost always posted on ITN. The only head of state in the past ten years to not have his death posted was Trần Đại Quang, and that was entirely due to the fact the article was a WP:COPYVIO. It might be worth formalising it at ITN/D or ITN/R. Sceptre (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * added alt 2. Hope this helps. Dan the Animator 22:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Suluhu should be a bolded article in addition to Magufuli's. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks Muboshgu, it should be good now. Dan the Animator 22:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb it feels like yesterday when I last read his wiki page. Rest in peace Magufuli and good luck to the incoming Suluhu administration. Thanks Sceptre for nominating this so quickly. Dan the Animator 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 - Magufuli's article is in pretty good shape, but Suluhu's could use more sources. Alt blurb 1 includes all the relevant details without being too long. Poydoo can talk and edit 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 Magufuli's death is getting sufficient news coverage and Suluhu's succession is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 Regardless of whether succession is ITN/R, Magufuli's death is the bigger story here. His death should be the first thing in the blurb imo. Mlb96 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't the VP succeed to the presidency once the president had died? ITNR covers the succession of a head of state. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 . Both articles look in on condition to me, and we can bold Samia Suluhu as a second target article, but I think the bigger story probably is the death at the moment. Marking as ready, unless there's anything I'm missing, an admin can pick some formulation to go with. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I orange tagged early life there is one ref that doesn't support section, and some content without refs. Maybe more in other sections, it's late here I won't be checking the rest of the refs tonight. Neutral once the ref issues are fixed --LaserLegs (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently massive content edits are automatically approved but adding an orange tag gets "pending review"? shrugs good night y'all --LaserLegs (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Alt1. The death of a siting head of state, especially of a relatively large country like Tanzania, is certainly worthy of a mention. The Samia Suluhu article could and should be improved I admit, but references about her should be more available now that she is the country's president, and the first woman at that. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm ready; orange-tag for an unreferenced section.  Spencer T• C 03:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either alt No notability concerns. It's not ready on quality yet, but the article's not in terrible shape by any means, so it shouldn't take too long to address the orange tag. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 05:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for the death of any sitting head of state, which should be ITN/R as it results in a succession. Davey2116 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-2 Looks fine and ITN/R. Gotitbro (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-1 which is the only appropriate blurb here  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt-1 the main focus should be on his death, to me blurb 2 makes it seem like his death is a positive thing (maybe it's worth rephrasing). Certainly blurb-worthy as it's the death of a national leader. Uses x (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt1. Article seems good enough on a quick look. I'm not convinced he was transformative of politics in the same way Mandela or Thatcher were, but being a sitting head of government (so there's now a new one) tips it over the edge for me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 1 per Uses X. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Interesting case, partly due to RS-reported Covid rumors. (Not that we would want to go there.) Prefer Alt2 but Alt1 would be OK. (In both, "the age of" is unnec. as that will be understood.) – Sca (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - the orange tag issue has now been resolved, and although I !voted above, there's plenty of support here anyway so I'll strike my vote and posted. There is somewhat more support for Alt1 than Alt2. Hopefully this isn't controversial! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - After Magufuli was up for more than 24 hours, I've now flipped the ordering of this hook to more like ALT2, and switched the pic to Suluhu to reflect the fact that she was sworn in today. If this is controversial at all, then please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work. – Sca (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As an alt-1 person, it's all good. He got his time. Uses x (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Armbrister

 * Support Decently referenced. Looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing looks fine at first glance. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Picanyol

 * Support130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose death is mentioned in article now, and so marked it as updated. But characters need sourcing, and I cannot find source for them- most obits only mention <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Citations for characters have been provided, as requested. Oceanh (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now it all looks well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced Vacant0 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rogers Lehew

 * Support Solid football bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Major Olímpio
Oppose Sourced like a wrestling article. Cool name, though. Sounds like a wrestler! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Also a malformed template at the bottom. I can't make out what it should be.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Spanish legalization of euthanasia

 * Oppose there is no article about assisted suicide in Spain that we can evaluate. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It'd need a larger section in the 'Legality of euthanasia' article, or another article, before it's worth considering since people clicking on it would want to read into it. It's getting attention in international news, so it's notable. As for the blurbs I don't think there's any point adding how the votes went as it's just confusing - people who want that information should be able to click on an article. Uses x (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "4th EU country..." says it all. While the legalization of euthanasia is a major issue, we don't track "latecomers" to pass legislation to that. --M asem (t) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. And not covered much. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good-faith nomination, but we tend not to post the 4th (or sometimes even 2nd) country to legalize something. Perhaps if they were the first in the region to do it, then it would be more significant. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * '''[cough] gay marriage [cough]This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Fine and big news for Spain, not internationally though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the 4th of something. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good news but not blurb worthy. Vacant0 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 New South Wales floods

 * Support Thorough coverage in article, well-referenced, covered in international news.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post updated I tweaked the posted blurb per WP:ITN: Blurbs should generally avoid comparison to any previous event, such as "Largest in the region since [year]".—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Dangar Stu even had to rescue some booze from a fridge floating down the Hawkesbury, terrible tragedy, good post. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One might even go so far as to call this a "parochial inconvenience" --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support a once-in-a-century event (as opposed to an everyday event). Notable.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak oppose Does one “support” is enough for posting directly to ITN? Surely not. May be a once-in-a-century floodings, but only 3 confirmed deaths doesn’t seems its a big disaster ITN-worthy. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Population of Oz is only 25 million. I'd say that's a serious death toll for a serious, unusual event.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I was meaning to support the other day but forgot. Seems significant enough and article is good.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The images from Australia are striking. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Steve Jagielka

 * Oppose the article is under 1200 characters, so only a stub. I hope there's more that can be found, but I couldn't find much on a quick search. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose agreed that it needs to be expanded. I looked into the charity matches, but I can only find one mention and he's not even the focus of the article. Uses x (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Cvijan

 * Died in 2018? They thought he was in the United States? This is an odd case. The article before the updating is a stub that doesn't mention his disappearance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only media that mentioned his disappearance was the Tabloid Magazine which actually discovered his death a few days ago. In this article from 2019, they claimed that he was a protected witness in the United States. No other media ever mentioned his dissaperance or possibility of him being dead until a few days ago when it was discovered that he died in 2018 under suspicious circumstances.
 * Oppose Way too late, potential DYK. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITN/RD: "Individuals who disappear are eligible for a recent deaths entry for the day they are declared dead in absentia, subject to the standard criteria above if there is no concurrent blurb about the disappearance." That policy also says RDs can be from the "date of announcement". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support and DYK Considering the novelty of the case and the already-done expansion, that's a perfect (and more high profile) place for this.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ¿Por que no los dos? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, but I won't oppose the nom in any case. I just think an actual blurb would be merited, and the ITNRD blurb requirements prevent it here. 130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now made a DYK nom. That shouldn't affect the discussion here, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD. It's an odd case certainly, but I'm not aware of a time limit on the "use the date the death was announced" clause. It also closely parallels the declared death in absentia case, which is explicitly permitted. Yesterday he was not officially dead. Today he is. That's it. Quality looks OK too, so good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD his death was announced yesterday, and so is eligible for RD. We couldn't have had him at RD in 2018, as he was presumed alive. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Notable, high-profile case, as the death discovered now we could not have had it in RD 3 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elserbio00 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Notable person for RD Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Odd, indeed but good enough for RD CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Abel Prize

 * Oppose Wigderson's article is short and neat, but Lovász's biography is almost entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just removing the unreferenced details from the Lovász article. Take a look at it now! — MarkH21talk 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Both articles now look good (per above comment lines). I'm going to crop down the current image on Wigderson and will make this a composite image for posting (likely giving 24h to the Pritzker winners). --M asem (t) 22:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The articles are shortish (hopefully to be expanded), but they are long enough and in good shape otherwise. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could an admin quickly resolve the copyvio revdel issue at László Lovász, since it is still on the main page? Thanks! — MarkH21talk 01:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.  Hut 8.5  08:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: James Levine

 * Note: not sure about the nomination credits: JG4236 seems to have indef blocked, and Zuzazu777 seems to have only made one minor edit. Will leave to the poster to decide though. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support added a couple of citation needed tags, but that shouldn't stop it from running. A good quality article, that focuses appropriately on the allegations (i.e. not too much focus on them). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unreferenced section.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple citation needed tags, and an unreferenced section. Under Honours, 'His biography says' isn't a correct reference, it needs a citation tag. Uses x (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And his discography goes far beyond the one piece listed, which he's only one of many pianists for. Surely if he's famous enough for NYT, Associated Press, The Guardian, etc, obituaries surely he has a few more notable works. Uses x (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sabine Schmitz

 * Support Well known in car circles for her work on Top Gear and activities on the Nürburgring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalty254 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject's notability should not be a basis for supporting or opposing; all people with Wikipedia articles are presumed important enough to post to RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Quick scan looks like everything is sourced and well written.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a couple of uses of The Sun newspaper, which need replacing, as per WP:THESUN. Also, mentions she joined Top Gear, but did she leave Top Gear? And the "Race results" section is unsourced. Minor issues, and once fixed, will be happy to support. Still remember when she drove a van round the Nürburgring- possibly the best Top Gear episode ever. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now the issues I highlighted have been resolved. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support; of note however she was never intended to front the Top Gear crew post Clarkson; other than be in a similar role to the Stig. I haven't found any sources that say otherwise <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I watched the van on the Nurburgring episode that Joseph mentions today. Top class entertainment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pwning Jeremy Clarkson by going round the Nürburgring in a Ford Transit was brilliant! Rest in peace.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 America's Cup

 * Support ITN/R, and article's ship-shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Smooth sailing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the sections on Venue, Boats and Nationality are too short. Merging them maybe needed. Otherwise, the article's fine... I can't think of any sailing puns... 45.251.33.203 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Timeline section needs sourcing. Also should the blurb be "wins" or "win"- in British English, I would say "Team New Zealand win", but not sure if that grammar is correct in New Zealand. Once timeline is sourced, then I will support, as ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging who had a good handle for the grammar here. --M asem  (t) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We could do that classic: "In sailing, the America's Cup concludes with Team New Zealand defeating Italy's Luna Rossa"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think the timeline section is particularly useful here in this context so wouldn't miss it if it disappeared. Would be nice to find an image to go with it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obvious support WP:ITN/R.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not really notable for an ITN posting, IMO. While this is a major sports competition, it appears to be rather routine and not unique. I feel that this event doesn't really meet the criteria for an ITN posting, in terms of significance, especially since a good number of editors here opposed the nominations for Hurricane Isaias, Hurricane Eta, Hurricane Iota, Typhoon Goni, the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (which crippled the power grid for an entire state, mind you), and the 2020 United States federal government data breach, all of which were clearly notable events in their own rights. We need to be consistent here.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR, notability has already  been asserted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm and Hurricane Eta were both posted to ITN. If you're going to bring examples, at least being examples that support (rather than undermine) your case. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sailing is a niche sport for the elite. The optics of posting this, and not the Atlanta shootings (among other things mentioned above), would be terrible. Zagal e jo (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR, notability has already  been asserted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really a notable event and has little significance outside a small group of individuals. I agree that we shouldn't be posting stories like this if events with more significance are opposed. Front-page news stories about disasters and shootings being denied a blurb here considering they are "in the news" is ridiculous and just shows our bias. Making the excuse of that's just the way life in the United States is is a poor one. <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 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR, notability has already  been asserted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Not notable enough for ITN and has no real significance. These kinds of things happen all the time; if Hurricane Eta, Hurricane Iota, or Typhoon Goni weren't notable enough, then this isn't either. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR, notability has already  been asserted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It may well be ITN/R but as we all know consensus can change at any time. So what makes the America's cup so notable to be put up on the main page when Hurricane Eta, Hurricane Iota, or Typhoon Goni are supposedly not notable enough to be put up on the main page.Jason Rees (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's the top event in the Olympic sport of sailboat racing (and more Greek storms should've been posted too) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "we don't post A because we didn't post a completely unrelated B". Sorry guys.  This is a little bit sad to be honest.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be since it is very poor, that significant weather disasters aren't posted on the main page but boat races are automatically accepted.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you need me to explain how ITNR works? Have you or your Avengers tried creating a proposal for your weather systems at ITNR?  No, I didn't think so.  Sad.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes me and several editors have tried to work with you guys and work out some criteria and figure out whats notable enough for WP;ITN and Wikipedia as a whole including here & here. However, we don't get anywhere for various reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah well, clearly the community doesn't place as much value on the weather as you guys. If you don't want to see sailing or boat races or whatever else on ITNR, start as many delist discussions as you see fit.  I don't see you doing that, just throwing some toys out that your weather didn't get posted.  It won't stop this being posted either, it'll just have a negative impact on any future weather nominations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it would have an effect on future weather nominations. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, not hold personal grudges, after all. – <font color="#ff7f00">atomic 𓅊 <font color="#007f00">7732  01:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of us are yes, some people clearly are not. Cheers for your input! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per .Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, although I cringe at the grammatically dubious phrase "the America's cup", even though that's apparently what it's called. Other editors' objections are worthy of consideration even if they contradict ITN/R. There is a big disclaimer at the top of that page reminding people to apply common sense and consider exceptions. Einsof (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's actually an explanation for this one: the America is a boat, not the USA. Fun! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not an explanation. I can't think of a single construction of the form "the [proper noun]'s [other noun]" that sounds grammatical. It should be "America's cup" or "the America cup". Einsof (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, that is the explanation. Whether you like it or not!  It was America Cup.  Fun!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only way that could pass as an explanation is if the ship were named The America (hence "the" would be part of the proper noun), but it's not—the name was just America. So it's either "the America cup" or "America's cup" (no definite article). Not sure what the explanation for this weirdness is. Einsof (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's called America's Cup, the boat was called America and the cup is named for the ship, i.e it was America Cup.  It's not weird in the slightest.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I think you misunderstood the objection. "America's cup" is fine. "The America's cup" isn't because that kind of proper noun construction doesn't take the definite article in English. Einsof (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand I think. "the America's Cup" is fine too.  It doesn't have to follow rules of logic for it to be correct.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an issue of grammar, not logic. Einsof (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps you've been learning the wrong thing. "The America's Cup" is perfectly grammatically correct.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - as noted, the Timeline section needs sourcing, as do the two tables used in the article. The first table also has some entries struck out, which should be accompanied by an explanation as to why. After that it's good to go. The above opposes will not be considered, as consensus is clear that ITN/R entries can only be opposed on quality grounds. If you want to remove this from ITN/R then go and propose the change at WT:ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As i said in my oppose consensus can change and sometimes its good to challenge the norm especially when disasters that are causing major disaster declarations to be issued are opposed and not posted.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, consensus can change. But if that's the case, the place to bring that up is on the ITN talk page which is where we discuss additions and removals from the ITN/R list. The whole purpose of ITN/R is to avoid having to pointlessly regurgitate the same arguments year after year. As Einsof notes, WP:IAR (a.k.a. common sense) may occasionally apply, but there's nothing here to suggest that's necessary. Admins considering ITN entries routinely discount opposes of ITN/R and RD nominations on notability grounds and this is no exception. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that five editors have decided to come here and oppose this nomination, means that it is worth discussing why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you've co-ordinated a really sad mini-protest with objections that hold no substance can simply be overlooked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I havent co-ordinated anything but at the end of the day, you object all the time with silly comments, so its about time someone challenged the norm.Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a challenge, it's a sad little invalid outburst. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "it is worth discussing why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page" - of course, you're entitled to have such a discussion but this is simply the wrong venue for that discussion, and it's almost certainly too late to effect a change in the recurring items list for this year. If you do start such a discussion, I advise you to come up with some better reasons than "Cyclone X, Y and Z were not listed". Those nominations were decided on their own merits, and have no bearing on the suitability or otherwise of the America's cup. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment wow, this is like "WikiProject Hurricanes Assemble!!!!!". Nice try lads. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day things have to change around here and why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page when several major disasters arent notable enough is rather confusing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is rather pathetic. The objections given i.e. "oppose because we didn't get our weather posted" are all invalid and will simply be overlooked.  By  all means gather your troops for every news story, eventually  they will all be TBAN-ed from ITNC.  It's really sad to see this kind of unconstructive, disruptive and unhelpful co-ordinated terror attack on ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its rather pathetic, unconstructive, disruptive and unhelpful to see you constantly oppose weather events for stupid reasons such as it snows every year or a lack of deaths.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. What I don't do is co-ordinate a pathetic attack on ITNC and make a bunch of normally reasonable editors look foolish for no gain (in fact, the opposite).  Really pathetic.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't coordinated an attack on WP:ITN/C - if I had I would have had a lot more editors, it just goes to show how people feel about the pathetic opposes that get put down about weather articles.Jason Rees (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Trembling. I imagine it's a coincidence that four or five weather editors  have all pitched up within half an hour to oppose "because other stuff didn't get/hasn't been posted" (which is invalid).  Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the Crews and Timeline sections are currently tagged with unreferenced section. Once that is resolved, I see no reason not to post. Tito xd (?!?) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - THIS IS ITN/R. Stop opposing on notability, as those opposes will be summarily ignored. If you have arguments about notability, take it up on the talk page and not here.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Imagine how these discussions look to people who aren’t knee deep in Wiki culture. ITNR is not a mandate sent down from heaven. We can talk about this article here. Zagal e jo (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Luckily, it's nowhere near close to a mandate from heaven. It's just a process that we all follow to establish consensus, the same way that we don't choose Presidents in the U.S. by mobbing the Capitol and declaring the previous election null and void. Consensus is not established via a bunch of aggrieved people showing up on a nom just because their favorite hurricane didn't get posted. --WaltCip- (talk)  17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest that you take a step back and look at what's been going on with WP:ITN recently, our opposes arent because our so-called favourite hurricane didn't get posted. Its because we are fed up with seeing significant disasters being opposed, closed within an hour and laughed at because it snows every year in the United States.Jason Rees (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want the process changed, do it on the talk page and not on an ITNR item, which when sufficiently updated, should be posted, will be posted, and indeed has been posted (though briefly pulled for article quality concerns). Your argument is one that has been brought up many times over the many years ITN has been around, and the answer is always the same each time. --WaltCip- (talk)  18:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And so far I haven't seen you or any of the other "oppose" !votes comment on the newly-formulated Remove ITN/R item on the talk page. Whenever you want to make your voice heard in the proper venue, please do. --WaltCip- (talk)  18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "our opposes arent because our so-called favourite hurricane didn't get posted". Of course not.  You all just pressed "Random Page" and ended up here simultaneously. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day there is something wrong if a typhoon whose name is later retired for causing significant damage can't be posted but some random boat race can. Also, I would strongly suggest that you take a good step back if you think we are nominating hurricanes just because we like them, as I can guarantee you that we would rather not see the damage or deaths associated with them.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "random page" includes project pages does it? So there's that excuse out of the water! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here because I was curious how the Atlanta shootings were being discussed. I don't look at ITN every day. Zagal e jo (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will support, upon sourcing issues addressed per ITNR. Also, can someone interested go fix America's Cup. (It is certainly tragic that natural and man-made disasters occur much more frequently than this race, but those arguments are quite irrelevant). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready, unsourced sections have been removed/addressed and no substance in the weather-based opposition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Quality issues fixed. Can the weather posse head over to Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news and make your arguments there. P-K3 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted (with an ENGVAR-compliant blurb), ITN/R, feel free to carry on arguing. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality grounds (obviously - since that's the only valid reason for opposing!!). Urggh so I've looked at it again, and unfortunately I can see the usual issue with this sort of nomination - there's no prose covering the actual event despite there being some on the qualifiers. As with golf and tennis tournaments, we need at least a paragraph or two to summarise what went down and who the winners and losers were in prose form. Removing "ready" for the time being, hopefully that can be added soon and we can move on with our lives. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, we edit conflicted but this is not ready yet. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right - sorry, I read the "Qualifying event" part as the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pulled. See above. Quality issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close Completely unnotable, not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now. Seems more like a timely distraction from real events in America. That this was even considered for ITN/R is laughable. Albertaont (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. (1) It is automatically eligible for ITN, as it is included on WP:ITN/R (2) Snow closes are for unanimous or otherwise obvious consensuses, and any oppose here that does not address quality issues rather than notability ones is automatically invalid anyway - see (1). Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think this is a concentrated effort to make a WP:POINT. Like Jesus Christ, how many times do people have to say ITNR EVENTS AUTOMATICALLY PASS THE NOTABILITY CRITERIA. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Small nit: an individual event normally of an ITNR may be of so little importance as to be deemed not appropriate for ITNC even if it passed the quality mark. (For example, we used that with Chang'e 5, holding off posting when it successfully completed its sample-and-return from the moon rather than other ITNR points for space missions) This is a IAR-type rule however, and depends on the situation greatly. That said, I certainly don't see this iteration of the America's Cup - nothing unusual about this iteration of the race to not have it featured on the main page after quality improvements. It is definitely wrong for editors to be !voting and arguing about the notability of the Cup event in broad terms, particularly as it is one of the top events in competitive sailing in the world. If they want to argue about removing that ITNR, WT:ITN is thataway. --M asem (t) 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely unnotable, not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now. If completely "unnotable" then I suggest America's Cup is taken to WP:AFD where it's sure to be deleted of course. If by "not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now", do you mean it's covered in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald etc etc?  Which part of your oppose had any foundation in the truth?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3,200 words. Time to do something with it. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're like that guy at a concert always yelling at the band to play Free Bird.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready. I've added a piece of prose to the Cup Match section (there's probably more that can be added, but the table gives you the results of each race and they all looked fairly straightforwrd apart from the 8th, which I've mentioned). Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted ITN/R is ITN/R. If you want it not to be posted, get it taken off ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Courtney Blackman

 * pinging since the article is farther down. Joofjoof (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Brief but has adequate coverage of his life and career. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 23:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Moudud Ahmed

 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 06:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Majority of BNP and Jatiyo Party is unreferenced.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Pritzker prize

 * Comment I see free images for Lacaton at Flickr: (album, at least 3 usable there), but nothing for Vassal. --M asem  (t) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out Commons already had a picture of them both together, added above. Could maybe do with some cropping. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's good enough.  We could even target the prize  page too  as it's an FL and reasonably up to snuff. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is good enough, and is ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Atlanta spa shootings

 * Support and comment If we cover this, we should make a mention of anti-AAPI hate. I recognize the story is "still developing." I'll also note that there have been over 3800 anti-AAPI hate incidents in the past year magnified by Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic and this is a boiling point getting national attention. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose fourth mass shooting of the year so far to make it to a Wikipedia article. As noted above, this kind of race hate crime seems to be highly commonplace and while this is obviously even more tragic than usual, it's still a case of "business as usual".  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * business as usual: It was a "really bad day for him".—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait it's a disaster stub. Notability comes from it being a hate crime, if confirmed before staleness. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or an Incel attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like both. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the guy went to three different massage parlors and killed six Asian women. There was nothing random about this, this was a targetted killing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per UNDUE. The racial angle to this is tenuous and circumstantial, yet it is inappropriately and strongly inferred in the article. 6 Asians, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic sounds about right for a random mix of people in a massage parlor. While the crime itself is I think notable, the article must be toned down significantly unless and until there is some sort of unambiguous statement (from the perpetrator or victim) otherwise.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whats with the racist angle behind "6 Asians, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic sounds about right for a random mix of people in a massage parlor." Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? Its clear this is a racial attack, did we ever get an unambiguous statement from death of George Floyd (hint: he was dead) or from the cops (hint: admitting culpability) about it being a racially motivated? Albertaont (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you think the event itself is notable, but your problem is that the article accurately follows the sources by mentioning the significance of most victims being Asian? I hope that whoever determines the consensus isn't counting this utterly bizarre !vote... <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (to both above) Well, it's certainly good that we at least gave this a day to develop, because if we're "following sources" then the original slant of the article and the nomination has fallen apart. There's a preponderance of evidence that this was sexual frustration or addiction or revenge, including statements by the perpetrator and hospital logs and others. You're zealousness on this issue is COATRACKing a tragedy.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This !vote is dated. The article clearly says no motive has been established.  The discussion of the race of the victims, their gender, and possible motivations is well supported by WP:WEIGHT.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In general, a series of mass shootings in the United States is not news that merits inclusion mainly because of the extremely loose policies on possession and acquisition of firearms. The real news to post would be a policy response that would restrict access to guns or impose stricter gun control, thereby reducing the likelihood that similar events might happen in the near future, as was the case with the Nova Scotia attacks last year when the Canadian government promptly responded (see that discussion).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the merits of the blurb as stated by most supporters after the early breaking news phase is that the signficance is the gender and race of the victims, not the mode of death.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all of the above; Shootings in the US are very common in the nation due to lax gun laws, also the low death toll in the single digits doesn’t help either. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And lax gun violence sentences and social safety nets and free therapists/counselors and psychiatrists and high ownership rates (especially in some states). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per User:Kiril Simeonovski. "Long was a hunter and "into religion"". Not a happy ending. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there have been 4 notable (i.e. they have Wikipedia articles) shootings in the US this year. Whilst this one has the most deaths, that still doesn't make it ITN worthy when unfortunately mass shootings in the US are common. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a targeted hate crime/domestic terrorism and not "just another shooting". It took a while to piece together the separate attacks, but more R/S like CNN and BBC are now saying this was racially motivated. That IP "users" are downplaying the nature of the attacks should also be noted. Albertaont (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Carolyn D. Meadows even had an account. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "That IP "users" are downplaying the nature of the attacks should also be noted. " what does that even mean??? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Comment – Widely hyped due to disreputable connotations of the crime scene, but notions of race/hate significance are sketchy. Unfortunately for the U.S., significance is slight. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if this ends up being a racially-motivated domestic terrorism attack, that would be far too commonplace for the U.S. for this to be posted. --M asem (t) 14:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If one only saw all non-white races as the same, I guess. Most the victims were women too. And the male suspect had a sex addiction. "Commonplace".—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It just doesn't meet that threshold of notability generally required for such events. WaltCip- (talk)  14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very much in the news, probably the biggest story in the U.S., on the front pages of all the national outlets I just checked (CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.), and it's very much relevant in the moment as we need to Stop AAPI Hate (I know, I know, WP:RGW, but this is why this shooting has become big news and those "others" we've had this year haven't). Also the article is in good shape. I nearly nominated this last night but I knew that the typical brigade that doesn't want to post any U.S. gun shootings would shoot it down. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, we'd talk it down. No guns here.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we'd probably massage it down. But there still might not be happy ending. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ninth on the BBC homepage I see, really not of interest, but the article highlights the overwhelming crass stupidity: Hate crimes against Asian-Americans spiked in recent months, fuelled by rhetoric that blames them for the spread of Covid-19. I'd like to say "unbelievable" but sadly it's not.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Shoot it down" pun was not intended. You non-Americans really do not understand American gun culture or the problems that we have with it. Not understanding it does not make it not newsworthy per ITN standards. And this is tied in with the results of Trump calling it the "China Virus" for a full year. We have a problem with violence against AAPI in our country right now, and it is newsworthy outside of the gun violence issue. "Unpredictable" is not an ITN judgment criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You non-Americans really do not understand American gun culture or the problems that we have with it. ooookkkkk. I think my "being patronising" jar just started to overflow.  The death of Sabine Schmitz is far more important and longer-lasting than this story.  And yes, we  do understand and who said anything about "unpredictable"?   This shooting is altogether predictable  much like all the other shootings.  The  fourth so far this year to get its own article.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That came off stronger than I wanted, but so many of these dismissive comments are ridiculous. The widespread AAPI violence in the U.S. is a bigger deal with greater impact than the death of a racecar driver dying of cancer, what a ridiculous comparison. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really.  I know  which one makes more of an impact to most of the rest of the world.  And an incel shooting?  Please, give me strength. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop feeding the troll. Nobody thinks a hate crime by a sex-deprived white supremacist resulting in the deaths of innocent asian women is less impactful than the passing of an amateur racecar driver from natural causes. Or maybe they do, but that says more about them than anything else. Albertaont (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've disengaged from this conversation already. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Far more consequential than the sports and pop culture stuff that gets posted with ease. Zagal e jo (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At least we've avoided the Meghan & Harry show. So far. And sports is/are always consequential – somebody wins, somebody loses! – Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment looks like it's incel, not MAGA - at least according to the suspect --LaserLegs (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. With The Chosun Ilbo's latest reporting that the shooter said he wanted to shoot all Asians, it seems pretty clear that initial assumptions about the motive were unfortunately correct. ITN has always placed increased importance on ideologically-motivated shootings vs. non-ideological shootings, even if they have relatively lower fatality counts and take place in the USA (e.g. Charleston church shooting - 9 dead, 1 wounded, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - 8 dead, 3 wounded Dallas anti-police shootings - 6 dead, 11 wounded, Santa Barbara incel shooting - 7 dead, 14 wounded, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting - 11 dead, 7 wounded). Also not really a criterion but the last ITN item up right now is over two weeks old. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as a murder spree with significant deaths and global coverage. Would hold back on connecting with anti-Asian attacks until non-speculative reports published, but otherwise should be clear. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Incel? Sex addict? Anti-Asian racist? Anti-porn crusader? Nobody knows, but definitely drawing eyeballs. Einsof (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Question this is the 98th mass shooting of 2021 in the United States (according to Wikipedia). Is it just the number killed that makes this more notable than the others?  Another mass shooting on the same day in Houston killed four but doesn't even get a mention.  Or is it the lurid nature of a sex addict going rogue that makes this tabloid enough for people to write more about it (on top of the race hate speculation which seems to be going away)...?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 98 mass shootings listed, only 5 or so have an article. This is one of the ones that generated enough news coverage to deserve an article, and consideration here. The "why" is likely the AAPI angle, as the nonsense about his libido didn't come out until today, after coverage was already significant. Plus it was a spree killer going to three different places to shoot people, who apparently was planning on crossing state lines to kill more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, but the "angle" seems to have been somewhat dismissed now. Is it really hard to cross state lines then?  Are there checkpoints and border crossings or is it like me driving from (say) Suffolk to Norfolk?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because he says it was because of his "sexual addiction" doesn't make it so. We need to wait and see to determine if there was racism at play. Even if it wasn't, it gets into a whole 'nother issue with these "spas" if that is the case. We do not have checkpoints on state borders. The point there is that it's noteworthy that his spree wasn't over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So the racial angle isn't confirmed and it might have been worse (although he clearly wasn't as committed as most because he's been arrested). Are you suggesting that "spas" are sex shops?  Are you surprised by that?  Is that it all there is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The women who work in these "spas" are Asian, predominantly. That's what we have here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But the guy himself said it wasn't racially motivated and he was just trying to remove the temptation. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great point! Why don't we go ahead and add "mass shooters" to WP:RSP? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you. If the shooter doesn't know his motivation, who does?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a big discussion on the talk page about Nick Fuentes being labeled a white supremacist, because Fuentes denies it. The point, I believe, is that racists often claim to not be racist, and they are not reliable in their statements. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This guy's going to prison forever. He's not going to lie about his motivations.  This is silly.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * let it go, you know better than to try. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I boldy changed the article's title to 2021 Metro Atlanta spa shootings because one of them was in Acworth, an Atlanta suburb 30 miles from the city itself. I explained why on the move page comment and on the talk page too. I'll update any links to it I can find. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you've already been reverted. A move of a high-profile article usually needs a discussion first.P-K3 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it was changed back per WP:COMMONNAME after a discussion/consensus on the talk page. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is a bit short, but with the suspects motive disclosed it provides an answer for "why". I don't think either rationale (MAGA or incel) belongs in the blurb. The fact is, Asian massage parlors were deliberately targeted, and six of the eight victims were Asian. This was not random, nor was it the consequence of some other crime, it was a deliberate attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed blurb is appropriate. I note the event received limited coverage in the initial hours after the attack, but has since exploded and is all over the news currently.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  00:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready article is as good as any new article, support exists to post --LaserLegs (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and I sincerely hope that the blurb mentions that six of the victims were Asian. I would add an altblurb myself, but I'm not sure how to word it. (edit: Support Altblurb now that it exists) With all due respect to TRM, I don't care what the shooter himself says. It's pretty hard to find a source that doesn't explicitly and prominently mention that most of the victims are Asian, and it is the secondary sources that decide what aspects of the story are most notable. I'm not saying that we need to use Wikipedia's voice to term it a hate crime (yet), as I'm going to wait for more sources to call it one, but it would be incredibly silly to exclude something that pretty much every existing source puts in the headline or subheading just because the perpetrator says that he totally doesn't have anything against Asian people. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the Ready tag. There are 10 Support and 9 Oppose comments, that definitely isn't a consensus to post at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant domestic and international press coverage; moreso than "run of the mill" US mass shootings.  Spencer T• C 03:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing much news coverage on this. The top US news currently trending appears to be how Biden called Putin a killer and is going to retaliate for the election meddling. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you get your news? This is the #1 story on CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, BBC, and whatever you're talking about is nowhere to be found on any of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I use https://news.yahoo.com/world/, and I notice none of the three outlets you mention list this as the #1 story on their world tab either. Banedon (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not going to be on the CNN world tab, because the CNN world tab excludes all United States news... you could just go to the cnn.com webpage and see that the top story displayed in the largest font is the one we're talking about here. Your method of seeing if a story is getting "much news coverage" (or even seeing what the "top US news" currently is) seems to be flawed, to say the least. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the CNN world tab excludes all US news? I'm seeing this headline there: "Biden says he believes Putin is a killer and Moscow 'will pay a price' for meddling in the 2020 election". Banedon (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see it now and I apologize for the inaccuracy: they appear to exclude domestic US news. That particular story made it into the world tab because it's also about Russia & international relations. All of that said, I fail to see the relevancy. Of course the Biden-Putin drama isn't the #1 US news story right now, because to find out what the top US news is, you don't need to add /world to the URL... not to mention that the world tab of an American website isn't a good way to figure out how relevant an American story is around the world. For that, you'd want to go to a non-American website entirely, such as the BBC (where this is currently the #1 story). <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 05:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the CNN world tab did not feature, e.g., Biden's election victory? That piece of domestic US news was in the world tabs I looked at. Right now BBC also has the death of Tanzania's president as the top piece of news, although this is second (if one reads left to right). Banedon (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Top news in CNN International for me is "White supremacy and hate haunt Asian Americans", followed by Megxit and Biden calling Putin a killer. To deny this is reported outside the States is delusional. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Top news in CNN World for me right now is "Covid-19 drove hundreds of Africans out of Guangzhou. A generation of mixed-race children is their legacy" followed by "Taiwan urges citizens not to change their name to 'salmon' to get free sushi", "President who urged citizens to 'pray coronavirus away' dies", "China's ambassador to US doesn't have 'high expectations' for Alaska summit" and "Dead Sea Scroll fragments found in desert cave". So nope, still opposed. Banedon (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is still fourth story on CNN International, still above the fold; pushing down Africans in Guangzhou story. Checked out their Spanish edition, and it is the #2 story. People here have filibustered long enough though so the opportunity for this item has passed. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have an explicit link for this? As I said, I am simply not seeing this story on CNN World. Hell, it isn't even in the Americas section, where the top story is "Exclusive: Former Brazilian leader Lula leaves door open for return as he slams leaders' pandemic response". Banedon (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country ...—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I opposed because "not seeing much news coverage on this". Banedon (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's 60 cited sources in the article. Sorry, I mistook your previous arguments as looking for world impact.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I added an alt-blurb to mention the deaths of six Asian American women. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Someone smarter than me made a good point, this is not notable at all as an individual event as AAPI violence is the norm in the US. Ongoing seems more appropriate given that mass shootings recur with fair regularity in the United States over the past year. Albertaont (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's been both a Support and a Support ongoing from this user. Might lead to a double counting if votes were tallied to check consensus. 202.8.114.174 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a new event, there is no reason to relegate it to ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Not to sound callous, but we haven't posted many American mass shootings in a while, and this one is all over international news. In addition, this story has an added layer of relevance as it fits into a broader surge in anti-Asian American violence and racism. Davey2116 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If my quick skim of List of mass shootings in the United States, the one posted was the 2019 El Paso shooting, which was in August of that year. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have not posted other similar mass shootings and this is no different from them other than the presumed race angle, which shouldn't count towards a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree this is getting a lot of coverage because of the victims chosen, but we are not obligated and usually do not follow the media's cue in such matters. Mass shooters are typically aggrieved by something (real or imagined); the motivations here do not rise above the ordinary. I doubt it will be of ongoing historical interest (like Columbine, Parkland or Sandy Hook).  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added ALT II: Georgia probably doesn't need to be included and certainly does not need to be linked—Atlanta is a major city. The women victims were of Asian descent; it's unsourced that they were Americans. The number injured is less significant, and was removed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. This is not your "typical" US shooting, it's still getting a lot of coverage two days after the event. The article quality is fine and posting it will be a service to our readers. The Asian angle should be mentioned in the blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II The victims' demographics—women and Asian—is the main story, not the mode of killing itself. Sexually frustrated man kills women.  Climate of rising Asian hate crime. Asian fetish phenomena.("Robert Aaron Long, the Atlanta-area shootings and the way white men look at Asian American women". The Independent) This is all a story even without a definitive motive. And the blurb will anyways be NPOV. Let the readers be informed and make their own judgement. We've posted domestic stories before, like the Charlotteville car ramming.  Don't tell me we'd post if a car was involved instead of guns.—Bagumba (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Withdrew my oppose in view of second-day RS coverage of assertions of anti-Asian motives , which I don't necessarily buy. Still in the news, whatever opinions we may have. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not headline news outside of the United States, aside from news organizations that already have an international focus. Really, just another US mass shooting that'll quickly be forgotten. Uses x (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt or alt2. Article is of sufficient quality, and 40k page views on the first day means readers are interested. Some editors may not think this is a significant news story, but the readers do, and that's whose opinion matters. Also not for nothing but as an American I get really offended by the "oh it's just another shooting in the US" line of opposition. We post kidnappings in Africa and landslides in Asia. There is no rule that common tragedies are not ITN-worthy, nor is any such rule applied outside the US, and I'd ask some of my colleagues to try harder to hide their anti-American bias. Levivich harass/hound 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Vanilla Wizard and Levivich; the blurb should mention that six of the victims were Asian. Some1 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- Mass fatality incidents from shootings are uncommon in the U.S., despite what non-American Wikipedia editors may assume. Given that this appears to be a hate crime, or at least a crime involving "incels", it should be posted. We included the Isla Vista killings in 2014, didn't we? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this is now a stale nomination: everything on the ITN blurb now happened since this event (as they all happened on 17 March, the shooting was on 16 March). So would be illogical to add this and remove a newer ITN blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic but par for the course. 15 shot, 2 fatally, in a mass shooting two days prior to this mass shooting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's the problem with lumping all shootings into this "mass shooting" category. It's true that there are a lot of incidents in the US where multiple people get shot. They're not all the same. This one is unique, which is why it's getting so much media coverage. Levivich harass/hound 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What is with rightists and Chicago derangement syndrome? Every time a triggered incel MAGAt goes off the rails and kills innocent people in some racially motivated attack we get this endless parade of "What about Chicago" and "What about black on black violence" while the whole sad gang just parrots the inane nonsense from Faux Noise. He later updated that statement, saying there was a disturbance “among several patrons and gunfire erupted striking multiple people.” -- if you wait literally a day or two you find out that the violence in Chicago is almost always due to domestic violence or organized crime not at all the white nationalist terrorism sweeping the country but oh no whenever this happens we can't consider context instead the rightists have to shriek about Chicago and the foreigners cluck their tongues and insist "well what do you expect this sort of thing happens all the time in America". #sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The opposes almost had me, but Levivich is right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support getting a lot of coverage/attention and the article looks decent. I was a bit surprised this wasn't already on the main page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready by a straight !vote count the supports outweigh the opposes by 7. Some of the opposes complain about WP:OTHERSTUFF which is invalid and contrary to the WP:ITN guidelines. The rationale really boils down to the opposes "just another mass shooting" vs the supports "this time it's different" (of which I'm one). Good discussion, the ayes have it. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This nomination is older than every single thing on ITN already, so is stale. It would therefore be ridiculous to replace ITN blurbs with less relevant, older content. It would be a really poor precedent to be set to remove an event that happened on 17 March from ITN blurb to replace it with an event from 16 March. Therefore, I have marked this as stale, instead of ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is In the news point 3: " Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box." All events on the current ITN blurb happened on 17 March UTC time, whereas this happened on 16 March UTC time (17:00 Atlanta time = 22:00 UTC). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my timings were off- Pritzker Architecture Prize was announced 10am Eastern US/15:00 UTC on 16 March, which was before this shooting. So my above stale comment seems not to apply- have struck and marked it as ready again. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about this event on the talk page here. Overall, the discussion appears to have reached a conclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know – we're just getting rolling on this one (4,700 W) . And now POTUS & veep are heading to Atlanta. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose-- We don't even discuss similarly devastating incidents of violence from those parts of the world where they have become common and expected. Well, gun violence in America has become common and is not News news anymore. The story is not moving in the direction to make it of larger or long-term significance. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose / Pull - I don't see any consensus to post here. Just because something's marked as "ready" doesn't mean that it actually is ready. Regretfully, as per above comments, shootings are so common in the US that this one isn't really that unusual or newsworthy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most shooting in the US don't prompt visits from the President and Vice President. The apparent targeting of the Asian American community means this is unusual and newsworthy.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing unusual or newsworthy? The news outlets that are still running this on their front pages don't agree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I summarized the consensus I saw when I added the tag, if I was in error perhaps you could explain how. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I posted, I did a read through and agreed with LaserLegs' assessment of the consensus, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. One more oppose did come in after LaserLegs' summary, however it wasn't enough to change the balance of the narrow consensus that had developed.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – A reasonable move given the third-day coverage and and high-profile involvement, even though the event itself is getting old fast. Any move to pull it now would raise awkward questions. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was arguably justifiable to dismiss it as just another US mass shooting after just the first day or two, but developments since then (US federal government half-masting flags for multiple days, presidential attention, vigils, international commentary) show that this is more similar to the relatively low-fatality US shootings that still get posted on ITN because of something else that elevates its importance above just the crime itself (see my !vote above). Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To any passing admin: I do not believe credit to this article's editors has been given yet. If you could do that when you have a chance before this (posted) nom rolls off, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin, er, crediting.) -- P-K3 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mar. 14-16 sandstorm

 * <S>The content was mentioned in that article, but my edits was reverted and I was threatened not to edit that article. So please someone else add the casuality data into the article. The article is currently very China-centric. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)</S> (I undid that revert. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Oppose on quality the article is still a stub, and has a neutrality template on it. Therefore, not currently good enough to be on the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is too short, has referencing problems, is tagged with several "dubious" tags, and has other issues. Once this has been fixed, I will re-assess.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Notable event, but reporting is a bit spotty currently. Going to see if I can improve the article a bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Awful for people on the ground, but is it unusual? How much of that soil color is typical of the Gobi Desert, where "dust storms have increased ... in the past 20 years" – ?? — Sca (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Worst sandstorm in a decade" seems unusual? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless that means the Twenties, 75 days old. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is. Mongolia doesn't lose lots of nomads every spring due to sands. Sandstorms were common in the North China Plain in the late 20th century or even early 2000s, but people haven't seen it for decades; even for the city Yinchuan on the Loess Plateau this is the strongest sandstorm for the past 19 years. North China may not be that green during the winter but rarely turned into this color (checking just earlier images in zoom.earth we can see Hebei Province was turning green from a dry-grass/tree-bark color). Facilities in Inner Mongolia are built to be sandproof so simply some cities shut down their public transport system is an unusual thing. The only reason we have here is the article quality. I put the POV tag for a strong Sinocentric tendency in the article. Now it reappears, with a NASA disinformation diagram arrow. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Globalise isn’t the same as POV. And we can only write what the sources say, and the Western sources focus on China. If other sources exist, add information, but there’s no reason to add maintenance tags as a badge of shame or something. Yes, articles are a work in progress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that "in a decade" means for 10 years i.e. since 2011. If people meant since 2020, I would expect it to say "this decade". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 300 words, the article is decidedly thin for Main Page presentation. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral, for now – The subject is clearly worthy of an ITN posting. However, the article quality is currently rather lackluster, and thus, I cannot support this nomination right now. I'll change my vote if the article is brought up to standard.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability The article looks well-sourced, but it's still very thin. There's currently only one sentence about how it affected South Korea. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale, suggest closure. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article to over 600 words now. Should be suitable for ITNC, unless it's now stale? Pinging previous commentors who said they'd review on quality improvements: . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ProcrastinatingReader! Storm is still happening in Western Inner Mongolia. I added some recent progress of the storm, but since Chinese sources are generally considered perennial sources in English Wikipedia, I doubt if there's much we can do. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stale The latest news article I can find about it is from four days ago. Uses x (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clark M. Blatteis
*Oppose on source. I'd like for this to be posted before becoming stale, but just because a newspaper is syndicated with Legacy.com doesn't make it a RS. It's all coming from the obituary on the funeral director site which isn't RS for specifics as it's WP:SELFPUB ("The family of Dr. Clark Martin Blatteis created this Life Tributes page"). It's probably fine enough to update his article since it's not an exceptional claim, but in my view not good enough to post to the front page of Wikipedia. Uses x (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please do not get me wrong. Legacy.com is not a WP:RS. Given the sensitivity of WP:ITNRD, you would agree with me that we should not be discussing nominations that are pending a mention in WP:RS. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reopening based on listing in the Daily Memphian. BD2412  T 21:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the above closure. While that might not be a RS in way of confirming biographical info, one would think a family-placed obituary is good enough to at least confirm a death date. Perhaps this will become moot at some point with some other website picking up on his death, but there is always a chance that this is the best we'll get, especially for some academics, and people long retired and out of the spotlight (another example is Bill O'Connor (American football)). Connormah (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can post it on RD with that level of sourcing, but I do agree with you that it shouldn't have been closed. Closure is for items that stand no chance of being posted, not for things where just one person has input into the process. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. I was the one who closed this one, because I believed that we should not be discussing nominations (and definitely not posting), specially WP:ITNRD ones, that do not have a mention in WP:RS. But, if others disagree, please do revert the closure. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps it is a discussion for elsewhere, but I think there is some nuance in whether that is a RS or not. I think it should suffice for the simple fact that someone has died, though, of course, we'd prefer something better if available (though sometimes it is not). Connormah (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am quite confident that he has in fact died as reported. This is now also reported on the Legacy.com subpage for The Daily Memphian, which is a published source, but which hosts its obituaries on the website. How do we handle things when published newspapers use another website in this way? BD2412  T 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Legacy.com page was taken from that of a funeral director's site. The concensus (note: with very little discussion) on the reliable sources noticeboard is that they're not RS for specifics such as date of death as they're essentially self-published sources. [1] [2] I personally consider them reliable enough to add a date of death on an article as a placeholder, but I wouldn't say it's reliable enough to then link to the article on the front page, so I agree with the closure. Uses x (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)\
 * I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. With less local news outlets as before, there are bound to be notable people by WP's standards that do not get news obituaries in bigger publications. I can see the argument against using these for sourcing biographical information as it is obviously written by the families, but for something as simple as a death date, the sole purpose of publishing an obituary, it's hard not to see why this cannot be used. It's not like newspapers just publish obituaries without any form of oversight confirming that a person has died. Connormah (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reopened the discussion since the Daily Memphian obituaries are available from its front page, even though the link leads to Legacy.com. let me know if you agree that this is sufficient. Cheers!  BD2412  T 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @BD2412. I also found the obituary on Page 8 of The Commercial Appeal on March 16, 2021. Not able to find it online. But, this is good, imo. Ktin (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Commercial Appeal syndicates Legacy.com content too. You can see the obituary on their Facebook page linking to it. Uses x (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs more coverage of his research; right now the article only states that he investigated the "physiologic mechanism that initiates fever and its associated reactions to infectious pathogens." Fortunately the Quan reference has thorough detail of his research, and a paragraph in the article based on that (particularly the final sentences for paragraphs in the Quan article) would make this a relatively quick fix.  Spencer T• C 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added some details from the Quan piece. I'm not sure how far into the weeds to get with the technical terminology. BD2412  T 04:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very glad that an RS obit came out before this got stale. The description of his work is suitable, I think, and any more detailed would run afoul of JARGON. Refs spot checked.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support With some Facebook searching I'm not going to link out of respect for privacy, it seems his colleagues and family members are confirming his death, so I'm now confident that it's reliable. Uses x (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: Is there any mechanism for keeping this from slipping through the cracks before the clock is run out on it? Would there be any objection to my posting it now? BD2412  T 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand that it is often harder to confirm the death of non-celebrities, but I think representation of notable research scientists matters! BD2412  T 22:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Waddell

 * Support Article is in good shape, and gives a decent overview of his life. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yaphet Kotto

 * Weal oppose for now, not in a horrible state, but several things (early roles in Career text, his religion in Personal Life section) need additional cites. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Fixes have been made. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Names is for ITN, baby. ——  Serial  13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BAM!!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support If there were issues at the time of Jayron32's comment, I'm not seeing it now, we actually have a fully completely sourced filmography section here. --M asem (t) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I applied a few citation needed tags. His religion is still unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now dealt with,   ——  Serial  16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw those just now and have fixed sourcing including the statement on his religion. --M asem (t) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted now that citations are provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (after the fact), a solid effort. BD2412  T 17:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Bechtel Jr.

 * Support Looks ready for RD now, decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  20:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now 👍 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frankie de la Cruz

 * Comment Dominican baseball pitcher. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Vatican bars gay union blessing, says God 'can't bless sin'

 * Oppose So status quo remains for the Catholic church. --M asem (t) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly another Count Iblis nom doomed to SNOW.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Count Iblis, you presented two different articles, Catholic Church and homosexuality and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Neither has been edited since late February. We are looking for updates in articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In Vatican policy or either article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no change from status quo, which is probably why neither of the articles has been updated. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, misread. Might have supported if it concerned unionisation of staff in Vatican gay bars. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * lol Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sally Grossman

 * Comment – Only announced and reported today (March 14). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A pass should be taken on the article to de-puff the article. e.g. "noted for being a striking businessperson while eschewing media publicity". Furthermore, other than the album cover narrative there is not sufficient depth on her career. Noting her contributions that made her a "striking businessperson" will be good. Happy to change my vote once these have been addressed. Ktin (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Direct quote from Rolling Stone obit: "Grossman developed a reputation as an imposing businessperson of her own – and one who also largely avoided the media spotlight." Restoring ready, since it seems you're grasping at straws to make a WikiCup oppose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is a legit oppose. The Ready tag was honestly premature. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't the first time this editor has attempted to pick apart one of my noms for frivolous reasons (he decided not to less than 30 minutes later). So I'm a bit skeptical over whether this is indeed a "legit oppose".  The common denominator is we're both competing in the WikiCup.  Unlike him, I don't vote on any of his noms to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  But hey, to each their own. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bloom6132 -- Please assume good faith AGF. It is a central tenet of editors' contributions here. Ktin (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AGF ≠ be deaf, dumb, and blind. You have a track record – this isn't your first time making a spurious nitpick; I'm certain it won't your last (for the record, the Robert Dean nom mentioned above was promoted without me having to make additional changes, demonstrating that your comment was indeed bogus and contrived, much like your oppose here). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be polite and kind to your fellow editors. Calling someone's views spurious, bogus, and contrived, just because you do not agree with them, is not in keeping with a behavior that we would ever want to condone. Ktin (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm calling a spade a spade based on evidence (not, as you like to smokescreen it, "just because [I] do not agree with them").  Yes, your views can be disagreeable, but that's not the reason why they are spurious, bogus, and contrived. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight -- my views are spurious, bogus, and contrived because I once opposed this i.e. Robert Dean nomination of yours with the rationale of it might fall short of the Spencer test -- specifically, what did he do in his political career. What policies did he advance? Currently reads as a list of positions and elections and then later decided against that comment? And, hence, you believe that my views here are in bad faith? Ktin (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support Hits on what the subject was notable for-- while it might be just be an album cover, it is appropriate. Conditional since I would like to see the sentence stating that she was noted to be an "imposing businessperson" with a ref after it. Otherwise, good to go IMO.  Spencer T• C 03:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks – forgot about that. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thione Seck

 * Support quite short, but good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD, 👍 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Grammy Awards

 * And updated for Record of the Year. --M asem (t) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also tagging both the song and album as bolded targeted. "Everything I Wanted" is a GA and looks in good shape, and while Folklore is not yet a GA, it looks fairly complete as well. --M asem (t) 03:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Articles on Billie and Tay Tay are in great shape, as well as the song and album. Grammy article looks fine too; we might even want to link to the individual awards in the blurbs, so long as those articles are OK. ITN/R, so not much else to say, except great work from the community to get these to such a high quality. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We might also want to do a split image (for the people who actually know how to do that). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually the split image is when we have a mens/womans sport and thus we don't want to prioritize one winner over the other. It's not that we can't here, but given that we have two female winners, and this is just two among many winners, I don't think we need to. At worst, in a few days if this is posted, we can swap a Swift image for Eilish's. --M asem (t) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I did notice something else, though: if this article happens to go to ITN today, then the Main Page will have the same photo of Billie Eilish twice. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah didn't see that. Fortunately, plenty of other free images of her. I swapped that out for now. Maybe we can have a Swift image to start then. (eg File:Taylor Swift 2 - 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg) --M asem (t) 05:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Nice to see a proposed blurb adequately describe the key updated points of its target articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support All 3 articles look fine on a superficial review. One point: Credits and personnel for Everything I Wanted is both unexpectedly short, and sourced to Tidal. I'm not certain that a music streaming service is actually authoritative or exhaustive, and I'm certain that more than 4 people contributed to the album. See Folklore's personnel listing, which includes a much more complete list and is sourced to the artwork itself. Would it be better to just incorporate the few credited individuals into the text and get rid of the section?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth mentioning Beyoncé in the blurb? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely include Beyoncé in the blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posting the blurb above. Feel free to change. Not sure how to mention Beyoncé and keep the blurb short. --Tone 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's probably correct. The ITN/R entry covers Record of the Year and Album of the Year. Beyonce's record breaking is interesting, but perhaps not fully ITN-worthy and would need a full consensus in any case. I'd lean oppose on that one myself... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless it was a record within the scope of the current awards, we would generally not add those types of "overall" records. --M asem (t) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support all article look really good, and ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Beyonce Knowles she didn't win album of the year, or record of the year, so we don't need to include her in the blurb at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - After seeing the Grammys languish without ITN updates for several years, seeing this one go up so quickly is certainly a pleasant surprise. That said, I'm not pleased about the racially biased blurb.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not following you. Isn't Album of the Year and Record of the Year the standard blurb format?-- P-K3 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Standard blurb format, yes. But this is not a standard award show, and the broken record is notable, just as a broken record during a top sporting event is occasionally mentioned on ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're trying to racially swing anything, just that these types of records (career-spanning, not event-spanning) don't work well in posting the blurb in the context of a single award show; but I agree it is one of those records I'm seeing in headlines now from the show. We could add, as briefly as I could see it "and Beyonce becomes the most awarded female artist." to the end of the current blurb, which would make it three lines long and push the Zamfara kidnapping off. --M asem (t) 13:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange comment. Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift won the most important awards. If there really was racism at play here, it's by the Grammys, as Zayn Malik and others claim (without evidence, FWIW). It's not our fault in reporting the news. But moreover, they're just two people – it's hard to force diversity with a group that small. If you randomly selected two people from the U.S., there's a good chance you'd get two white people pretty often. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'd support making this blurb extra-long and adding Beyonce to it, mostly because (a) as Masem says, that aspect is widely in the news, and (b) it would push off a stale item that's been on the main page for more than 2 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Avatar had a Chinese release last week and reclaimed it's spot as the highest grossing film of all time. We gonna post that too? Or maybe we should leave arbitrary milestones for another section and stick with the awards. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I initially brought it up, retracted it, retired in shame and went to bed. But now that it's out there, yes. Selecting two pop stars from a widely-reported four major winners who just happen to not be H.E.R. and Megan Thee Stallion looks a bit...lopsided. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some research I believe that the now WP:RENAMED user ixgysjijel is actually a time-traveling racist who deliberately selected which awards would be featured when the grammys were added in 2008, to prevent Beyonce from having a sliver of the front page of Wikipedia in addition to the relentless drumbeat of media coverage she gets. The username was likely scrambled by Nazi skynet to mask the identity of their agent and ensure their lasting damage to the Space time continueum. It can't possibly be that past discussions later found that album of the year and record of the year were most significant. This is a big deal, we can't be certain what other damage was done, and it might be best to scrap ITN/R all together. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we already understood that you're opposed to Beyoncé being added to the ITN, per your two prior comments. The above comment is indeed well-researched, but a slight exaggeration and probably unnecessary... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was intentionally racist, I said it looks a bit lopsided. A rap or R&B fan might see it as a slight to the genre, too. In any case, we could just as easily list all four actual winners (two songs, an artist, an album) next year, instead of arbitrarily excluding any just to attach singers to half. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Laxman Pai

 * Support - the article is sourced and in decent shape. There is room for some formatting and sourcing improvements (i.e. self-published source), but I didn't see anything glaring enough to bar posting this RD. TJMSmith (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as usual the article is in good shape whenever Ktin nominates JW 1961   Talk  11:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support easily good enough for RD. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove: Osaka, Djokovic, and Porfirije
These blurbs are now beyond stale, referencing events whose media coverage crested three weeks ago. Einsof (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing the blurbs would leave the main page unbalanced. We have to wait for new blurbs to be promoted. --M asem (t) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, one way to do this would be to be less stringent about approving stuff to go onto ITN to replace these old items. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding WaltCip's claim that "This is not something we do here": in fact I was directed to this page by the template at the top of WT:ITN, which says "Nominating a current item for removal? Go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C)." So clearly it is something we do here. Einsof (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not for the reason you gave. WaltCip- (talk)  16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no instructions on this page for what is or is not an acceptable reason to nominate an entry for removal, so I inferred from the general criteria set out in WP:ITN (specifically the obvious-sounding requirement that The event is current, and not stale relative to other events.). If instructions about removal nominations exist somewhere else, where can I find them? Einsof (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — The longstanding problem is, many readers don't understand that In the News is not a source for news per se. Instead, it is a listing of Wikipedia articles about topics that are (or recently have been) in the news. To be listed in ITN, these topics must judged important or significant to a reasonably large share of readers or potential readers, and the articles must be up to date. If you're looking for actual news sources that have proven to be reliable, try news agencies such as AP, BBC, Reuters – or try large newspapers in or near anyplace you're interested in. Does that help? – Sca (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this goes beyond one or two particular stale blurbs, I've started a more general discussion on the main ITN talk page here. Einsof (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Western Australian state election

 * Oppose per regional election. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We wouldn't post for Texas. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post sub-national elections, we declined ITN for Indian state just a few days go. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a routine regional election - it's one of the largest landslide victories in the history of such elections in Australia, with far more significant consequences than a regular regional election. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Landslide, sure. But for the incumbent party. Fewer people oppose business as usual in more populous states across the world every day. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Arrests at Sarah Everard's vigil

 * Oppose Very much a local incident of violent behavior. --M asem (t) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Obviously parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose borderline trivia right now, but will no doubt balloon into something #metoo or #blm for the UK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of vigil as headline this case is dominating the headlines in the UK (can't avouch for anywhere else) but the only consequence would be resignation/dismissal of nobody policemen, or at most the resignation of the Chief of the Met, whose authority is over one city. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to Metropolitan Police officer remanded in custody, having been charged with the kidnapping and murder of Sarah Everard. A policeman being prosecuted for this high-profile crime is the most notable part of this event. We particularly shouldn't use blurb 1, because we don't know how she died & we don't want to be seen as prejudicing the suspect's trial. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the 'blurb' is not supported by the known facts of the event covered by the article. We do not know what happened yet, there has not even been a trial, let lone a conviction for murder. And the arrests were unrelated to the topic of the article, they were apparently because of the danger being caused to the public resulting from hundreds of people breaking the Covid lockdown rules, and not for holding a vigil, many of which occurred peacefully across the rest of the UK without incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know what they were expecting would happen in a post-COVID world. WaltCip- (talk)  16:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, but support in principle This IS getting international news – I'm from the US personally and this has gotten on my radar some through what we all recognize has been a very slow time for news. However, I have to agree that the story here is Everard's death; if the vigil arrests were significant enough, they should have their own article. Also, we should be very careful about terminology when right now the accused perpetrator is only a suspect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some altblurbs; let me know what y'all think. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle per AllegedlyHuman. This is getting a fair amount of press on the other side of the pond, but I agree the blurb should be closer to Jim Michael's suggestion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for uncertainty over whether this is pro-woman, anti-cop or COVID-related, but support all of our rights to walk the streets together or alone safely, in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-male & anti-police placards were held by protesters. This is a major event for the police & public. Major politicians - including Boris Johnson, Priti Patel & Sadiq Khan - have commented on this case. Jim Michael (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Politicians always talk. No blurb mentions anti-male motivation at the protest or vigil, even implicitly, nor the article. Still seems uncertain to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not rare for protesters at the same place & time to have varying grievances - it doesn't make it less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – This article seems favored by users who have adopted the death of Ms. Everard as a cause célèbre. That a police officer has been charged in the case is not proof of significance by ITN standards. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III per AllegedlyHuman. This is getting a lot of attention in international news, and the article looks good. Uses x (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't mind that the allegedly good-looking article only mentions one protest of unspecified mass "outside Scotland Yard", contrary to Blurb III/IV? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Online protests are happening as mentioned in the article, making the plural correct. That's a new addition which certainly needs to be extended. Uses x (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think a virtual protest is real enough to be called a protest, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong on the Internet. Maybe it is more than mundane keyboard warring, I'm not hip anymore. But it seems less substantial to me than what "sparking", "mass" or "protests" suggest actually happened in the physical realm. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, and keep the nomination open for a few days. It's too hard to assess the significance of this episode right now but it certainly has the potential of developing into a transformative metoo type moment for the UK. If the protests and the political fallout grow in the next couple of days, a blurb may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait we shouldn't post about non-notable people being arrested/charged per WP:BLP. And it's unclear whether this is going to attract lots of news or not. Also, it was one main vigil, and I virtual one, so protests seems the incorrect terminology. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The arrestee's name is stated prominently by many media sources. The case has already received a great deal of media coverage. There were vigils yesterday & today, as well as a protest today - each with hundreds of people illegally gathered in very close proximity. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca above. Yakikaki (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for being an event currently discussed in the news. Einsof (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Significance? – Sca (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the news, while one of the current blurbs isn't—not for three weeks now. Beggars can't be choosers. Einsof (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors can. That's what they're for. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is very much ITN, although why this case and not others draw more attention is puzzling. We shouldn't be debating whether or not something "should be news", but rather only evaluating if it is "in the news". Albertaont (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know how the news cycle and spring works, not complaining. Just concerned that the blurbs don't accurately reflect the news or the article. The general theme of this digital uprising is also getting a bit lost, the problem seems to used to be more about systemic sex predator inequality, like Home Alive, not cops again. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose A single day's worth of protests is practically routine, and criminal proceedings should wait for conviction for blurbs.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of there being a rule/guideline against high-profile (apparent) serious crimes being posted to ITN. I think it notable enough even before the trial. Jim Michael (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimes, yes, depending on significance. Charges being filed against suspects, no – innocent until proven guilty. Convictions of suspects, yes, depending on significance. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Sca. Banedon (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I have to support this, even though I don’t live in the UK media in my country have reported on this.BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very surprising. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Local event with no real significance; pretty much standard lockdown enforcement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Walkup

 * Comment Mayor of Tucson. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent length, no problems with the article. Uses x (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets all criterias, good to go. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Agree it's good to go JW 1961   Talk  22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth, marking ready. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Ready) Former Bolivian interim-president Jeanine Añez arrested

 * Oppose Arrested, but not convicted (at least yet). Precedent is for mere arrests to only be posted when it's headline international news, which this is not. The section about it should also be more comprehensive than it is now; beyond "terrorism, sedition, and conspiracy", if that information is available the reasoning behind those claims needs to be stated. Uses x (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written Eight other people were swept up in the same raid, all formerly high-ranking, two with English Wikipedia articles. This is more political than personal. Should be linked to a notable event article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It appears I nominated this independently around the same time without noticing (this OP was first, however). I clearly support, and I've added the blurbs I wrote as altblurbs to the nomination for the community's consideration. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Domestic politix. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, preferably version V. Important turn in an ongoing political crisis in the country. Einsof (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is a major development for a national-level leader. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Former interim leader. Bigger for the country's current military leaders. Just as big for the other two notable named and known ministers of government and presidency, inexplicably ignored in favour of singling out one untried BLP subject for the hotseat. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose renominate once convicted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man Ajshul 😀 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this kind of event isn't common - how often does it happen a year worldwide, five times or fewer? - so I'm supporting, especially since it's dominating local news. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Even if she is not convicted, the arrest would have been equally or more notable.--TZubiri (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) alt IV preferred, no picture due to relevance concerns proposed by editors, and mentioning other arrests.--TZubiri (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator (alt IV preferred). ArionEstar (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and prefer alt IV. It's notable enough that the government had its predecessors detained on the highest charges possible; no need to wait for a conviction. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are citation needed tags in main article. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready There seems to be a slight majority to post it, though ultimately an admin will have to decide --Civciv5 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ready to be posted, per above. Dan the Animator 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's been more than 24 hours and still no admin response. I have little hope this will still be posted, because apparently no admin has noticed the READY notice or maybe they simply can't be bothered. If no action is undertaken within 24 hours I'm withdrawing the nomination since it will have been a full week since the arrest--Civciv5 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty stale at this pt. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Marvelous Marvin Hagler

 * Oppose the current version based on sourcing. There are several sections missing in-line citations. TJMSmith (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose like TJSmith says, too many ILCs missing right now. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppport while the article's development seems mired in wiki-argument, there's a bedrock, and it behooves you to recognise one of the significant athletes of the 20th century.
 * I came here from the talk page. I think Hagler is probably more famous than say, Sabine Schmitz, rip, so what we are waiting for and why is this debate is still being had.

(Posted) RD: Murray Walker
Support And I interrupt yourself to bring you this ..... unless I'm very much mistaken ... I am very much mistaken .... with half the race to gone, there's still half the race to go. One of my most favourite sporting commentators of all time. On a spot check, article looks in okay enough shape. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RIP, good quality article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - near GA class article. Super sad death. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article, I can't see any problems with it. Uses x (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "This RD is unique, except for the one behind it which is identical." Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Post posting support, but this is surely blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not American enough, a couple of Americans will probably come and say that they don't know who he is and that would derail a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian saboteur here, I heard nothing, "old man dies". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why must you always assume the worst in people? --WaltCip- (talk)  20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the worst on some people at ITN. Pushing for blurbs on American state politcians, but opposing blurbs on much more notable non-Americans. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I support blurb- an icon of Formula One. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Alex Trebeck didn't get one. Neither did Regis Philbin. -- Calidum  20:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A national treasure but doesn't rise to blurb level in my view. P-K3 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'd be okay with posting a guy who is THE voice of a major sport in a large English-speaking country. But then that qualifier could create quite a list. I'll note we didn't even consider Keith Jackson, who was THE guy for college football for decades. I'd like to think Al Michaels will get in. Reading the obits and our article, Walker seems a bit closer to the former than the latter. Like all borderline cases, it would be no tragedy to post or omit.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - In retrospect, I think he meets that key criteria as being transformative in his field.--WaltCip- (talk)  21:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * also Support blurb agree with WaltCip, RIP JW 1961   Talk  22:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The British systemic bias is back in action I see. There's nothing in this article that suggests he was "transformative in his field". "97 year old announcer dies" is not a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The widespread conflation of announcers and commentators also remains strong, it would seem. Combined with the gathering dark cloud of sentences that start with numerals, and society's increasing aversion to hyphenation, you're absolutely correct. Oppose these blurbs! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose altblurb 1, neutral on altblurb 2 The article motorsport is not in good shape, but Formula One looks fine. However, this currently isn't even front page news on the BBC – though I acknowledge the Main Page right now is very stale. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Just wake up and hear the sad news. So sad to lose such a legend. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - can commentators who haven't previously had a successful career competing in sport ever be important enough for a blurb? Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Having only just seen this, as the nominator I would support a blurb for the most recognisable commentator in English speaking motorsport. ITN could do with a new blurb after all, especially after complaints on the MP talk page of lack of new news and the fact the most recent blurb is a week old.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per being some bloke with a funny voice who lived a long time. More power to him! Lovely bloke and all, I remember he told me about his dog on the 17:30 to Norwich. But Σ!=MP. ——  Serial
 * Support RD but oppose blurb I'm having a hard time using what is on his page to assign a level of importance to a blurb. May be a household name in terms of sports broadcasting in the UK, but there's a lack of being a tranformative figure in the field here. --M asem (t) 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb he was a "well known" commentator who made lots of mistakes. He had a long career in a very niche field of entertainment.  He was not transformative in any sense.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chao Kuang Piu

 * Support - I agree with Ktin. Marking as ready for RD. TJMSmith (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing is good, and no tone issues. Joofjoof (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Short but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T• C 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cliff Simon

 * Wait until WP:PEACOCK language is removed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:AllegedlyHuman Frankly, I am perplexed. I don't see anything that fits this criticism.  If I did I would remove it.  If you don't like whatever, perhaps you could remove the offending passage(s)?  Thank you  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's just a handful of the many that are there:
 * "Simon travelled solo globally for the show, searching for hidden clues to some of history's most nightmarish myths."
 * "From a very young age, Cliff aspired to be the first South African swimmer to win an Olympic Gold medal."
 * "His mother, a swimming teacher, taught him from a very young age, and at age 6 he began to show talent as a gymnast."
 * "After his military service, he danced and performed in cabaret and stage shows in South Africa before he was offered a coveted spot in the chorus at Paris's Moulin Rouge, becoming a principal dancer after six months."
 * This article just oozes with flowery language in support of him. It reads almost like a press release, not an encyclopedia article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've edited all that down or out.  Cheers. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in better shape; good work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now about as well sourced as I think possible. I also believe it is fully updated and in good and proper form.  I would note that the page has gotten 75,000 views in the last three days.  There seems to be reader interest.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Really User:Sunshineisles2 tagged as "problem sentences" due to "excessive citations" and you chose not to fix it. This article is fine. The citations are all fine, other than their number. They are real citations to real articles. The decision apparently is that you don't want this "in the news" and that it will become stale and evaporate. Problem will then be resolved. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already explained to you on my talk page why I tagged it. It wasn't practicable for me to go through the sources and pare them down at that time. That's all. I don't know where you're getting this idea that anyone is trying to purposefully trying to slow down this nomination or that somebody doesn't want this article on the main page.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of what you put on your talk page. I guess they crossed in the mail. I'll take a look and reply there.  Thanks.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to add User:Sunshineisles2 as an updater. Someone beat me to it. Very helpful!  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John F. Sandner

 * References are a little heavy on fluff.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what are your thoughts on this? Does it meet the minimum requirements for ITN? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Updated, referenced; ready for several days.  Spencer T• C 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fatima Aziz

 * Weak oppose it's very short at 1700 characters. Surely there's a bit more that can be said for 15 years in office? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , While not much, I just added more details. Maybe there are sources in her native languages that could be used to expand this. I was hoping more details on her medical career may turn up also. TJMSmith (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I added a couple more sentences too, but it looks like we've reached the limit of the coverage there is online for her life. Good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - does meet the ITN:RD Criterias although indeed somewhat "thin". CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support True it's short, but what is there is well referenced and suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Any information on what party she was in? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the National Assembly website identifies her as independent. I added that to the article. I still wish we had the spelling of her name in her native language, Dari. TJMSmith (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * VOA Dari on FB has her name as "فاطمه عزیز".  Spencer T• C 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Antikythera mechanism

 * Images can be taken right from the paper and added to the article for the reason you've said. I've added the details to the article talk page. Uses x (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there an objection to linking to a paper under a CC-BY-4.0 license? Enquire (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If true, this discovery is very cool, and there's a lot of great info in the article about the device generally – but there's currently only one line about this event in text. Sending this article to the Main Page in its current form would leave readers wanting more. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although very nice research, this is an incremental update to the knowledge about the device. In such cases, only the discovery would be an ITN story, I think. Also, the update is short. --Tone 09:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean. If you're talking about for a source, you could use even a copyrighted work; however, images have to be under CC or similar license. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article is very nice, and the topic is in the BBC and Guardian, as well as scientific journals from Science and AAS. While the update is incremental, it does relate to the world's first known computer, which gives it a superlative appeal.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a fascinating object but the new research is incremental. They're making an improved/updated proposal for what the missing bits were (only about a third of the mechanism survived), which is fine but essentially informed guesswork. There have been multiple proposals by several competing teams, some of which have constructed working reproductions of their proposals, so it's misleading to call this the 'first complete model'. The new work is nowhere near as big an advance as the 2008 study, which performed the first CT scan of the fragments. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu

 * Oppose WP:CSECTION and needs more citations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs by far more citations and well, AllegedlyHuman is also right with WP:CSECTION. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, more sources, and more non-controversy content needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luis Palau

 * Comment Works needs ISBN's or similar.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fairly well referenced, ISBNs added to those works mentioned in article. JW 1961   Talk  11:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * lots of uncited material. Stephen 21:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeple's Everydays auction

 * Comment Isn't this more geared towards Did You Know? The fact that Christie's sold an NFT for the first time seems more trivial than groundbreaking news. rawmustard (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's several "records" here, and while the sale of NFT at Christie's is one and that better suited at DYK, we're talking the price of a work of art, which we have posted as blurbs before when they are noted as record-setting. --M asem (t) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sui generis art news.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article based on quality and coverage of event in news sources, oppose blurb for now given that it seems to be burying the lead here. The newsworthiness of the event doesn't seem to be that it is the "third most-expensive piece of art sold by a living artist", which is far too many qualifiers on a superlative to be interesting, but rather that this seems to represent a watershed in the sale of digital artworks; the fact that this was a sale of a non-fungible token rather than a physical piece of canvas is what makes it stand out.  I'm afraid I don't know enough about the technical aspects here to be of much help, but it would be nice to have a blurb that highlights this and ios able to explain it for a lay person like myself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this is important enough for ITN - there's no stand-alone article either for the work or the auction, and there probably shouldn't be. I also think this is crypto-hype - the buyer was someone in the business of selling NFTs and they have a vested interest in inflating the price beyond its actual value. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the nomination has potential and the news seems to be good ITN material but I can't support it when there's no article about the work of art. And no, bolding the artist's article can't compensate as it's the work of art that sells for a record price.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the work is eye-catchy, "third most-expensive " is meh compared to the most expensive which is postable. Brandmeistertalk  21:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article, oppose blurb. Again, the big story is the NFT angle. Maybe something like "The first non-fungible token to be sold by a legacy auction house, Everydays: the First 5000 Days by Beeple, is sold for $69 million at Christie's." If anyone can make that snappier, it would be better. Mcrsftdog (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of my person rules is "If you're having trouble making a blurb that sounds noteworthy, that should tell you something." What you have here is two stories: the rapid emergence of NFTs and the explosion in art prices. The convergence here hints at something both we and the RS are not allowed to say (lets call them "creative financial instruments"), which leaves us with a story we want to broadcast but cannot frame.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, per above, but with a different blurb. Apart from the usual considerations, we also really need new stories to refresh a rather tired ITN box at the moment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose You heard the Ghost, mum's the word, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, with Mcrsftdog's blurb, which adequately highlights the significance. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that the NFT angle is required to give this significance. Although I think this is just a re-imagining of Bowie bonds, it is the only actual novel angle to an otherwise routine auction.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb but I can't say that it's much snappier than what was suggested above. Removing the sale amount or venue might improve, and it would be good to improve "legacy auction house".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as DYK Dan the Animator 15:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose GreatCaesarsGhost makes a good point. Also, requesting closure.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Tait

 * Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article, well referenced, ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is sourced and sufficiently in-depth for INT. TJMSmith (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Pilarz

 * Support Everything looks fully sourced. - Poydoo can talk and edit 15:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I allowed myself to add some missing stuff and correct the wrong Infobox parameter. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Per Kleppe

 * Update done. Oceanh (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support  - a few sections are a tad brief, but overall, the article addresses most of Kleppe's career. Statements have inline citations. TJMSmith (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support definitely good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norm Sherry

 * Support looks fine, though the nomination should be put on the 8th.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, RD noms have been placed on the date the death was announced, rather than the actual date of death.  Spencer T• C 04:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Might have been a bigger deal in the past when posted RDs were sorted by death date, and a posting admin might have blindly used that date and not the one in the bio.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Lead needs a sentence or two on managing and coaching career. —Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm neutral for now.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hamed Bakayoko

 * Comment Really needs expansion beyond stub category as almost half of the article is about his illness and death at the moment, will re-visit tomorrow JW 1961   Talk  22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as expaned now, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I have added some more content based on French sources. There looks to be quite a lot more to be added from the French article's sources, but article is now long enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Brevity precludes blurb at this pt. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. For example, in his role as defense minister, there's one sentence about what he did in the role (versus a whole section on fr.wiki).  Spencer T• C 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the sources on that section on fr.wiki, is an interview that doesn't say much,  is a blog,  is probably good source but too technical/specific for mine and Google Translate's understanding, and  and  don't even mention him. We shouldn't therefore be comparing the content with porr sourcing on French Wikipedia. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - seems good enough for posting now. RD.BabbaQ (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough for RD now. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - Ivory Coast is a country where the President holds all the power, so we would not blurb a Prime Minister. Furthermore, this guy was Prime Minister for less than a year. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: John Polkinghorne

 * Oppose (for now) - too many uncited statedments, lofs of interpretation without quotes. Right now not ready for ITN. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a few CN tags. However, I do not think it is too far from RD quality otherwise. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Lou Ottens

 * Support (by the stub-creator) article has been updated. Notable person because of inventing the cassette tape. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Moved nomination to March 9, since that's when it looks like the earliest the death was announced in the press.  Spencer T• C 04:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: A couple unreferenced paragraphs.  Spencer T• C 17:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to have been expanded somewhat since I last looked at it. Welcome of course, but there is now a bit more work to do with the citations. P-K3 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like the article is doing the common thing of having several sentences followed by a citation at the end for all of it. Every line that introduces new information (in other words, most lines) should have citations themselves. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilhelmina Holladay

 * Support Covers the necessary bases; referenced.  Spencer T• C 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Richard Driehaus

 * Support obviously a major figure both in the business and philanthropic world and proper quality article. Should be posted. --Venustates (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It's almost there, 3 CN's need attention, take as support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose update on death, or much biography in the first place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter LaFeber

 * Support Looks good. .130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Short Desc was missing, I added it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach

 * Support Developments in the past day (infection of government agencies, software companies, and critical infrastructure) make this impactful. Comment certainly notable, but the impact isn't clear enough yet to warrant a blurb. "Every possible victim that hadn't patched by mid-to-end of last week has already been hit by at least one or several actors" [1 ], and this is a widely used product even in critical infrastructure, so this isn't going away. Uses x (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has issues, and will be until some decent article about the mechanism of the attack is written. Was it a targeted thing? Bulk scanning script kiddies? There is no such thing as an "individual" exchange server I don't know what that even means. "giving them access to victims' entire networks" needs clarification since DMZ networks and internal firewalls have been a thing for 15 years it's fairly unlikely that's true. Software isn't "especially susceptible" either it's a binary thing either the vulnerability exists or it doesn't. The story is interesting, we could probably post it, but the article needs work. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The adjectival form is probably a poor choice. I originally meant to refer to Exchange Servers "belonging to" both individuals and enterprises. With that being in the negative in the CNN's coverage, however, I'll change it in the lede and maybe do with a brief mention in the prose with the financial times affirming it. The relativized statement is also on my end. It was to emphasize the obscurity of the mechanism. But your concerns are valid. See . Assem Khidhr (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Uses x (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another week, another security breach. What makes this special? Article states that this was reported on March 5th, a US government task force was planned for March 7th, and this vulnerability was recognized even earlier by Microsoft back in January. What actually happened on the nomination date (March 9)?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ITNCRIT; it happening recently isn't part of the critera, the requirement is that it's 'in the news' because of recent developments. Time since it was originally reported is only critera for RD. Uses x (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A bizarre comment. Widespread security breaches like this do not, in fact, happen all the time. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything (snowstorms, hurricanes, mass murders, riots, protests, cyberattacks) happens all the time in America, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're working on it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the article is well written from the information currently available. This is one of the biggest companies in the world, and 250k people is quite a lot to be affected. Combined with the fact that ITN really needs to be refreshed (we have an item on there from 19 February), this article is good enough for ITN IMO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The scope of this is the issue - this isn't like the past cyberattacks (like the Ukraine ransomware) and it has been a slowly developing story because it requires more effort by those attacking to actually get in and compromise and maintain the compromised system. There are fallouts from it, but for example, there haven't been private information breaches yet (or discussed in the article), loss of data, etc; the only thing that we have documented is the ability to spy and monitor affected systems and potential to run cryptomininig software on them. Its clearly an IT concern, but its far from being a major problem and the fact that this isn't a frequent headline story shows that this isn't really a major story. But I do appreciate that we are looking to add a blurb since we haven't added one for a while; we just can't force one. --M asem (t) 14:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that not enough info is out to warrant a blurb yet. The attack is actually very straightforward (I've updated the article to reflect this) and it's been implicated in downloading every email and email address + password combination from undisclosed companies, being used by hackers in social engineering attacks, as well as silently installing backdoors with admin privileges, so personally I'm expecting a lot more to come out about this in the next few days. Uses x (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not widely covered. EV? – Sca (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited long-term impact (it's not as if all of these organizations are being shut down), but "weak" due to the good quality of the article.  Spencer T• C 19:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of developments have happened over the past day, which I've added to the article; this is looking like it'll have long-term impact, especially since it's targeting small and medium businesses without large IT budgets. Coverage has also improved in the media, entering mainstream news. Uses x (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. I've also added an altblurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 Topic is notable enough, and wording in the 3rd blurb is far better than others.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 04:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't agree here - the breach didn't take down the servers. In fact, the hackers didn't even want the machines to go down. The admins took them down, for fear of having to explain to their superiors why they didn't heed blunt messages from Microsoft and the US government to update their software for the past 3 months. Buck passing. A more accurate blurb could be "Enterprise IT consultants neglect their jobs, blame China".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have a reliable source to back up that information?  Tucker  Gladden  👑 06:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose script kiddies bulk scanned a 0-day to install coin miners, nothing coordinated or significant here. State sponsored cyber terrorists maybe. If there article described the technical details of the mechanism of the attack it might be worth posting like the heartbleed thing that team Linux had a few years ago. Currently it's branded as either a "cyber attack" or a "data breach" but we've used those labels in the past for deliberate, coordinated events which isn't what happened here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's now being used to deploy ransomware starting from today, as predicted, so it goes beyond crypto mining (which only one of the at least 10 APT groups is known to do). I don't think the simplicity of the attack is reason to understate it, I think the volume of the attack is what's important. Uses x (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 20 years ago they'd install toolbars and botnets, 10 years ago it was coin miners and today it's ransomware. This is the IT equivalent of running through a parking lot checking for unlocked vehicles. I'm interested in the attack vector (seems there was a long running issue in OWA?) if that is unusual, the targets (if it were a deliberate targeted attack) or the perpetrators (state actors for example). The vector is interesting from an IT perspective arbitrary code execution exploits are rarer and rarer but otherwise there is no indication that this is anything other than mass vandalism. That's my #twocents anyway but I'm wrong a lot. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "State sponsored terrorists, maybe" is a funny way to describe a story that is, in your view, unimportant. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support (Alt Blurb III) – This event is clearly notable enough for an ITN posting. This is a GLOBAL cyberattack that affected numerous servers. (Oh, and anyone who opposes this because it started in the United States is out of their damn mind. For you folks, I suppose that anything that happens in the US is business as usual? What utter nonsense! And the US is a Superpower, mind you, so anything of great significance in the US is significant on the global stage.) This cyberattack affected numerous national governments as well – definitely a significant event. Also, the article appears to be in good shape. Alt Blurb III is clearly the best option out of them all, so I say that we should go with that one.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (Blurb 3) per LightandDark. This is a really significant event.   Coding  Cyclone  [citation needed] 20:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as written. Clearly a major event with its own well-developed article. Einsof (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt3. Although I weak opposed the item, there is consensus to post, and this article has been ready for a while.  Spencer T• C 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Mudd

 * Support Thorough, referenced.  Spencer T• C 04:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive article. Seemed to rely a lot on his own autobiography, but everything checks out compared to the AP and Washington Post obituaries I've added as citations. Uses x (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. Vacant0 (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks adequate. Atrocious pic, tho – should be trashed. Widely covered in U.S.  – Sca (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – As usual, the lead section is a laundry list of job titles and not an actual lead section. And as usual, everyone else commenting here appears to be solely concerned with how pretty the article looks. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurry, 40-year-old pic is an insult to the memory of Roger Mudd, a widely known TV personality. It should be delisted forthwith and replaced with something presentable. – Sca (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Sufficient, even if it's a non-GA lead.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steven Spurrier (wine merchant)

 * Support Well referenced and notable. Good to go as-is. Uses x (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced! Vacant0 (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tokyo Olympics to be held without foreign spectators

 * Oppose We'll post the Olympics if and when they actually happen - announcements about spectators are not ITN-worthy.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose That they are still planned means we'll still post the event, and this is a minor story relative to that. --M asem (t) 14:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It might be noteworthy if they had no spectators at all. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as the decision hasn't been finalized and/or announced. I might be open to posting it at that point, given how stale the other items on ITN are at the moment. -- Calidum  15:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the event had been cancelled it would have been newsworthy, but a country having its borders closed during a pandemic is not ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Doesn't it know that decision regarding foreign spectators will be happen on next week? I don't believe any speculation regarding event before the official announcement by the committee. In addition, all Olympics should be regarded in Ongoing section rather than blurb when the Olympic helds. 36.77.94.238 (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once official. It is unprecedented that an Olympics is held without foreign spectators, and the Olympics are the world's largest sporting event. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is too soon. I'd consider it once this is official, but "expected to hold a remote meeting ... possibly next week to make a formal decision" is too tenuous to post. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is probably tedious, but I'd consider people watching on TV to be 'spectators' too so the phrasing should be changed. Otherwise, not notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll watch in telly like I do every time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joey Benjamin

 * Support Short but decently referenced artcle JW 1961   Talk  22:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient referenced, meets Criterias. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support short but good enough and well referenced. Marking as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norton Juster

 * Support Saw the obit on NYT, checked the article and it looked good, and saw it hadn't been nominated here. I was going to nominate, but I decided to check the history first and see that the reason that it looked alright was because had been putting in the work on it.  Spencer T• C 03:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seem to be good referenced. Meets the criterias. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Trevor Peacock

 * Oppose A lot of work needed on sourcing. P-K3 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs improvements on references, sources missing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kind

 * Support Article better quality than many human RD noms.  Spencer T• C 01:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It would be cruel not to spread the word. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rheal Cormier

 * Comment Canadian baseball player. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced and suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  10:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty good quality article, plus Cormier was a pretty notable player, particularly for the Phillies, during his MLB career.  Go  Phightins  !  10:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lars Göran Petrov

 * Oppose while article is orange tagged for more citations JW 1961   Talk  12:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article pretty low quality --Rockin (Talk) 19:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost nothing on Petrov's life. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dmitri Bashkirov

 * Comment: I wasn't quite done, but thank you for nominating already. This articles had more about his relatives than him (especially his son who may have written that), and only two composers, both German, instead of at least one Russian. Poor. It's better, but he still deserves moar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I think while more would be great, it's presentable now. One of the two German composers was the wrong one. Really sad ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Almooosttt..... corrected some spelling errors, now the Quote from the FAZ needs to be quoted in its original state (=German I guess) - then: Support. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CommanderWaterford, Grimes2 did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: meets the Criterias, thanks for nominating Gerda, thanks for improving Grimes2. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . El_C 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted): 2021 Bata explosions

 * Oppose Article is way too short right now. Also, I'm getting a little tired of every mass casualty event getting posted to ITN. Mlb96 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality too short, yes. Not opposed on principle - don't see much stuff off Equatorial Guinea. Juxlos (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article barely long enough now, but event and death toll significant. Juxlos (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to the article being far too short. However, it's notable enough for ITN; if the article is greatly expanded it should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is short, but covers the bases and is well referenced. Could still use some expansion, however.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality it's barely start class article, under 2,000 characters of text. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is now slightly bigger, and it does seem like this is all the information available. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Borderline in terms of fatalities. Weak significance in that the explosion of stored dynamite was accidental.  – Sca (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * However, it's looking more serious in terms of deaths. Toll upped to 31. – Sca (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The death toll is reported as 98. Jim Michael (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the original blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support significant death toll, article is short but what is there is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – BBC does report the toll of 98, but the article is quite thin. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when our article is ready. 98 is a significant death toll. -- Calidum  15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's odd that AP hasn't up-dated their story from "at least 20," but others RS sites agree on 98. – Sca (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; the article is still short, but I think it's sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support What's there is cited and it's sufficient to task, if barebones. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage at present. 2 of the paragraphs have just 3 sentences, and the third paragraph has 4.  Spencer T• C 20:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support high casualty count. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AP now sez 98. – Sca (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. High casualty count and article is sourced, even if on the short side. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment have marked as ready now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. High death toll, article is basic but meets our minimum requirements. Surprisingly little coverage in the mainstream media but that's probably their bias. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of media coverage isn't surprising; it happened in a little-known country in C Africa. Most of the media are biased, but we shouldn't be. Jim Michael (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support High death toll and article is adequate. -- P-K3 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Olivier Dassault

 * Comment as of now it's a stub requiring some referencing, but as it is being heavily edited will re-visit JW 1961   Talk  20:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article needs to be expanded first. (more citations and information) Vacant0 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the previous two commenters that it needs some expansion and quite a bit more sourcing; the French version of the article should be a good basis for that. I also note (as it's not obvious in the article) that he made his billions the old-fashioned way; he inherited them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation doesn't exist

 * Which is to say what, exactly?--WaltCip- (talk)  13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless in more mainstream media/news outlets. Also not clear on the significance of this. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost all readers won't understand what this is, and it's not covered in mainstream media. Also, the article would need significant updates to explain why it doesn't exist. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't find major news sources giving this significant time or column space. Does not appear to be well covered.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill C. Davis

 * Support Referenced, meets minimum standards for depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank J. Kelley

 * Oppose for now more refs needed in "Michigan Attorney General", no references in "Term Limits" and "Later Career" sections, ping if fixed then I could support JW 1961   Talk  22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only as now well cited, does not meet the significance for blurb JW 1961   Talk  12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Certainly not notable enough for a blurb, and the article needs some more work for even an RD at this point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are multiple paragraphs without citations. Also I don't think a state official is blurb-worthy. P-K3 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are citations for every paragraph. I expect that the NY Times will carry his obituary, which should reinforce it. I recognize we are in 'fly over country,' but it does not diminish his contribution, which I will continue to expand upon. His record is worthwhile and merits a blurb... IMO <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first person in line to call out anti-Midwest bias where I see it... but the fact is, nothing about this person merits a blurb. Per WP:ITNRD, "The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis". Kelley was neither a world leader nor transformative. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD No sub-national political official is significant enough to post as a blurb death, barring significance that comes from outside of their political office. It appears that everything is now cited, so this is perfectly fine for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Comes nowhere near being notable enough for a blurb. --WaltCip- (talk)  15:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only article is good enough for RD, but state officials are not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not sure how being old and doing a job a long time equates to being transformative. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb this isn't even close to the standard for blurbs; most US governors and senators don't get blurbs, a row officer (even one who served for 30 years) certainly will not have a death blurb due to their political career. Weak Oppose RD for now as well - I've cleared up two obvious mistakes in the article but there's still some peacock language in there. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:power~enwiki You may not like the 'peacock language' but all of the sources and their notable contributors use it. It is a Verifiable fact; not something I made up.  On an ad hoc basis, the Alt blurb would make the posting understandable and interesting.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't think you understand what "blurb" means. Blurbs are the news items posted on In the News as shown on the main page (current example: "In Zamfara, Nigeria, 279 girls who had been kidnapped from a secondary school by armed bandits are released."). Recent deaths are the section under that, and only the name is mentioned – no additional text. On rare occasions where an individual is notable enough that their death is itself a news event, they can have a line on their death posted in the news section, but the vast majority are just listed as Recent Deaths. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So get rid of the blurb and do a redirect. He is dead.  You apparently have nothing to say about the state of the article.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be new here; "RD" stands for "Recent Deaths" and not "Redirect" on this page. As you seem to agree that it's not a suitable candidate for a blurb, I've removed it from the header.  And I said that there's "peacock language" (His electoral successes were unequaled both in terms of duration and the magnitude of his victories. - which is only really true about the state of Michigan), which is about the state of the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral on RD - re the above comment if you're going to propose a blurb for an obscure person (I mean, is he really Thatcher/Mandela ballpark when it comes to being transformative?) then don't complain if people oppose (or indeed support) that blurb request. Anyway, looking at the quality I think it's almost OK. My main reservation is that for a 38-year career as attorney general, that section is extremely light on anything he achieved. The stuff about "consumer protection and environmental protection", and the tobacco thing are maybe enough for me not to oppose, but I really think a few more achievements from his time in office should be added for this to be considered a properly representative article. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't complaining. I was trying to take into account the concerns expressed above.  I'll add some more achievements.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've rewritten the whole article. IMO, I've addressed the problems noted. He was transformative and noteable. I do think he merits a blurb (see Alternate blurb), but I also know he merits a redirect.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support for RD only. Mostly appears to be sourced now, though I'm not a big fan of the bullet-pointed "achievements" or what appears to be some overly flowery language ("He successfully became a beacon to the state, and an advisor, inspiration and highly-valued mentor", "He was a consistent and effective opponent of highway advertising billboards", "Famously, he fought...").  That sort of thing is fine when attributed, but these are in Wikipedia's voice.  No blurb obviously, far too obscure for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the quoted material is in/from the sources. Much of it is directly quoted in the footnotes.  There was a demand for a list of achievements.  It was done to satisfy the criticism.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, but you need to attribute it. We don't say "X was a brilliant person" in Wikipedia's voice, we say "The Daily Paper described X as "a brilliant person"". Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was all attributed to persons, not just generic 'newspaper' and extensively quoted in the notes section, all of which is sourced It would help if you read that. But I've said all there is to say.  It is being covered nationally.

He was elected president of the National Association of Attorneys General, becoming the only Michigan attorney general so honored. He was cited by all 50 states attorneys general as being the attorney general who most furthered the cause of justice in the United States; and he was elected president of the National Association of Attorneys General, becoming the only Michigan attorney general so honored. Cheers. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then site the source: "According to the Michigan State University College of Law, Kelley was named by all 50 state attorneys general in 2018 who most furthered the cause of justice..." or however that needs to be worded. The claim "Kelley was named by all 50 state attorneys general..." alone without some pointer to where and when they stated that or who compiled that is a violation of BLP/NPOV, but can be attributed in-line to fix it. --M asem (t) 17:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I certainly appreciate the time and effort put into this article in recent days and while it might technically be well-sourced enough to post to RD, I also echo the concerns of and  about the tone and structure of the article, which seems to go against our MOS guidelines. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've copy edited it. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same acts, and expecting a different result.  Die Entführung aus dem Serail. If the edits are not satisfactory, I presume some enterprising editor could contribute.  But I am guessing that is a vain hope, and I am not insane.  Sorry to have wasted your time.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed a little bit of opinion and I think this is OK now. Marked Ready. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD Not thrilled about the structure of the career section in the article (e.g. bullet points with unclear dates rather than prose), but consensus to post and meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mogadishu bombing

 * Oppose for now because the article consists of two sentences. Also, I'm skeptical of frontpage coverage of routine events (sports victories, natural disasters, prime ministerial appointments, or sadly suicide bombings).  Sandstein   19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now), too short. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Sketchy, not widely reported (as of midnight Saturday). – Sca (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose based purely on article length - at the moment it is a two sentence stub that isn't really ready to be posted on the main page. If the article is expanded a bit the event is probably notable enough to post. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it's greatly expanded. It's the most deadly attack of the 2020s in Somalia & easily notable enough to be posted. However, it's far too short for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. Will reconsider when it has been expanded.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is no point in nominating a three-sentence stub that contains no more information than the blurb does. Come back where there's something for us to assess. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mark Pavelich

 * Oppose. No sources at all in the first half of the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like BlackKite says lacks clearly sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Gretzky

 * Neutral, leaning oppose Article is OK but not yet ready for the main page.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 23:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I've added a bunch of references where they were lacking. I think this should be good to go now. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks better, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced now JW 1961   Talk  22:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, article is now ready for the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Chisnall

 * Support Short but appropriate depth of coverage; referenced.  Spencer T• C 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a nicely formatted and sufficiently (for RD) in-depth sports bio. TJMSmith (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helmut Winschermann

 * Support - Conductor until his death at 100...wow. Sufficiently referenced. CoatCheck (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support short but sufficient for RD, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  20:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh Newell Jacobsen

 * Support - meets criteria, sufficient referenced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Turkish Air Force helicopter crash

 * We generally do not post military craft disasters that involve military personnel include high-ranking ones, as that's usually considered part of their duty. --M asem (t) 18:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning oppose I struggle to want to post this as it did gain attention internationally with AP & Reuters creating articles which are sourced in the Wiki article, but at the same time, I don't know if this qualifies for ITN. I know 2020 ROCAF UH-60M crash wasn't ITN worthy, which was a military helicopter crash that killed 7.  That 2020 crash also has a reuters article sourced.  (Also for editors wondering why I keep using AP/Reuters, it is because a large scale survey years ago found them to be the most trustworthy and neutral English news outlets). Elijahandskip (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comment of Masem, I would agree, it is part of their duty. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per above. Military air accidents are fairly common, even those involving multiple fatalities. Unless this has some kind of further impact (e.g. leading to a diplomatic crisis or the grounding of aircraft) I don't think this qualifies for posting. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose sadly not totally unexpected part of the job. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Military work is dangerous and they assume risks like this when taking the job(unlike passenger aircraft). If the general who tragically perished had an article, it could be posted to RD, but that's probably the only way something about this tragedy would make it. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even agree for "just a general" with an article. I would really only see it be posted if it was the top headline in a lot of RS (aka it would have to be a better story for the media than politics) or if a countries top brass had a member die (For America, like one of the 6 members of the General staff, aka the top from each branch). Elijahandskip (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant that an article about the general would be posted as an RD, not that it would merit this crash posting. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. My bad. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is sufficient, and there's evidence of significant news coverage. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to it not being notable enough for ITN. It's notable enough for an article, but there's nothing that makes it of interest to ITN. An ordinary military crash with a low death toll is nothing remarkable, unless the crash is caused deliberately, or civilians are also killed - neither of which is the case in this instance. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous and others. Not noticeably in the news either. (Also, pic shows German chopper, not a Turkish-owned one.) – Sca (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The caption on image says "A AS532 Cougar, similar to the helicopter that crashed"- I'm guessing we don't have an image of a Turkish one, but the German one is the same model? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The same model in different national markings doesn't illustrate the article. (BTW, the AS532 is a French-made helicopter, not German.) – Sca (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A military accident isn't quite significant for ITN. STSC (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What attention is needed here? 331dot (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing it, presumably. I'll give it until 24 hours is up and do so unless something major changes. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone's too scared to make obvious decisions now LaserLlegs has made several complaints about "early closures".  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not afraid, but there is some support here. I was planning on something similar to what Black Kite indicated. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) West Bengal Assembly Elections

 * Comment We don't tend to cover local election, even less announcements. --Tone 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A state election is not notable enough for ITN, even if that state has 91 million people. Also, the actual election hasn't taken place yet- if we were to post the election, it would be after the election has happened, and the results announced. Although we only post for nationwide elections. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW oppose Announcement of a candidacy for a local election? Yeah, this isn't getting posted. Mlb96 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benedict J. Fernandez

 * Support looks suitable for RD, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Altobelli

 * Support - meets criteria, sufficient referenced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar protests

 * Oppose (for now) - sources are barely reliable for the amount of Deaths (currently they are all based on statements by HR groups), there is a lot of NPOV Editing ongoing. I see the need and the good faith and I agree but we need more and better sourcing, there is a lot of political activism ongoing. Many recently registered Users adding stuff barely sourced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Advise a revision to Support the United Nations can probably be cited as a reliable source. Moreover, a massacre of this scale probably should be ITNed based on significance. Osunpokeh (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Please take note of WP:SIGHOW 2.The quoted source does not confirm the number of deaths ("...are difficult to confirm"). 3. More important is the quality of the article, see WP:ITN CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Advise a revision to Support; I've sorted out the remaining tags, added citations, and removed unverifiable text where needed. I believe I've made a good compromise in terms of the infobox fatalities, which there's plenty of precedence for. Uses x (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - certainly meets significance for ITN and the article is well referenced and updated. NPOV problems appear to be over. Uses x (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , NPOV problems seem to be over? The article is everything but not well referenced, almost all sources provided do cite third HR organizations, Page has also been requested from several Editors for Protection. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the information the HR organizations provide is correct (that's the question) they're valid sources, bias or not, as long as the bias doesn't enter the article; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. I've added a current event template to confirm the changing information. The requests for page protection have been denied so that's moot, and I don't see enough recent vandalism for that to change. Uses x (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Regarding the page protection: This is not wholesome correct, the first one (different than mine) had been denied, the second one (SPP) only received a bot notification of the first denial, I will bring this eventually to attention tomorrow. Regarding of WP:BIASEDSOURCES are we of the same opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , fyi: Protected. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. First of all, the sources say 38 people died on 3 March, not 50. Secondly, there is only a few lines of text about these 38 deaths in that article- most of the article text is related to the ongoing protests, which are already in the ITN Ongoing section. I don't see enough coverage and article updates to justify an ITN blurb in addition to the mention in ITN Ongoing section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only way I would switch to support is if enough content about it emerges that it warrant multiple paragraphs in the general 2021 Myanmar protests article, or it becomes notable enough for an independent article that is more than just a stub. Neither of which looks remotely like happening right now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fatality count has been updated in the article, with a number verified by the United Nations Human Rights chief. I've expanded the fatalities to list 3 people (all I could find info on), one of whom is a politician from the opposition party which is notable. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced sanctions specifically over the deaths (added to the article), and the deaths are fueling further protests, so the deaths themselves are notable. Uses x (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Alt1 – Number of new fatalities significant; leads most Eng.-lang. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Citation of your previously mentioned AP source: "...though accounts are difficult to confirm inside the country." Furthermore the number of fatalities does not bring an article automatically into ITN - significance AND article quality are essential WP:ITN. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, but it's prominently in the news and given the sudden (Wed.) increase in mortality the topic is timely and significant enough to remove from the obscurity of Ongoing and feature on the Main Page again. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The increase in mortality overnight clearly makes this blurbable rather than leaving in ongoing. I see about 3 tagged sources needing improved reliability but that's a drop in the bucket in terms of overall sourcing quality. --M asem (t) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's enough exposure in the ongoing section. STSC (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Having that much protester deaths in this region is noteworthy, and should be included in ITN.  Mario Jump  83!  06:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article had been protected for recurring Disruptive Editing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In international news and it's a big story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are citation needed and several tags in main article. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article was mentioned a couple of minutes ago in Wikipedias Twitter feed (!?!) CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not, it's been on the main page for a few weeks now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do not read the main page but I am wondering why to discuss this thread here when somewhere else it is posted without obviously asking the community. So I asked for the policy who decides how and when is something posted to Twitter. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation runs that account. We on ITN have nothing to do with it. --WaltCip- (talk)  15:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Àlex Casademunt

 * Nom. Comment I think it's now fully referenced. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Needs a bit of translation work, such as On 18 January 2018 was born his only daughter, Bruna, fruit of his relationship with Laia. I applaud nom for doing the citation work. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * cleaned. Please take a look. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Attention required It seems pretty ready, if anyone else can take a look it would be great. Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, well known singer in Spain. Article in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The English is still `non-native' in many places. The lead has "who emerged from the musical contest", for starters.  The personal section should be arranged in chronological order.  And so on.  73.81.124.183 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * NOM. COMMENT Personal life is updated. I know he's not an American or British guy, but his page has been very close or fully ready for hours. If people can improve its grammar, please do it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good enough, I don't see any glaring problems with grammar. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Barber

 * Support, looks fine, was surprised how short it is. I believe OBE doesn't belong under Private life, would specify partnerships as musical, and don't think time is "leading up", but that's peanuts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, have addressed the peanuts. Looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bunny Wailer

 * Oppose Needs citations. Don't know exactly why nom removed the citations template I placed; I have added it back again and marked the text needing citations. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assessed the situation as improved, but thank you for the clarification. --hydrox (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It's quite unfortunate that the article is very short without much verification, Wailer was a very influential person in his field. Hopefully, the article will soon be improved. User talk:reallylazy • 12:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Much improved. 10 albums left to source, but uncontentious and should not be too difficult. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks better now. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Imperial County car crash

 * Comment Barring massive car accidents (multivehicle), we generally do not post accidents involving private vehicles. Also, we'd probably not even have an article on such an accident in the first place per NOT#NEWS (it is not the type of thing that would get investigated by a gov't board like planes, trains, or even commercial boats). --M asem (t) 00:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A bus accident kills 19 in Hong Kong --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Public transit is not private. There would be an investigation of such a public transit crash. --M asem (t) 00:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hong Kong bus was run by a private operator, not a government entity. Also The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said it will investigate a fatal highway crash in California on Tuesday that killed at least 13 people. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in case your watchlist shows a different view of the encyclopedia than mine does, a great deal of editing activity on this site is wasted on mindlessly parroting today's or yesterday's headlines with little regard for the big picture. For example, I get tired of being told that people who have been notable for decades aren't actually notable simply because the mainstream media quit writing about them by the time Wikipedia came along, then they die and all of a sudden they're notable if their death resulted in a headline, leading to a turd of an article reflecting that coverage of their death but laughable when judged as a biography.  Maybe the overall problem needs to be addressed instead of pooh-poohing every little example. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the first people in line that WP has a problem with how most handle NOT#NEWS. We can keep articles up-to-date with breaking news that we know is of encyclopedic value (such major corporate mergers or a movie winning a major award) and include breaking events that we know will have long-term impacts (eg like the Jan 6 Capitol riots or a major aircraft disaster). But we have a problem that people see the minute in the news and feel the need to write about it, leading to articles that are filled with proseline and timelines and non-encyclopedic coverage of events at the end of the day. Traffic accidents involving private vehicles rarely are of encyclopedic nature because there won't be any long-tail coverage of the event. It may make the news but its not encyclopedic. --M asem (t) 02:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of point you're making about ITN's tendency to post so-called "disaster stubs", LaserLegs? P-K3 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They crammed 27 people into a vehicle built for 8, and crashed it. This is probably the most notable vehicle crash to be nominated in a decade. Also, while CalTrans isn't releasing details, the Mexican Consulate has been contacted which means the victims were more than likely illegals. I'll forgive you for assuming bad faith on my part. Also, I'm working on adding a map, I just struggle with that template. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bus crash klaxon. As it did in 2018 and last year. Brandmeistertalk  00:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a tragedy, and a story I saw in the US news. However, apart from MINIMUMDEATHS argument, there's no claim of impact yet.  The article is definitely a stub. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose—I'm not even sure that the article would survive AfD at this juncture. Without some lasting impact, the situation isn't that noteworthy. (It's still a tragedy though.)  Imzadi 1979  →   01:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Schoharie limousine crash went before AFD and easily survived, but that didn't stop it from dying at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A dreadful tragedy but long term impact is highly doubtful. I concur with Imzadi1979 in questioning whether it would pass WP:EVENT. Basically it's a bad traffic accident. Sorry, those happen every day all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a "disaster stub" which has literally zero encyclopedic value. This probably deserves deletion, likely to be covered by a single sentence in a list article somewhere about routine traffic accidents in the US.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN worthy, more likely to succeed at AFD than ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Given the number of passengers and the size of the vehicle, it seems likely that some, if not most, would have been children. This has obvious tie-ins with illegal immigration and child trafficking. So, not really a "routine traffic accident". There may be more to this story, and I'd ask that we leave it open for the time being. No one would describe the Essex lorry deaths being confined to accidents or vehicles.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No they wouldn't. That was the murder/manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese people. Certainly not a highway accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is important enough to post & easily important enough for an article - regardless of its location. It was a serious crime as well as an accident. Had the SUV driver survived, he'd have very likely been sent to prison for years. He squeezed 25 people (including himself) into a vehicle made for 8, in which most of the seats had been removed to cram more people in. Even if the victims were neither illegal immigrants nor working illegally, the circumstances make this an unusual crash. Jim Michael (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's an overloaded vehicle and some people died.  If this had happened anywhere but the US it would just be dismissed as "meh, another road traffic accident because people were being stupidly negligent".  The article is flimsy "an accident happened, the road was closed, someone said it was sad, people are being informed".  This has practically no encyclopedic value:  it wouldn't make the top 50,000 news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 14:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Briefly in the news in California but of no major significance.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know we desperately need blurbs to post, but this stub might not even pass WP:EVENT, let alone have enough significance to justify posting in ITN. If we had a blurb for every car crash with ~a dozen deaths, ITN would be a continual stream of bus and coach crashes from around the world. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vernon Jordan

 * Support – notable and I've added more references to the article, it's in a good shape and suitable for ITN. Vacant0 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The first paragraph in the "Legal career and activism" section has no citations. Mlb96 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – A somewhat fading household name in the U.S., but perhaps not widely known enough elsewhere for a blurb. – Sca (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose That paragraph does need citing, and the lead is rather short too.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * References and lead text added. Vacant0 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, thanks.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Good enough.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talk • contribs)
 * One small bone I have to pick is with the sentence In 1998 Jordan helped Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern, after she left the White House. Helped her with what? If my memory of 1998 is correct, he helped her find a job, but given the nature of that situation, we should be spelling it out more clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, find a job and he recommended an attorney she briefly used. I've added that.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted All issues resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment There are two unreferenced awards. One of which which was sneakily linked to a reference statement, but which was not mentioned in the reference, and another which had no reference at all at time of posting.130.233.2.122 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Refs added.  Spencer T• C 21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian St John

 * Support Nothing major uncited, looks ok for RD, RIP JW 1961   Talk  10:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets Criterias, well referenced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Lettlerhello • contribs 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Toko Shinoda

 * Support Short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - well sourced and detailed enough for RD. TJMSmith (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zlatko Kranjčar

 * Oppose Needs refs. Weak oppose still needs a few more citations. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks citations. Vacant0 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, I have stripped the article back a good bit and sourced what I could. How do you feel about the article now? Govvy (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still some sentences that need to be sourced such as the ones under "Club career and Early years". Rest of the article seems perfectly fine. If this gets fixed I'll be changing my vote to Support. Vacant0 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had a good go at trying to find sources for Early years section, but seem to be failing there for some reason, and struggling with the language barrier, the club career, I've added a few more sources. I feel the article is good enough for ITN RD. But that's my opinion. I really have tried hard to make the article better today. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I managed to find some sources. The article is well-sourced now. Vacant0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sourced now and suitable for ITN. Vacant0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is nearly there but only 1 of the 22 honours he received is cited, will support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some problems still; what JW noted and the fact that chunks of the prose are still uncited. Will also support if these issues are fixed, and maybe the lead could be expanded. Lettlerhello • contribs 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, I've expanded the lead paragraph and added more citations, have sourced most of the honours section. Hope that helps. The article still probably needs work on, but surely it must be good enough now for ITN RD, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support nicely improved article JW 1961   Talk  15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Added a bunch of refs so awards and gaps in the coaching sections are addressed. Would like there to be more depth about his 10-year playing career at Dinamo Zagreb instead of an overall stats summary, but his coaching career seems fully fleshed out.  Spencer T• C 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy corruption trial

 * Did we not post his conviction? I don't recall. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. He's been sentenced to jail, but the sentence is suspended and experts don't think he'll spend any time behind bars, so it seems a bit misleading at present &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He was only found guilty today, per this Guardian article. As the verdict is arguably the bigger story, I've suggested an alternative blurb - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I might support posting the conviction of a former head of state, especially for conduct while in office, but as Jayron ably notes below, there are other issues. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There are two bolded articles. One (on the trial) is insufficiently short, and the other (Sarkozy's bio itself) barely mentions the most recent developments, and has almost no coverage of the trial itself.  There's nothing as yet worth posting on the main page.  If either or both of these problems are fixed, I will re-assess the quality of the articles.  Right now, we don't have anything worth posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , your !vote sounds like a wait instead of an oppose. You should change it as an oppose seems more like you fully oppose the topic on ITN rather than article quality.  Elijahandskip (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's an oppose vote, because we should not post articles which are not up to quality. I have not ever opposed a "topic" on ITN, and I don't plan to any time in the future.  Article quality and coverage by reliable sources are the only criteria I use when assessing the appropriateness for the main page.  This one does not have quality articles, so I will oppose it until such time as it does have quality articles.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the quality issues of the articles above. The trial article is far too short as standalone and feels it belongs inside one of the Sarkozy's main articles, but Sarkozy's article is woefully undersourced too. In principal, the conviction and sentencing of a former world leader - even if that sentence is likely to be commuted - is still ITN worthy material but this has a ways to go to get there. --M asem (t) 15:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – pending article improvement — Widely covered as the significant conviction of the former head of govt. of a major state on criminal charges stemming from events while he was in office. Two former associates also convicted. That Sarkozy probably won't serve actual jail time is beside the point. – Sca (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support pending improvements Head of state sentenced to jail time, big [bleep]ing deal. Articles need to be better per Sca, Masem et al, but once thats done absolutely This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality It is extremely rare for a former G8 head of state to be sentenced to a jail term, so I believe this is significant enough for ITN. Regrettably, the trial article is not sufficient quality, and Sarkozy's article is lacking a ton of citations in the political career section. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if blurb is revised. I will eat my chapeau if he does a single day in prison; I don’t want the casual reader to come away with the recollection that Sarko went to jail when we don’t know that. However I do find the conviction itself noteworthy regardless of what happens next and pending referencing, strongly support a blurb that just mentions the conviction. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support on significance, currently oppose on quality. I would recommend merging the corruption trial page into Nicolas Sarkozy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But he's appealing against the conviction. STSC (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article on the criminal case itself is a stub that could be written on one page of a diary. Unfortunately none of Wikipedia's politics buffs have had the interest in a case involving the former head of state of a G8 country that they had in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals (48k), Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (128k) or Traingate (31k) Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. Sarkozy's article has one short paragraph on this topic, and the stand-alone article is a stub with barely any more information. Given the reams of sources on this high-profile case and trial, there really should be more substantive content before posting. If that can be fixed, the conviction of a recent ex-President seems highly significant and worthy of posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Five days later, the article is still a one-paragraph stub. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irv Cross

 * Comment - Why is this under March 1? It's still February 28 in the USA (as on when this was nominated)! 45.251.33.224 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates under GMT time. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But I thought that RDs followed local time? I guess we learn something new everyday... 45.251.33.224 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're meant to follow UTC but many people, even admins it seems, sometimes forget and revert to putting them under local time. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's too much overhead when the article and sources lists the local date.—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support To the point and suitably referenced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose He had an 8 year NFL playing career including 2 Pro Bowl appearances, but the prose section on his playing career has no information about that. Instead, it only covers times he was traded. Insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 05:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Playing and broadcasting career has been sufficiently expanded. Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be referenced, so I'm giving this one a yes. Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Parliament House rape allegations

 * We're not going to post allegations due to WP:BLP concerns. If there are arrests/resignations/convictions then maybe. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we don't post allegations, and this is precisely the kind of nomination which should be snow-closed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently just allegation, and so WP:BLP concerns about posting it. Also, and much less importantly, the article is just a stub. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)