Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2020

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

(Posted) RD: Jayanendra Chand Thakuri

 * Weak oppose pretty stubby for me, what's there appears okay but very brief. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have added more info to the page. The article meets the requirements to be nominated for DYK.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  14:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's still short once you eliminate the lead (which only should summarise the article) and the filmog table. But what's there appears to be satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short but sufficient JW 1961   Talk  16:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support: per others, short but what there is looks ok. Some suggestions: (1) It is a pity that nothing is explicitly said about when he was born, although age at death and categorisation do seem to imply a view. (I have seen the talk page discussion.) (2) Given that he apparently became an actor in his 40s, it is a pity that nothing is said about the circumstances. (3) If his first film was in 1982 and his last in 2012, it seems a stretch to say he was "acting for almost four decades". (4) If Jeevan Rekha is a notable work of Nepali cinema, as a talk page commenter seems to suggest, there is (I think) no shame in having a red link to it, particularly if that encouraged someone to create that article. (Although CAPTAIN MEDUSA needs no hinting on content creation, so feel free to ignore.) -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mady Mesplé

 * Oppose as it stands, a lot of the prose is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet the requirements now, good work on the updates Gerda Arendt. - Indefensible (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – well referenced; looks good to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fabio Lombini

 * If this is an RD nomination, no blurb is necessary. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ow, yes, sorry. Was supposed to be my “comment”. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Converted to RD per discussion.130.233.2.88 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. One hundred and sixty words. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Osia Lewis

 * Weak supprt pretty much a CV with not much else, but what's there looks alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christo

 * Oppose - article has multiple issues which must be addressed before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality alone - the article is long, but it seems to have many issues. By the way, shouldn’t the "Early Life" section be before the "Marriage and Career" section? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  03:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  Weak Support - article is in acceptable shape now, but would need some more sourcing to be completely acceptable.  RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  04:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article and its tags has been updated, if you'll revisit. To the question, no, the early lives of the artists need not precede their careers, which is the focus of the article. czar  04:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Czar, good work with the updates but still not ready in my opinion, there is much that currently does not look referenced. - Indefensible (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inline external links and unreferenced awards. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm, you mean those two external links, both in the awards section? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm, yes? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , after much ado, fully sourced now, if you'll revisit czar  06:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good for a near-iconic artist. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He was quite a wrap star, all right. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - good enough now. Ever had a case where you changed your vote on an RD twice? RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks like it meets the requirements now, good work on the updates. - Indefensible (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Norman Lamm

 * Oppose article is a mess, also for the record, oppose blurb should by some miracle the article gets polished sufficiently.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near qualifying for blurb - not even the leader of a minor religion in one country. Oppose RD at the moment, it looks to be improved since TRM's comment, but its referencing is still a mess. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - suffers from long article curse; the more material the article has, the more referencing is required and thus the more likely it will not meet on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – At 2,800 words this seems overlong for an RD-only nom. (BTW, includes "Writings by relatives" section of questionable relevance.) – Sca (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the small point, but the length of an article in words doesn't really have a bearing on its suitability for RD specifically, unless it's too short of course. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but it seems like overkill – and I, too, would oppose a blurb. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article has been update and I think it is OK for an RD at this time. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still a considerable amount of unsourced material. Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Gauthier

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced short article JW 1961   Talk  15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet the requirements, good work with the updates Bloom6132. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - please see post timing of Jerzy Pilch's entry before bumping him off, or expand list temporarily again. Thanks in advance. - Indefensible (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yawovi Agboyibo

 * Weak support one "myth" cn in there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support fairly well referenced article but the sentence about the myth should be removed if not cited JW 1961   Talk  15:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sentence re: myth removed. - Indefensible (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Nzenze

 * Support – well referenced. It would be nice though to have a sentence in the prose on his death (when, where, age and perhaps cause if one is given). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Hassan Hosny

 * Oppose filmography unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have adjusted the section accordingly and hope for a second look. Droodkin (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both WP:ELP and WP:CITINGIMDB state that you cannot use IMDb as a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale Stephen 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elsa Dorfman

 * Weak support one perm dead ref which needs to be replaced, otherwise satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support added another source where requested above, looks good JW 1961   Talk  21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I changed one section header, but I'm not attached. Nice looking bio. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Morrow

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above JW 1961   Talk  21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Crew Dragon

 * Support article is fine, assuming she goes up only a tense update keeps this off the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Weather looks good so far. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose even if it launches As someone who works in the space industry, this is a huge fucking deal for it, but I'm unsure as to its impact outside of the space industry or the United States. Perhaps something like a Moon return/crewed Mars landing might be better for us. I won't particularly mind being overturned by consensus though, and have added an altblurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Manned spaceflight is on WP:ITNR which means it gets an automatic pass for notability --LaserLegs (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that'll change this decade (since it'll be too common), but duly noted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, unless it's called off in the next 2 minutes. We might want to find a way to note that it's the first private launch rather than calling out the specific company. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's happening Wqwt (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted For changes and updated photos go to WP:ERRORS - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to a more topical one that notes of its importance; "The first crewed orbital mission launched from the United States in nine years commences, with SpaceX's Crew Dragon for NASA". Also swap the featured image with the higher quality File:SpaceX Demo-2 Launch (NHQ202005300041).jpg –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that change given that it's a bit US-centric (I am aware of the "Please do not..." section on the matter, but still) compared to the current blurb. I have no opinion regarding the photos. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what makes it uniquely newsworthy than most human spaceflights, though? ITN is usually stuck-up about items having to be uniquely newsworthy, so being the first American crewed orbital spaceflight in nearly a decade seems to fit that bill. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While that's true (and would itself be noteworthy), the newsworthiness derives from this being SpaceX's first crewed flight, which is in of itself a huge deal in the commercial space industry and thereby more globally than the US; besides, even if the ITN pedants complained about this (as I did earlier), crewed spaceflight is ITNR. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb is absolutely fine as it is. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb is very confusing. I had no idea who SpaceX or NASA was until I clicked the link, only to find out that once again they're in the US which is a great Satan where nothing interesting ever happens. How can I know to oppose and complain about a nom without reading the articles or understanding the subject unless it's clearly labeled "in the US"? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the article is at NASA means the initialism is well understood, perhaps not by you but by the vast majority of readers. The nationalities of this "story" are completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shahine Robinson

 * Weak support last sentence of prose is unreferenced, the rest satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last ref covers that, moved it to the end of the para. - Indefensible (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerzy Pilch

 * Comment – there's still one paragraph and the second last sentence unreferenced. Also, the three books that do not have ISBNs should be referenced some other way. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Bloom6132, unreferenced items have been removed. - Indefensible (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like it meets requirements now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Maikanti Baru

 * Support article just about long enough. I would move the sentence on the death though. Juxlos (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage. His role as Group Managing Director of NNPC seems important; what did he do in that role?  Spencer T• C 15:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now stale. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Twin Cities riots

 * Support - would normally not support this straight away, but this is extraordinary events and escalations.BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question isn't this in the box already? Are you seeking a blurb update? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm proposing to add the riots to the blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the blurb update. Feels like the riots have overshadowed the murder itself in coverage. Juxlos (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a worthy story(ies) for blurbing. ——  Serial # 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the confluence not only of the riots, but the arrests of the CNN crew, Trump's response which Twitter flagged tied to Section 230 stuff - all literally overnight - its a mess and agreed now this is much larger than the actual death issue. --M asem  (t) 16:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but some of the details in the the Death of George Floyd article should be trimmed. There is pretty significant duplication in both articles. TJMSmith (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - It is notable for inclusion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Does the name Philando Castile ring a bell, by any chance? – Sca (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update – Fired police officer Derek Chauvin charged with murder, manslaughter in George Floyd death. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is true, but the protests are the news item not the police brutality nor the charges against the officer. No need to update the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also remember: we usually only post on conviction, not arrest. --M asem (t) 05:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Update as the protests (and rioting) seem to have spread to other cities across the US (AP reports clashes in Atlanta and NYC), should this link to the national-leval article George Floyd protests instead? Juxlos (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The protest article is not in good shape to be linked, but I have devised a solution by bringing some of the most notable/worst cases of those incidents into the riots article so that the highlighted article is covering them, so that we not buried the nationwide violence going on in the main topic story. --M asem (t) 05:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Absolutely no media mention where I come from of "Twin Cities". What is that? Described exclusively as being "Minneapolis". Any chance we can change this to a more globally recognisable name? Because "Twin Cities" simply isn't in the news here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a comment for Talk:Twin Cities riots where several RM discussions are taking place &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not. That page is a mess, with all sorts of RM discussions (as you say) and none of them to what I'm suggesting. We can fix this bit ourselves. I checked all the sources at the top of this nomination. The first is paywalled, so I have no idea what it says, but all the others describe these riots as being in Minneapolis. No mention of Twin Cities. Minneapolis Riots is already a redirect to Twin Cities riots. For clarity, can we simply change the title of this section to Minneapolis riots? (How did this ever get the name Twin Cities riots in the first place? It obviously doesn't reflect the sources.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A cursory search for "Twin Cities riots" give 25.6 million results, "Minneapolis riots" give 161 million. Juxlos (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have attempted a reword of the blurb (comments invited) but I can't unilaterally move the article. That will have to wait for the RM to conclude. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Abderrahmane Youssoufi

 * Support Well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient coverage of the subject's political career; article is essentially a resume in prose format. His work as PM is summarized as "His government provided greater freedoms for the people and media", which is pretty vague IMO.  Spencer T• C 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's sadly true. CoryGlee (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Now stale. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ajit Jogi

 * Oppose Has some but not complete referencing; has a general list of political positions and committees without depth of coverage regarding what the subject did in those roles. Controversies section shows some depth of coverage but isn't really balanced by what the subject did as a politician (and thus could possibly be UNDUE, but due to the limited detail elsewhere in the article).  Spencer T• C 21:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now stale. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Alexander (artist)

 * Support pretty well referenced and updated article JW 1961   Talk  18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage of the subject; article seems to be essentially a resume in prose format, with a mild scattering of additional details. Would like to know about the artists' themes in his work.  Spencer T• C 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've started a new "Themes" section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. No objection after being ready for 14 hours, so posting.  Spencer T• C 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation

 * Comment: I think "pass…a law" should really read "approved a decision to draft and enact a [whatever] law", since the decision, as noted on the talk page, is not the law. Also, surely "autonomous from", not "autonomous to"? Docentation (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for the feedback. — RealFakeKim  T  10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Question What does "agree to a decision to draft and enact" mean in China? Is the law on the books today or not? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The decision authorises a separate body to start writing the actual law. It isn't really in and of itself much of a law in the ordinary sense; we can think of it more as a statement of intent, albeit one with legal effect. The national security law that will follow hasn't even been written yet. Docentation (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When do government agencies start to carry out the intent of the law? Now, or when it's enacted? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When it's enacted. There may also be new government agencies established, but, again, those will be created after the enactment of the law. Docentation (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case I'm leaning more towards wait for it to actually come into force, or if it's posted now then to not post it again as it moves through the legislative process --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, interesting suggestion. Perhaps you're right—maybe we should wait. I think the furore itself might be worth covering, but that's not as clear cut. (Obviously in that case my initial alt. IV is fairly unhelpful, so I'll change it.) Docentation (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose in it's current state 2/3 of the article is "background" and "responses" filler and while some domestic responses are pertinent, a lot of it is just fluff. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should say that the background/legal authority section is not just about background, and most of it in fact is pretty directly germane to the decision, in that it concerns whether or not the decision was constitutionally permissible. I agree that much of the "response" section is fluff, but at least the US international response section is probably worth including, in that more than words could follow. Docentation (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That Dotard and his lackeys would use any excuse they can to antagonize the PRC should surprise no one. The US has zero credibility in this regard. I retract my objection to the background section, upon reflection, you are correct. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the reaction section quite a bit. I wouldn't say it was fluff so much as inflated—I think it was more that undue weight was given to it, in that that section was far too long. I've cut it down so that now it's clear that many countries have opposed it without having to duplicate mostly fairly similar statements for each. And yes, as for the Trump stuff, it seems quite probable that there will be more than words here, and the conflict will escalate quite a bit, so it is worth leaving in the different steps—decertification of autonomy, proposals to impose sanctions, etc.—though I did remove some duplication and Trump asking exactly what was going on in his usual, er, bombastic fashion; we now have better idea from his officials of what exactly will be done. Docentation (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The proposed blurbs are too arcane - which I suppose is residue of the Chinese legislative process. The only think concrete at this stage is Pompeo's decertification - that might be a good way to position.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So would you be more comftuble with something like United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed Congress that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous from China (Im guessing Hong Kong would be the target article in that case) — RealFakeKim  T  13:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, except the target would still need to be the law... it's tricky.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Agree that the suggested blurbs are too diffuse and prolix (as is the title of this nom.). Most of the mainstream coverage I've seen hangs its hat on a simple idea – usually the move to "make insulting China’s national anthem a criminal offense" (Time). – Sca (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The National Anthem Bill and the national security decision are two separate things that shouldn't be conflated. Docentation (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but the blurbs are lengthy (the protests should not be bolded, for example) and the quality of the articles is subpar. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, not a big fan of the blurbs though. Needs something more concise, something that's both not too long and yet clarifies what's at stake. Rami R 15:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added alt3 as a concise alternative; please tweak if the phrasing is inaccurate. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Made it more neutral as it doesn't do that on paper but probably will in practices. — RealFakeKim  T  17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's enacted, or they've decided to draft legislation? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this question yet: the decision is a legal decision saying China is allowing itself to make a law (that Hong Kong's Basic Law says only Hong Kong should be able to). So they've enacted that bit of legal text, and can in the future can use it to pass a security law. I don't think they've yet decided to draft legislation, but the point is they're deconstructing Hong Kong's independent laws. Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment yet another alternative, hopefully sufficiently clear, but more accurate. Docentation (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. This is a significant story with major implications for Hong Kong's autonomy, but all that has happened so far is the rubber-stamping of permission to draft a security law that the central government is threatening to impose. If/when that law is actually completed and imposed on Hong Kong, that will be a major development worth posting in ITN. Mere formalities around the drafting process are not. We should wait until the law is implemented or there are major public protests (minor ones have begun). Modest Genius talk 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that given China's political system, this would not be occurring if there was any chance the government would reject this effort. Their legislature is a rubber-stamp body. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, I should say that the US reaction is possibly newsworthy. Docentation (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's the point. The decision had already been taken privately; the NPC vote is just a rubber-stamp. Why post the stage that was never in any doubt? Modest Genius talk 20:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * China has a habit of doing this sort of thing in an incremental way that prevents people from taking note until it's all over. When would you have it posted?  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above: when the law actually comes into force, or when large-scale protests erupt. ITN's role is to post important events, not minor ones that seem to be a step on the way to something significant. Modest Genius talk 11:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For now. The law is not in effect yet. Until that happens I don’t see a reason to post.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until actually enacted. Gotitbro (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree this is a news item to post once it is enacted, but it does not appear to be close to that at this point. --M asem (t) 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is tagged and under review at DRN. It's a well-covered topic that would be posted quickly here but for wont of a suitable article. The comment above, to the effect that subject's political system operates incrementally and thus necessarily never affords a watershed moment for posting, is spot on. "Wait" is the wrong response, but the article has to be at least free of tags. Edit history suggests that article could use some pp.130.233.2.88 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment—in view of developments a few hours ago I have altered Alt. IV. Also, I think the article has now been cleaned up to a reasonable extent. The reaction section is fairly short and concise, especially in the statements subsection. Most of the space is dedicated to actual policy responses. The factual accuracy dispute has been resolved. The earlier background/legal authority section mostly concerns whether the decision's proposals are constitutional, so aren't just about earlier developments. Docentation (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (alt. IV)—suspension of HK trade status is reasonably impactful. There is an article about the thing that triggered this (the decision to draft and enact the law), and there is something reasonably newsworthy. Docentation (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Shrubb

 * Support - Short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Biff Pocoroba

 * Support - Seems ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Short but well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Johnson

 * Weak oppose one or two citations missing and a few inline external links which need to be converted to references or moved to the "External links" section. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed – added a couple of citations, converted the inline external links into refs, and removed an unsourced statement that turned out to be false. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, support. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as it is now a pretty well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  11:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Crew Dragon

 * Comment: we should focus on Crew Dragon Demo-2 as the target article in bold. It needs a little bit of work but we have an hour and half. ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. The exact details and blurb may need amendment if the launch doesn't go to plan.  If it's aborted then we'd probably have to leave it for now but we shall see. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; the article on this launch specifically should be the target article.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Put it up tomorrow if we can, today's launch has been scrubbed. Neverbuffed (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scrubbed at T -16, alas. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest close without prejudice and renominating on launch. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Crew Dragon Demo-2 is decent, few CN tags I added but even without refs the passages aren't scandalous. A bit proseline-y and we should wait until the actual launch before posting (which I admit is in 15 minutes) due to the possibility of a weather related scrub. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Kramer

 * Oppose There are cite tags to take care of. P-K3 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He was one of the most important activists in the AIDS Crisis in the US. Fwiw, I'll spend some time on fixing refs over the next few hours. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs fixing of a few cn tags, otherwise appears fine. Gotitbro (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've tagged it, plenty of unreferenced material in there, including awards.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once the citation tags are addressed. Would consider a blurb. TJMSmith (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He founded ACT UP and was a crucial HIV+/AIDS activist. Open to a blurb-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment there are still quite a few cn's in there, will support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  11:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there's quite a long way to do quality-wise. It's all very well people saying they want a blurb, but the article needs to be fixed first.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've provided refs for all the remaining cn notes that hadn't already been caught. (Kudos to, , and  in pticlr for their work in the last 24 hours.) I'm sure there will be other aspects of the article that can be improved before it could go to WP:GAN, but I'd suggest it might be good enough for ITN now? —   OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now properly referenced, it certainly meets the ITN standard. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irm Hermann

 * Support, looks good now. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: agree - life and work described; adequately supported by range of sources -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking ready, cannot see a lack of consensus -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding a lot, especially films! Added to updaters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

. El_C 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prahlad Jani
Support: Life described; adequately sourced. A reasonable balance seems to have been achieved on some extraordinary claims. Some minor copyediting has been done. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking ready, even if I am the only person to have read it -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arumugam Thondaman

 * Posted Stephen 04:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Costa Rica marriage equality

 * Weak Oppose Article has a good explanation of the context for the delays following the ruling in 2018. Would like to see a little more reaction to the recent events.  Spencer T• C 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the 28th country to legalise is rather unremarkable. Stephen 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is the first country in Central America with marriage equality -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Taiwan was in the news in 2019 for being the first country in Asia to do so, I don't see why it wouldn't apply for the first country in another region to do so. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The regionalism of acceptance must be noted - check out the maps here. Central America, Africa and Asia are dead zones.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news, the article is interesting and is good enough to post. Ticks enough boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If it was nth country in Europe I’d oppose, but I think first in a continent Central America is significant. Article looks good. P-K3 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - continent?  starship .paint  (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I misinterpreted it as being first in Central or South America, sorry.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - first in Central America is remarkable.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen and TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - historic first time.BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support first in Central America. Article is well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. First in Central America, and our article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good and this is an important milestone. Neutralitytalk 14:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good news, but not particularly remarkable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, still a major piece of news, especially since Costa Rica is a majority Catholic country. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Central America is not known for their support of same-sex marriage, even with the IACHR nudging them in that direction at the request of Costa Rica, so this is definitely historic for the region. Nihlus  15:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - such a privileged position to call this "unremarkable". Rami R 15:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is rather unusual for the region and is a major piece of news, I don't see the harm in adding it. The article is up to standard as well. Spengouli (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready Clear consensus, article is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle, needs a better blurb. We're long past the stage when every country that legalises same-sex marriage should be in ITN, but this is a regional first and we do have a lack of other stories during the pandemic. However, 'marriage equality' is a very bad way of phrasing the blurb - make sure it's clear this is same-sex marriage we're talking about. I expected the article to have a more substantial update, but as this has been scheduled since 2018 I suppose that's allowable. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support For the first time in Central America. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * tweaked blurb in line with suggestions by Modest Genius &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Mbulu

 * Support Was just about to nominate this myself now people have updated it and added more sources. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – well referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been ready for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Bailey (author)

 * Weak oppose alles in Ordnung other than the list of publications is not referenced. ISBNs are fine, but many don't have those. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added ISBNs for the ones that have them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all the other publications are now referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the moment. Very first ref on spot check was a dead link (6, now tagged). Will come back to this later.130.233.3.56 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed ref 6. The lead does not need to have citations, and the information is already cited later on in the article (the NYT obit above at ref 10). —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting striking my oppose. Good work.130.233.2.88 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support Intro has info that could be better put in the body of the article (e.g. names of his children), but should be more or less good to go. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just moved the names of his children to the body and added a ref for that (since specific names aren't mentioned in the existing ref provided). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment has been ready for 8 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 21:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stanley Ho

 * Comment: Some remaining CN tags as well as a resume style position list (Stanley_Ho) that's almost entirely uncited.  Spencer T• C 19:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the citation needed tags, and improved the overall citations of the article. --Dps04 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good and meet the requirements --Tensa Februari (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Significant COVID death, face of gambling in Macau. Gotitbro (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Renate Krößner

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of George Floyd

 * Comment: Per In_the_news/Recent_deaths (specifically "Death as the main story"), I think this should be a blurb nomination rather than for RD.  Spencer T• C 03:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not think that George Floyd's death is so significant until it warrants a blurb.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After my above comment, protests outside Minneapolis have sharply increased the event's significance.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Given wide international coverage of event and subsequent protests.  Spencer T• C 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The instructions for RD blurbs leave the possibility open. However, the examples given in the instructions presume that the subject was notable beyond the death itself, and that the death should be unusual, or otherwise require explanation. For a BLP1E, the E being death, I think the suitable avenue is a regular blurb. What did we do for Freddy Grey et al? Additionally, the article is written as an event article, not a BLP. I humbly suggest that an admin convert this to a regular blurb nom.130.233.3.56 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD per protocol and oppose blurb per standard police brutality outcomes, nothing really novel here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the "riots" escalate to any real level of significance, and someone proposes a newsworthy blurb, and it has encyclopedic value and longevity and relevance to an encyclopedia rather than just being a tabloid report of yet more disgust at American racist police brutality, I would re-consider. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If we judge that the event itself is not significant enough to warrant a blurb, then it would seem to follow that the decedent does not have sufficient notability to get an RD (per BLP1E). I think the circumstances here are a little beyond standard, and the article is good.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not eligible for RD as it is an event, and I don’t support a blurb. P-K3 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's really a shame. Unfortunately, police brutality events in the U.S. are almost as common as mass shootings there.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing remarkable comes out of the US. It's the most boring place there is. More things happen in Antarctica, hell Ganymede has more remarkable shit going on there. Mass shootings, cops killing African-Americans, hurricanes, blizzards, 100k people watching unpaid amateurs pass a football with their bare hands live, LeBron's hairline receding, those things happen everyday. When is the next European election? Next month? Lovely. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get my violin. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it's at all the main national news sources in the Netherlands (I live in the Netherlands). NOS NU.nl, AD.nl, Parool. So I assume in all/most other countries. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with arguments that this is not significant enough, but suggestions that police brutality is commonplace are missing the point. It is the specific circumstances at play that make it significant, and those are very unique here. I cannot think of another occurrence (even Garner) where the evidence of wrongdoing was so clear, nor the action against the killers so swift.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either RD (WP:IAR) or blurb. This is newsworthy and we have a decent article. I strongly disagree with the notion that just because a tragedy is "commonplace", we shouldn't post the highest-profile cases. This is getting attention all over the world for how clearly wrongful the officers' actions were, and their quick firing (compared to the Garner case). Davey2116 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Protests have started breaking out, maybe you guys might want to consider placing a blurb like "Protests break out in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd". And the point here is not police brutality being commonplace – it's about the notability. This incident has been splashed all over the news on an international scale, you can't deny that it is huge. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The death of George Floyd and the resulting protests are receiving significant coverage in the U.S. especially, but also internationally (Reuters), including in the UK (BBC, The Guardian, The Independent), France (France 24, Le Monde), Spain (El Mundo, El País), and South Korea (The Dong-a Ilbo, Kyunghyang Shinmun). — Matthew  - (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which blurb are you supporting? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)\
 * Something along the lines of "Protests break out following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota." — Matthew  - (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. But those "protests" obviously aren't convenient in the evenings, nothing substantial right?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading my idea for a blurb, I think what I wrote places too much emphasis on the ensuing protests. I think the death of George Floyd is the primary topic of interest here, rather than the protests. I was just trying to come up with a blurb with wording that didn't make it seem as though the reader is supposed to already know who Floyd is (see Kingsif's comment). Perhaps something like "Four police officers are fired and protests occur following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota" would be preferable. — Matthew  - (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With further protests occurring and a blurb about the situation now posted in ITN, my above comment has become outdated. — Matthew  - (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Changed to weak support - Well, based on the international sources listed here, the rest of the world seems to have taken an extraordinary interest in this particular story. I'll only support this as a blurb, of course, not as an RD. Someone needs to come up with a blurb and adjust the template appropriately.--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's dropped off the BBC in favour of SpaceX scrub, Cummings, and test/track/trace. It was only a byline at best.  Perhaps the UK are more aware of such police brutality and it doesn't strike the UK as abnormal to see this happening there? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated this as a RD but I'm not opposed to other editors changing this template/proposing possible blurbs. Feel free to adjust. TJMSmith (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb almost unconditionally: just make sure it isn't 'George Floyd is killed by police' or similar as if the reader is supposed to already know who he is. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RD only, oppose blurb per TRM remarks on BBC and precedent. Not even the acquittal of George Zimmerman nor the first wave of unrest / protests in Ferguson MO were posted, and those were two heralding events in BLM. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find it a little concerning that certain significant incidents of police brutality were not approved for placement in ITN in the past. Looking back at the archives, I was surprised to learn that not even the death of Eric Garner in 2014 was approved to be posted. Editors who weighed in as opposition on the matter used terms like "parochial" to describe the event and called its nomination "ridiculous", with one editor writing that it was "Hard to believe this was nominated". The shooting of Michael Brown that same year was only approved after a grand jury declined to indict the police officer responsible for his death, and even then, many editors were hesitant about its approval. One editor wrote that Michael Brown's death and the ensuing riots in Ferguson would not be "something we will all remember in a month/year/decade". Well, over five years have passed since those events, and many people still remember them. It's one thing to counter systemic bias by highlighting news with a non-American perspective. I think it's another thing to consistently ignore the ongoing significance of police brutality and racism in the United States. — Matthew  - (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tragic event but unfortunately also routine with no distinctive impact. The police officers were fired, as one would hope and charges may be/likely to be forthcoming Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It doesn't meet the level of newsworthiness as another unfortunate even that was posted. If it becomes something more, it should be reevaluated then. Nihlus  00:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It seems to have become something more rather quickly. Nihlus  13:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suport Protests have turned violent and the event has gained international media attention.   Mccunicano  ☕️  03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – The protests have turned unusually violent. This appears to be notable enough for ITN. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As above. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb does not state the country in which "Minneapolis" or "Minnesota" are located. Chrisclear (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Matthew  - (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * — Global headline coverage of event, meets ITN criteria, and sufficient consensus exists to post this. As always, continued civil discussion on the topic is welcome. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: Significant news coverage on both national and regional US new sources as well as global news sources. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: The section Death_of_George_Floyd has been split into 2020 Twin Cities riots. As several users noted, the significant part of this event is the public reaction. As such, I believe the word "protests" in the blurb should wikilink to 2020 Twin Cities riots: In the United States, protests (pictured) break out following the death of George Floyd during a police arrest in Minneapolis. userdude 07:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I will stress: that split is far too early in this process. Maybe we'll need it, but not yet, there's no size issue. --M asem (t) 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree; however, seeing as the article has already been split, the content from both articles ought to be accessible from the main page. I don't see the relevance of the appropriateness of the split. An inappropriate split should not be an excuse to let content be sequestered away. userdude 07:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The protests are not limited to the Twin Cities. Stephen 07:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, because now if you are going to talk two separate articles, we have to consider the quality of both and there's far too much overlap of these at this time. This is why people need to not worry about adding every little detail ("hyperreporting") that goes one. That there are riots going on, but level of detail is far far too great. Big picture focus is necessary, at this point. If these protests go on for weeks, well after this has dropped off ITN or we've changed the blurb, then a split makes sense. But right not ,half the riot article is being used to cover the death, again, and possibly get away from the protections that were on the death page. --M asem (t) 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Burundian general election

 * Comment The results of general elections in all states on the List of sovereign states are WP:ITN/R. TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Article is pretty close overall, it just lacks a prose summary of the results. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are. :) Assuming an update is made.331dot (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bucky Baxter

 * Support Article seems well-cited throughout, suitable update. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright, a little on the light side, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Balbir Singh Sr.

 * Support Good article. Thought I'd better support this about a genuine champion in a sport that will be largely ignored by our North American colleagues. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that like it's a bad thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reality. Got any thoughts on this nomination? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A genuine article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose A good portion of the article is unreferenced with some sections not being cited at all. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple unsourced statements and sections.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Needs more work. Ping me when done.BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a lot of work on referencing. P-K3 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged calamity. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the name of Donald Trump's debut rap album?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That made my morning.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Best one so far!!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Cobb

 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June A. Willenz

 * I support this nomination. Additionally this specific obituary is currently the most prominent one on the New York Times obituary section. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan High Court orders to release Kaavan

 * Oppose Half of this creature's article is headed "Campaign by Cher." This is tabloid material, which we do not run at ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Even of the article were not so obviously promotional, this is just far too trivial for ITN, though I'm happy for the pachyderm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trabalski by mimooh.svg


 * Oppose – A preposterous pachydermal publicity ploy. – Sca (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Conditional support needs a copyedit for grammar and a few refs added. Seems as notable as anything else we post, is covered by RS, and the reason it's notable is covered sufficiently in the article. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with needed copyedits as noted. A long-running issue being resolved seems notable. There is nothing wrong with posting the occasional unusual story and this one is getting coverage outside of Pakistan, and also involves another country(Sri Lanka, who gave Saturn as a gift) Cher wanting publicity, even if true, is irrelevant; she could have picked any number of causes to do so, but picked this one. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose pure trivia. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Interesting and unusual. Seems weird to have it above the Pakistan air crash, though. WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of Dumbo, too. But if it were ahead of a train crash, it would remind us of Jumbo. If only Cher had acted sooner, elephants and cyclones aren't a trope (or are they?) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Interesting but trivial. I for one don’t want to talk about the elephant in the news room. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:1508:7B1D:4B98:6D5 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I know Covid is taking up most news,  but that I'm seeing  support for this kind of utter tabloid trivia is disturbing.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose to reassure The Rambling Man he is not alone and everything is going to be OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not particularly relevant or significant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think so, fair enough, but it's relevant and significant to animal rights advocates. Significance and relevance are relative and depend on perspective. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per above from a teetotalling vegetarian. Unless people stop eating meat etc, animal rights are often are an unfortunate gimmick Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Saturn

 * An update of the death with a source is needed in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was actually a Russian source in the lead section, but I’ve added an English source to the biography section. P-K3 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great.BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And BBC has now covered. --M asem (t) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Aside from the 80 years spent in a zoo, doing zoo things, this magnificent beast led a remarkable life and left behind a fair enough article. No Margaret Thatcher, though. So yeah, RD only. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Great story, reminds of Unsinkable Sam. Dantheanimator (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support And make it snappy.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No matter how desperate some may be for something 'brite' in in the dreary old ITN box, animal news seems strikingly inappropriate during this time of widespread human death and misery. Poor taste, IMO. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Death and misery have plagued gators for way longer than humans. Natural, routine part of life for everyone. Anyway, nobody here seems desperate, and dead wartime reptiles are dreary (this one was also old, older than Jerry or Ravi, as old as Ashley or Adolfo, bit Ken's junior). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support this is nothing to do with the pandemic, the article is satisfactory and the notability is obvious. Marking as good to go.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, but I oppose blurb. Although a fine gator, he doesn't meet the Thatcher-Mandela standard.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * mini-RFC: As much as I understand there is no such thing as the "Thatcher-Mandela standard," it bothers me these two are put together. Mandela is one of the most consequential figures of the last half century; no one currently living would meet the "Mandela standard." Could we rename it the Thatcher-Reagan standard?   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. One of the main things that's delegitimized this nonexistent "Thatcher-Mandela standard" for me is the tremendous difference in level of importance between those two people. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Hana Kimura

 * Comment What day should this be under? Reported at 13:00 23rd (Japanese time) by Japanese media, but it was still 22nd in the US at that point (Variety posted it at 11:02 PST). Actual date of death unclear. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the time in the country she died in what should be used.BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is still being heavily edited, consider as support when the "Championships and accomplishments" section is fully referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Refs look fine to me. Good shape for RD DrewieStewie (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD now.BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: because of what is said, or not said, about her death. It seems to me that the apparent circumstances of her death deserve a better, fuller, more coherent treatment than they have so far received. I don't think reposting a final social media message, in a translation I cannot assess (but it looks poor), really cuts it. I may be being inappropriately sentimental, but I don't feel this is yet ready for RD. (And if delay meant it never appeared, then that might, IMHO, be the best thing.) -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have no knowledge of the subject (so no feelings like Paul), but I also think the coverage of her death needs improvement. The rest of the article also seems to need some clean-up. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I didn't watch this wrestler, but know "the sport" and how its bios look here. By PW standards, this article is clean as a whistle, and even fine by WP standards. The death section doesn't say [taboo term], but still clearly relays the idea that she [redacted] herself. As with all whatevercides, details will emerge. Not as quickly and loudly as they do in the American scene, but surely enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and question anyone supporting an RD which has been tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the issues noted above; perhaps they have been addressed. But (re: the Instagram post) if we are quoting a BLP subject through translation, the Eng version must (I think) be verbatim in the cited ref. Otherwise, WHO is claiming this is what she said?  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still two maintenance tags on the article, and the whole thing needs a copy edit &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not far off, but the “unencyclopedic tone” tag needs to be dealt with. P-K3 (talk)

(Posted) RD: Marion Hartzog Smoak

 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Barely meets minimum depth of coverage, but article did cover the bare details (not that there's too much you can say about being Chief of Protocol).  Spencer T• C 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mory Kanté

 * Support pretty decently referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Sloan

 * Support Article looks fine to me. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither of you notice all the unsourced paragraphs? I'll tag them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All citation-needed tags seem to be resolved. p  b  p  23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Added citations. User:Nutinka 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

 * Comment List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family and Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2020 --LaserLegs (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Insightful stuff. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - once enough info is added. Hopefully this won’t be a worst-case scenario (though for some reason I think this will be a worst-case scenario, hope I’m wrong)... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  11:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - important aviation incident. As said above, I hope the missing won't become fatalities. CoryGlee (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Sky News report linked above says very clearly "No survivors". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sad, I had checked on Al Jazeera earlier. CoryGlee (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s confusing, because while literally every news site says that no one survived, a couple of Twitter users said there are some survivors (one individual who may have lied for popularity, and an organisation). *shrugs* I guess we’ll have to wait for the dust to settle down. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC) *sigh* no one has survived the crash.  RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - aviation disaster with many deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I urge you to consider using the altblurb. The altblurb makes clear the fates of all 107 people on board the aircraft, which has been verified by reliable sources, whereas the current original blurb leaves this unnecessarily inexact.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you please change the link in the blurb (to avoid the redirect)? The aircraft is an Airbus A320 (without the '-'). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Article name now is 2020 Karachi Airbus A320 crash.BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That title is totally ridiculous and in breach of WP:AVIMOS. Article should be moved back immediately! Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let an admin move it. We can’t just move it to the appropriate title without ensuring users don’t get double redirects in the blurb. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  12:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now the Front page blurb comes to a redirect. Someome at least change that.BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I reported that at ERRORS. I'm a bit confused as to what's going on though.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article back to its correct title and move protected it. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * has moved it back to the proper title, so no change to the link was made. I have updated the blurb since the info had changed in the short time I started editing the blurb to when I finished posting. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem! I didn't mean to imply that you were derelict in not using the altblurb; I just wanted to state my reasoning so that I was making a strong, valid case for it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Fixed by changing the redirect target. What happened was: article creator makes article at Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303, then someone moves it to 2020 Karachi Airbus A-320 crash. Since the aircraft is an Airbus A320 without the hyphen, I moved it to 2020 Karachi Airbus A320 crash, but that messed things up since double redirects aren’t allowed. Thanks to Mjroots for fixing my blunder. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 &#124; Talk  13:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, . ——  Serial # 13:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Credits corrected and delivered :)-- P-K3 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

One model/actress. Also, to note the ground casualties were not fatal as it occurred during Friday prayers in poorer area, ie they were out of their houses to pray in mosque. https://www.twincities.com/2020/05/23/turbulence-warnings-before-pakistan-plane-crash-killed-97/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.91.226 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – RS sites appear to disagree about the number on board. (See note at WP:MP/E). – Sca (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "at least 98" for now. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment, I am currently searching as if there were "notable people" on board. Just to let you all know. ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashley Cooper (tennis)

 * Comment could use sources in the Grand Slam sections at the end, will support when those are added JW 1961   Talk  09:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support now it is in pretty good shape JW 1961   Talk  10:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The tile of the linked article currently does not comply with MOS and would probably need to be moved to something like 'Ashley Cooper (tennis player)'. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Naming conventions (sportspeople) states that "The disambiguation used … should either describe the person's role within the sport ("bowler", "cyclist", "acrobat", "chess player", "martial artist", etc.) or the sport itself ("basketball", "baseball", "tennis" etc.). The style used should be consistent within each sport." For tennis players, the disambiguation of "(tennis)" is the format used almost universally (e.g. John Fitzgerald (tennis), Andy Andrews (tennis), Mario Martínez (tennis), Russell Simpson (tennis), Mark Cox (tennis), Dick Stockton (tennis), Bob Lutz (tennis), Billy Martin (tennis), Tony Graham (tennis), Matt Mitchell (tennis), James Delaney (tennis), Eddie Edwards (tennis), to name a few).  In fact, four of those players (i.e. Mark Cox (tennis player), Tony Graham (tennis player), Matt Mitchell (tennis player), and James Delaney (tennis player)) have had their "(tennis player)" disambiguation turned into redirects. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks well sourced. P-K3 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adolfo Nicolás

 * Support. Article appears to be well-referenced and in good shape.  Calidum   19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me JW 1961   Talk  21:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Basically all the sources are not independent. In the first half, almost all references are from (Jesuit) organisations that are under the subject's direction and the other references are all Catholic newspapers. There are also blog references Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're implying that Catholic newspapers are not reliable sources? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just replaced the blog reference with La Stampa. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Amphan

 * Support – in principle, pending development of article. Needs less background and weather data, more about impact on people. – Sca (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support significant. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose storm during storm season does unremarkable storm things. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Any major cyclone/typhoon/hurricane making landfall with deaths and forcing evacuations is generally going to be ITN worthy. Agree with Sca that the impact on people/infrastructure would be better expanded before posting. --M asem (t) 18:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is going to be a significant tropical cyclone impact, as its making landfall in an low lying country where COVID is having a significant impact.Jason Rees (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pending expansion — Large cyclone with widespread impact in a notoriously vulnerable region. Even if deaths do not reach the morbidity one would expect, millions were evacuated and tens of millions had their lives disrupted so this is sufficiently impactful either way. Impact information (what people are mainly looking for, from my experience) is sorely lacking. Preparation info for India is solid but Bangladesh is lacking. There's no info on impact in the landfall area in India or Bangladesh as of this comment. I'll see what I can do, but this isn't ready for posting until this is addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Information sufficiently expanded. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Jason Rees. Already a newsworthy disaster in its own right, amplified due to surrounding circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Cyclonebiskit Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – RS death toll reports Thurs. range from 82 to 85 and seem likely to rise. Perhaps more significant than no. of 'evacuations' – huge tho that is? (See comment at WP:MP/E.) – Sca (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Maughan

 * Comment – Needs update as to her death. – Sca (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a line at the bottom of the article saying that she died, and with an appropriate quote. But no cause of death is mentioned in reliable sources. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support – I couldn't find an exact date either. But perhaps in the case of such an interesting personality – with multiple sources reporting her death – we can go with what we have, which looks OK to me. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Shad Gaspard

 * Oppose first section lacks refs Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose CNs, orange tag for the same, 'ography problems, stale in a few hours.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Nightingall (Pink Shorts Boom Guy)

 * Support Referenced and appropriate depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready (and would also make a good DYK). P-K3 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Edenville Dam break

 *  Comment Oppose – Haven't seen any reports of casualties in Mich. yet. (Meanwhile, a cyclone is forcing millions, not thousands, to flee in India and Bangladesh.) – Sca (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We could post both ... it's a big box --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article updated, no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A breach in a dam is notable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose parochial inconvenience. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we're not posting the East Africa floods which actually killed people, by God I'll see to it that this one is not going to get posted either.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS are for notability? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One, depending on who & circumstances. Your proposed blurb needs a period at its end. – Sca (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , we're not posting that one at least in part because the quality is poor – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The dam breach here isn't even its own article.--WaltCip (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable to a wide audience. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Dams don't get breached every day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in May alone there have been dam breaches in Uzbekistan and India. But that's not America so they don't count. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So when you nominated articles about those events for posting, what happened? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point is it? The point is to refute that  such breaches are rare when in fact they happen frequently all over the world. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I'd support those if they'd been nominated, article quality dependent. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support News sources are covering the subject in sufficient depth, and the article is of sufficient quality for putting on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Structures sometimes come undone; always, if given sufficient time. Nothing of note. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While a dam breach (technically two), the # of people affected (only in the thousands, not tens of thousands) and the lack of loss of life is not very large and given other things going on the in world, is more a minor problem. Yes, state of emergency declared, and all that, but we need to be serious that this is getting excessive coverage of being in the US and not a third-world country. --M asem (t) 18:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Big news in the "Wolverine State" (altho wolverines died out there long ago), but nowhere else in the U .  S  .  . – Sca (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Sca and Masem ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment some recent dam burst nomiations
 * Posted: Kenya, Brazil, Laos
 * Not posted: USA
 * I'm trying to extrapolate a pattern for when a dam failure is "significant" and when it's a "non-event" but I'm not finding one, since there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, killing 47, killing 34 and impacting a third world country versus a mild inconvenience for a few thousand rich Americans. Hard one to figure. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so if you could just tell me what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS are for notability then we'll be all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No need, just think for yourself. Would this be in the top 366 stories in the world for this year?  Would it make the top 1000?  Frankly I'd be surprised if it made the top 100,000.  Just a non-notable event with practically zero impact and absolutely no long-lasting impact.  YET a handful of you think that's what constitutes suitable ITN material for our readers?  Shambolic.   The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not against this nomination, however the 2020 East Africa floods nomination deserves to be prioritized above this on notability and perhaps quality grounds. - Indefensible (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it becomes a problem - when I saw the news, no towns were underwater... more notable than the ongoing East Africa floods, though: uncommon event rather than annual rain cycle. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The floods may be annual but still devastating.  This, on the other hand, is a mild inconvenience in a first world country which will have practically zero impact to anyone and zero lasting impact.  It's borderline non-encyclopedic, let alone newsworthy.  Would this really make a top 1000 list of "newsworthy items of 2020  around the world" let alone a top 100??  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you can see from the photos in the daily mail article that there is widespread flooding and property damage. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail isn't a trustworthy source, see WP:DAILYMAIL. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but photographs are photographs, and DM had published them. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, flooding happens. A lot. Everywhere. There's speculation that a city in Michigan is going to go Atlantis, which would be noteworthy if/when it happens. Both things suck, but one is more uncommon than the other. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Two dams were breached, not just one (one downstream of the other) which seems unusual to me. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unusual" is for other areas of the main page. ITN is for newsworthy items with updates that our readers will be looking for.  This is English language Wikipedia, not Michigan Wikpiedia! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose relatively small dam with fortunately a small impact so far Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event and article quality is good. P-K3 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike the dam, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This actually made me audibly "heh". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This is making the news where I am (which is admittedly in nearby Chicago) and there has been talk of it being another manifestation of climate change, and I was quasi-surprised we hadn't already posted it, but this seems not to have a global impact, especially since thankfully no lives appear to have been lost. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not much impact from what I can see. Thousands of evacuations are not that note-worthy imo (iirc we didn't post East Africa floods for being routine and that had a much more severe impact) adding to the fact that dam-breaches are not that uncommon. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 08:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose though I do like the point that "Wixom used to own a circus before he built the dam". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment widespread flooding and property damage doesn't seem to be a "minor inconvenience" --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly is a minor inconvenience. This wouldn't even be in the top 5000 news stories of the year. Meanwhile nearly 100 dead and four million evacuated due to "regular weather" that isn't in America.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that fomulaic 'America' whin(g)e is getting rather shopworn. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As are your poorly formulated small text comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, now.... – Sca (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Americans, unlike a good chunk of the world for which these sorts of disasters would be more devastating, can procure and get reimbursement from property and casualty insurance.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is being described as a "500 year event", and is notable enough to be in CNN and NYTimes. As for if it's even in the top 5000 news stories, it absolutely is: this story has 170k views, surrounded by videos that get a few hundred / a few thousand views. I'd argue the fact that this is in a first world country makes it more notable - the idea being "how does a first world country let a dam fail"?  Merlin  s  orca  13:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said top 5000 of the year not on YouTube today. After all,  if this gets nearly 7 billion views,  I don't think it's a good gauge of what's particularly notable or encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I counted the most popular videos on that channel, and at 172k views, this video uploaded yesterday would already be #360 most popular, rivaling many year-old videos. Even if you don't use YT as a statistic, the Wikipedia article pageviews of this dam break rival those of the Cyclone Amphan, which was posted: versus . I am merely disputing the argument this isn't a "top X00 or X000" news story; which is something you can't say for certain.  Merlin  s  orca  16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Thousands of evacuations" sounds impressive until you realize that Cyclone Amphan resulted in 4 million. Has this made headlines outside the US? I haven't seen evidence of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cyclone is in the box now, we can have multiple stories in the box. "headlines outside the US" is of course unnecessary, and we have a please do not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." above but even though you've elected not to comprehend those basic guidelines, "international" sources were provided in the nomination which you've obviously not read. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's not in the news much. Even the US seems to be more interested in Trump's tax returns, the coronavirus, selling weapons to Taiwan, etc. Banedon (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we're done here, this is a timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aleksandra Kornhauser Frazer

 * Support: biographically satisfactory, and sourced adequately. I would prefer it if the (I assume) erroneous "US Protection Agency" were fixed (presumably EPA, but I couldn't access the source). Also, while the fact that her name is "Kornhauser Frazer" is irrelevant to a scientist's biography, I would have been interested in an explanation. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * She was married twice and kept both surnames. Makes sense to add to the article. --Tone 08:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have modified the EPA link, having translated the source -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Pending an exact date of death and a resolution to ref. 1 deadlink, which is the sole support for large parts of the article.130.233.2.26 (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deadlink addressed. The death was reported on the 19th, I think it is enough - for a prominent person, the report is likely within the couple of days at most. I will check if a better source appears. --Tone 12:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Annie Glenn

 * Support - seems to meet requirements. Widow of John Glenn. COVID. - Indefensible (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced, what a sad way to die after such a long life. CoryGlee (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above 2 comments JW 1961   Talk  22:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks in good shape.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ravi Zacharias

 * Comment: It seems churlish to oppose a GA, so I won't; but the assessment was done some time ago. The article is mostly ok, but there were 3 areas that I thought might deserve more attention/review before posting: the passage describing his education and qualifications, since this appears to have been a matter of controversy; the coverage of the sexting allegation, which does not seem to have reliable sources; and the coverage of his final illness, which I feel could, now he has died, be cut back to the two cited facts (he became ill, he died). --PaulBetteridge (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Roy Lester was opposed despite being a GA, if you think the article might no longer be one just request WP:GAR. - Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I improved the referencing and cleaned up the final illness coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, much improved, thank you. No reason not to Support. PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - might be a questionable GA but article is definitely good enough for RD Spiderone  00:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - The first section is entirely sourced to autobiographies, and the first half of the next section is as well part from a couple of bio-profiles from a religious conference that he was a keynote speaker at. Nowhere near enough proper/indept refs Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it important that "early life and education" is sourced to published autobiographies? Our knowledge of most people's childhoods come from themselves, either directly or indirectly, and is generally uncontroversial; if we were to take a stand on childhood information coming from secondary sources, then we'd have to remove the "early life" sections from most articles on people, including two articles currently in the RD section right now.  I will grant that the "career" section could use a few more secondary sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point is generally valid. But for this person, his use of titles associated with formal education ("Dr.") has been controversial. And early life here includes his conversion experience, which, in my limited knowledge of him, appears to be an aspect of his life that he used to define himself (unsurprisingly.) So I think it is appropriate to consider applying a stricter test here than we might elsewhere --PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I worked through the article and re-sourced to reliable non-primary sources, including in the early life and education section.  Spencer T• C 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing situation improved; appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- Significantly leading figure in Christian community, Christian apologetics.Samuelled (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonard Levitt

 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marko Elsner

 * Support The Article looks good and he ever played in Ligue 1. --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Short but adequately sourced &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 East Africa floods

 * Support in principle but the article structure is only impact and no background, with a clarification tag to boot. Consider this a support once quality issues are dealt with and the article is beefed up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an annual rainy season. The only source in the article is a single website, Floodlist.com, which does nothing but list floods.  The main page for that site reports that, right now, there are floods in Algeria, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, Philippines and the USA.  Even that site doesn't have the East Africa floods listed as news on its main page.  If you look at a more general news source such as BBC News' Africa page, it says nothing about this.  In other words, this is fairly routine weather. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the hook is for "flash floods" that killed 24, but the article is about a season that's been going on for months and there isn't a paragraph of prose about the flash flood which killed 24 in Somalia. Also largely agree with Andrew, but I would overlook the lack of significance for a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for ITN any article which has only one source. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose. The topic is noteworthy, but the article quality is too poor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. News sources are covering the event in sufficient depth, so the significance threshold has been met.  The article could use some expansion, but there's enough content there that is references that I think it's sufficient for posting.  That should not be a sign that anyone who is so inclined should not improve it as described above, it could certainly get a lot better, and there's lots of good notes above for improving the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This unfortuntely appears to be stale. This was news around May 8-10 (several reports that I see then) after several weeks, with reports from at least BBC and Al Jazeera. (which the WP article is lacking, and in fact would fail on quality being linked to a single source) The floods appear to be mostly over at this point. --M asem (t) 18:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but oppose on quality. Article needs a wider variety of sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Osmond

 * Just added 2 sources to address all the "citation needed" tags. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that cleared the ones I saw missing/tagged, thank you. looks ready, but will let an uninvolved verify. --M asem (t) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ~ HAL  333  00:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Michel Piccoli

 * Oppose for now, as the quality of the article is not good enough at the moment, especially not for an actor of his stature as one of the leading character actors of France. Sadly, I have not the time for some improvements, but I'm willing to change my opinion any time if the article is improved. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now needing a lot of content and refs. His French page may be useful as a model. Anyway, as soon as it's improved and seeing his great acting career, it would seem fair to me that he was in RD. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Monique Mercure

 * Support - sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Du Wei

 * Oppose - Doesn't seem notable enough to appear on Main Page, unless the death will have some sort of seriosu politicla ramifications. –DMartin  23:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not notable enough, during his time working as an ambassador, there had never been a famous official statement from him. --Tensa Februari (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Please nominate to AfD if you believe that subject fails WP:N. Notability is not a criteria for RD, so long as WP:N is established.130.233.3.134 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- Article looks fine, update is sufficient. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The article has been updated, and it shows enough notability for his work in his professional field --Tensa Februari (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ann Katharine Mitchell

 * Now updated and cited throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the references JW 1961   Talk  21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: COVID-19 pandemic
There are nine articles linked from the gigantic COVID-19 banner sitting in the box. Of them
 * Disease - is getting stale, with most updates being ref improvements or content tweaks
 * Virus - is getting stale, with most updates being ref improvements or content tweaks
 * Testing - is getting stale, with most updates being ref improvements or content tweaks
 * Timeline - is a list
 * By Location - is ok, has a paragraph of prose per region, links to see also, has decent maps and graphs
 * Impact - is a list
 * Notable Deaths - is a list
 * Portal - is a Wiki portal, not mainspace content

There is no denying that COVID-19 is still the major global story, and it belongs on the main page. The thing is, many of the articles we're linking to are crap and would never get featured on their own. So I'm proposing we pull the banner, and bump COVID-19 back into ongoing, something like: Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (by country).

Yes the main article is huge, but it's in pretty good shape, and has links to all the stuff that's in the banner now. I would also support a blurb for some major milestone like the rollout of a vaccine or one of the top infected countries being declared COVID-19 free or something. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have to oppose at this time. We are in the middle of this pandemic. The banner should stay. I don’t see a scenario anytime soon that would make removing the banner appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The pandemic is expected to last for years and we need to move on at some point. Ongoing seems a reasonable place for this now and this can be supplemented with particular items such as the recent reliable Roche test announcement, which are currently getting buried. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia is an important source of information at a time where fake-news and misinformation is rampant. Wikipedia has a responsibility to highlight coverage of this information and make it easily accessible to the public. Aeonx (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose so fix it springs to mind. We're still in the first wave for many many countries across the globe now, and while this virus may still be highly problematic for years to come, this is still 70% of the mainstream news.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Covid-19 is far and away the No. 1 story globally and probably will remain so for quite some time, according to health officials. The fact that everyone's tired of hearing about it is immaterial. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There will be a point that we transition from banner to ongoing but the fact that most of the first-world countries are still feeling its effects and the news dominated by its coverage means that it still deserves special attention. The problem is that here are so many facets to the pandemic that at this point that there's no singular dominating worldwide story but instead country-level stories (arguably the US's handling of it being the worst but we're not going to give this higher weight over any other country) that this banner approach is presently the best method of that coverage. --M asem  (t) 13:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the pandemic is still at full swing in many countries like India, USA and so on. An alternative would be to put a single page listing all relevant pages (which will be weird, so it will never be used). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The COVID-19 pandemic is still the dominant, overriding, transformative and defining element in the life of humanity as a whole. Until and unless that changes, the pandemic merits a separate ITN banner. Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question this is obviously toast, but y'all did realize this proposal was to feature the decent articles in "ongoing" instead of keeping the gigantic banner of mediocre articles right? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I answered that in my response. And to utilise an argument oft posited by Andrew Davidson, the main pandemic page is getting more than 100k hits per day so it's clearly of interest to our readers, why would we remove it?  Have we seen any reader complaints about quality?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I highlighted, the main pandemic page is of good quality, and should remain featured on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Yates

 * Support pretty well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled; Closed) White storks hatch in the UK

 * Support - for the great rationale for inclusion. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a species of least concern conservation-wise, this is utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be a significant milestone for the goal of reintroducing the species. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Parochial and lacking general impact. (And BTW, proposed pic. is a 4-year-old file photo.) – Sca (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting development and the article is an FA. However, it has only one sentence of update, and only British ornithologists will care. Not significant enough for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While I don't customarily care about white storks specifically, or birds generally, the blurb conveys a significance that makes this newsworthy. Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Would also work at DYK if it doesn't pass here. Davey2116 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't qualify for DYK as the article is neither new nor newly expanded. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a fan of these kind of “...and finally” stories and I don’t think this is significant enough for ITN. P-K3 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also per Modest Genius, the update is not sufficient.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A once in 600 years event that doesn't involve a body count. FA is always a plus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not particularly significant (also not suitable for DYK, unfortunately.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support wild card topic that's sufficiently in the news. Storks don't seem like a once-in-600-years thing, so it's interesting, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Interesting topic, article is of FA quality, and event has been suffieciently covered outside Wikiepdia.  –DMartin  23:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This species belongs to the least concern conservation status. Not very special to me. --Tensa Februari (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per much of the above. Lacking in significance, low conservation status. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting (a 600 year event in the waiting) and article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting story, in the news, and a chance to showcase a FA quality article on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is still no substantial update. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a small section in both the "Distribution" and "Conservation" sections now. Given that it's a global overview of the bird, any more would be UNDUE I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual update is now two sentences . I don't think that goes beyond 'little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb' - all it adds is the number of chicks and the name of the project. If the reintroduction project is WP:UNDUE then it should be split to a separate article and expanded there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure, why not.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I didn't even bother to vote at first because I thought this was a joke nom. Have you all lost your minds?  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly abstained, but are birds "getting it on" in a certain place for the first time in 600+ years not encyclopedic? - Indefensible (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not particularly newsworthy IMO. Oh well, c'est le Wikipédia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. Animal of least concern... place of birth is just trivia. Imagine this sort of precedent set for any other sort of animal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled - It was 11-7 when posted, and 11-9 with post-posting opposes. More discussion/feedback needed to establish consensus to post as currently it is not there. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 01:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm admittedly involved as I supported this, but this is WP:NOTAVOTE. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Far more excitement than substance to this story. This isn't a threatened species, and it isn't being introduced to a particularly significant part of its range; the species exists across a substantial chunk of Eurasia and Africa. As far as conservation impact goes, this is a triviality. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose even leaving aside the fact that it's a LC species, why should it hatching in the UK matter? That's just one country out of the couple hundred in the world. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, consensus to (re)post this is not going to develop. It's for someone to close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hossein Kazempour Ardebili

 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Europe Shine a Light

 * Comment. This is not the Song Contest, but something different held in its place.  It is the result of the contest that is ITNR, not a substitute program that isn't a competition.  If the Super Bowl is cancelled and the NFL runs a highlight program and talks to players, it isn't the Super Bowl. Regarding a blurb, the first proposed blurb is too long and doesn't need to go into a change of venue or why. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tons of these types of replacement events, and the cancelation of Eurovision is not significant over the general COVID category to be posted by itself. --M asem (t) 23:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And no, this is not ITNR. The ITNR even is the Eurovision finale results. --M asem (t) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The contest is listed as ITN/R, not the finale and not the result. It even explicitly says to highlight the contest article, not the winner... Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The results of the contest is what triggers the ITNR; we want the Eurovision article for that year to be the target when the results are reported. --M asem (t) 00:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Barack Obama is delivering a high school commencement speech right now. It's a similar concept, and also shouldn't be ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I ask people voting to actually read the article: this wasn't a past-years clip show or a true replacement, all the songs that would have competed were played, the commentary was the same, it was just Eurovision held as non-competitive, plus some highlights. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We get that. I still say it has the same lack of significance as The Big Night In, Together at Home, Graduate Together, and Stronger Together, Tous Ensemble, to name four. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a big difference. Like how it was broadcast live in 45 countries across three continents, rather than one or two countries. And it is part of an annual event that's been running for over 60 years, rather than made up in the last few months. It's a lot more significant than 'American students graduate online'. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think students graduating is more important than a song contest that isn't a contest. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of news? No, it's not. If nothing else, at least this 'virtual event', unlike all the others, is something that a lot of the world took part in. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not Eurovision. It's not even close. Same way that the Puppy Bowl is not the Super Bowl. WaltCip (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt This is a widely broadcast and covered event as a standalone and non-ESC related program that doesn't need to be evaluated against ITNR criteria. There is no litmus test by which musical shows must be competitive. Chetsford (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt - Broadcast throughout Europe and various part of the world. This is within ITN/R whether other editors says so or not.BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the actual event, unclear significance. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. More people watched BVB thrash S04. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support OK, not strictly ITN/R but close enough to the real thing. P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, watered down from the usual annual event.--Hippeus (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is part of ITN/R.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please point out where "Eurovision Shine A Light" is on the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Ho-hum. So what? – Sca (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose loads of things are happening in place of things that should have happened in light of Covid-19. This is one of the more trivial items. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julio Anguita

 * Support - wanted to nominate by myself, had died recently, popular topic in the spanish news today. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Missing refs (and for politics, so probably best to have them before it goes on the MP) Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, article is not yet ready for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Ping me when the few more edits needed has been completed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment I just improved the article and have added various refs. I think it's ready. Alsoriano97 (talk)16:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Refs improved, perhaps make a separate section about his death, though - there is enough content for it Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just did it. I also improved the "Later years" section. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Super-Duper Missile

 * Hell no Not only on the Trump rhetoric (both ways) but that this is a claim and not a demonstrated actual technology advancement. --M asem (t) 00:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a comment, Newsweek is no longer considered a reliable source for WP. Not that other sources don't exist for this story, just that you should really avoid using Newsweek for anything nowadays. --M asem (t) 00:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks you, Masem, I keep forgetting. I've struck and replaced it here and in the article. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the news here is the announcement, not the purported existence of the device which — as you correctly note — is unprovable. (Indeed, demonstrations of all classified military technology are usually unprovable as they are not tested in front of third-party observers, moving and still images are invariably official products, and technical details are not published in places that would permit peer review.) For all we know the missile doesn't exist at all. However, we can factually state that the "United States announced". In my opinion, the announcement is the newsworthy event in the same way the announcement by the DPRK of the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 launch was a newsworthy event, not the launch itself which could not be proved to have occurred beyond official claims by either the DPRK or U.S. military at the time we featured it ITN (IIRC). Chetsford (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - entertaining title but we need more info on this before the article's quality will be where it needs to be. Trump says a lot of things. Merlin  s  orca  03:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose better suited to the fun section. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The US military has been silent on this, this is just Trump rhetoric and he likely spilled the beans early. Wait until a weapons test is performed or the weapon is made operational. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The US military has been silent on this" According to the article, the head of the US military announced it yesterday. If Tim Cook announces a new iPhone I don't think we generally wait for the Associate Brand Manager to sign-off before we can definitively say Apple announced a new iPhone. That said, however, I think your suggestion that this would be better to hold for operationalization is a good one, in view of which I withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ezio Bosso

 * Weak support – Article in good shape, but it's better not to repeat the same refs as much, if possible. Alsoriano97 Alsoriano97 20:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – repeated refs are fine. As long they are reliable sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Gonzalez

 * Question - is there a ref for the 1987 tournaments? - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I've now added his PGA biography as an inline ref (it was previously only an external link). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - meets requirements now. Alzheimer's in 50s is pretty early. - Indefensible (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Astrid Kirchherr

 * Support Was promoted to GA a while back but looks ready to me. P-K3 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good update, article in good shape Kingsif (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 11:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil May

 * Support Good enough. P-K3 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – sufficient for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support LGTM, marking as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 11:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claes Borgström

 * Oppose Barely passes as a stub; needs ib, better referencing and expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Expanded a bit. Start class. COVID-19 death confirmed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Clearly not a stub any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Has been expanded and looks ready. P-K3 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Fred Willard

 * Oppose on quality, article needs referencing improvement. Filmography section may be an issue too. - Indefensible (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Watson

 * Comment Coaching and personal life sections both need work. Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's fully sourced now. There may be more detail that can be added, but it's minimally sufficient for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – agreed; meets ITN standards now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pepper Rodgers

 * Support Looks good, might need layout adjustments but mostly fine. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Plenty of references in there JW 1961   Talk  18:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gabriel Bacquier

 * Support nicley referenced article JW 1961   Talk  22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – well referenced and in-depth. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may be an even better ref, same question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post posting support: Article in good shape. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Gilder

 * Weak Support I'm not crazy about some of the references used, but it's good enough.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Renato Corti

 * Support – sufficiently referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Refs spot checked. Added ref for VP Italian Bishops Conf.130.233.3.69 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 12:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. David Freeman

 *  Oppose  MOS:OPENPARABIO: lead should highlight key activities and roles of his life.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added several sentences to the lead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Striking my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I removed an unsourced statement and tweaked a sentence that was a bit promotional. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Renée Claude

 * Oppose Career section needs some work, and the discography is unreferenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Carolyn Reidy

 * Oppose Current readale prose size of 1172 bytes wouldn't even pass DYK minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. ping me if/when expansion and improvements done.BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Stiller

 * Support - Important comedic actor who was part of two of the largest sitcoms of the 90s/00s. Article seems adequately cited overall. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - There are a couple items which could use a ref still, but overall looks fine. - Indefensible (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Serenity now! Nonstopmaximum (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmograph section remains unsourced. And no, sweeping this under the rug to a separate list is not an option as his article's too short. --M asem (t) 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main page currently links to CD-ROM and Price_war, both of which are far worse off in regard to sources. I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't memorialize a significant figure just because the article is not perfect when almost no articles are perfect and we already link to articles that are far worse off. We are not promoting the article, but rather the news event, which is the figure's death. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is entirely incorrect - we are here to promote the article. We are not here to promote the news event or memorialize a significant figure.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bold links on the main page, or in the case of those we list for Recent Deaths, are the pages that must show examples of WP's best possible work. Unsourced -ology tables are absolutely not WP's best work. I know how "important" Jerry Stiller was to get him up on RD ASAP, but we don't rush for poor quality. --M asem (t) 20:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Masem, I shouldn't let my personal opinions cloud my judgement. I still think it's a shame. But Great Caesar, I disagree - what is the point of 'in the news' if not to highlight current events? Surely articles should be sufficient, but it is not the quality of the articles we are attracting attention to. But I guess this is immaterial to this discussion. Best to all ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As we've repeated several times, ITN is not a news ticket, it is to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news. For new news items, that generally reflects how fast they can be worked up to quality coverage, but for RDs that means the article should be mostly sourced and complete as a basic BLP requirement. --M asem (t) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Important comedian with a large filmography, article is in good shape. –DMartin 21:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - It seems mostly sourced. Poydoo can talk and edit 23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - sufficient for RD now.BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1957 to 1990 TV is pretty much unreferenced, and plenty of paragraphs that lack a closing reference. Stephen 00:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; still a few uncited paragraph-ending sentences and the "Author" section is ill-formatted. Consider this a support once everything gets cleaned up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support since he is very notable and I don't think it will be hard to add more citations. Connor Behan (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough imo. Main article is ok. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Television section of Filmography remains 2/3 unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got it up to about 50%. 60-70% would seem sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good majority of TV section now sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Do filmography sections really need sources? Aren't the films themselves sources? <i style="color:black">Rami</i> <i style="color:red">R</i> 13:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, I would agree with that. The guideline for such tables says refs are optional and may be used for difficult to confirm or obscure titles. After all, there are only four categories of statements that require references per WP:MINREF: Direct quotations, challenged material, material likely to be challenged and contentious material about living people. Most films that anyone can watch to verify that an actor is in it do not fall under these categories and thus don't need citations. Regards So  Why  14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seem more productive to just add more sources like just did.—Bagumba (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That more sources can be added does not mean policy requires it. And if policy does not require it, it should not prevent inclusion in ITN. Regards So  Why  05:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:V: ... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. FWIW, an FL like List of Amy Adams performances has each work cited. Perhaps take it up at Wikipedia talk:In the news if you want to propose that unsourced filmographies and discographies should not hold up ITNC. Often, those sections are mostly unsourced when performers are nominated. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Filmographies usually don't fall under "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" because each entry can be verified by anyone by simply watching the film in question. There are plenty of FAs out there that have filmographies without refs, e.g. Emma Watson. WP:FACR explicitly links to When to cite which in turn includes: Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate. Imho, that means the content of filmographies should also only be challenged if there is a reason to assume an entry is incorrect, not just on the basis that "everything should have a citation". Regards So  Why  06:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that local consensus trumps policy, but even WP:FILMOGRAPHY says that citations can to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm. For Stiller, TV roles from the 60s to 80s that may not be readily on digital seem to be likely to be challenged, and in fact were challenged in this nom (and similarly others before it). If it should be "sky is blue" for ITNC, then establish that consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be one thing if we were talking starring roles in films of TV series which are easily validated. Here we are talking small roles and guest spots that are not easily checked by going to said page in question (he was not a lead actor compared to his son), and thus sources are required. --M asem (t) 07:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted The next Festivus is dedicated to him. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Teerlinck

 *  Oppose  Tagged some Cn's. Also needs a sentence or two on his professional playing career.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all "citation needed" tags addressed and info added on his pro career. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks decent. Are there refs that can be added for the coaching section of the infobox? - Indefensible (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources I've read through only detail his playing (not coaching) career. I'm not sure this would qualify as a RS. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Better than nothing and looks decently reliable, having it unreferenced would be the only issue with the article from what I saw. - Indefensible (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right – added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Major issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Iranian support vessel Konarak

 * Oppose - Accidents due to military exercises generally have a much higher bar for posting in terms of casualties.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we've posted military air crashes, could post this too. Missing details about rescue and recovery. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending details. This military accident is noteworthy due to fairly high mortality (19) and injuries, and to the fact that it's a politically high-profile country, Iran, in a crowded strategic area, the Gulf of Oman. Substantial RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per Sca. I haven't seen friendly fire incidents with similar number of casualties reported in media for a while. Brandmeistertalk  17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fairly short, but in good shape and long enough for the main page. News sources are reporting the story in a sufficient manner to indicate this meets all criteria for main page posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have generally NOT posted accidental military deaths when only military personnel are involved (we hve posted the crashes of military craft when they carry civilians, but this is not the case here). --M asem (t) 19:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose hyper-rare to post military accidents.  Not sure why this gets into that bracket. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's interesting, and very little is happening on ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we don't shift standards because times are slow. That's a bogus argument.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is your argument that is bogus. It is not stated in WP:In_the_news, people here make that argument all the time, and it leads to items getting posted. I urge you to retract your notvote and your incorrect statement. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not stated because its a rule of thumb, one we felt not necessary to document. It is absolutely inappropriate to chew TRM out here, however, for that. --M asem (t) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay Masem, that's hardly being "chewed out", it's cute of Abductive to suggest that we undermine our standards but we all know that's not going to happen! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet it got posted. Consequently, the imaginary rule is still imaginary. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, legit news. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, sufficiently significant, especially given the dearth of non COVID-19 news stories. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - significant and ready for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, who is absolutely correct in that a slower news cycle is not an argument for posting a sub-notable story. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is quite low on details, and the most notable thing about the boat seems to be this incident – for which the article, even a few days later, can only scrape three sources: I don't think that the incident is notable enough, and I would probably oppose on quality/update if it were. Kingsif (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Point of order - at 06:32, the article had six sources. Please do not make false claims in order to oppose a nomination. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually It had three sources (at the time, refs 4, 5, and 6) about this incident, which if you read my comment you'd clearly see I was referring to. I wasn't making false claims, I'd appreciate if you didn't make false accusations that could seriously harm my reputation. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For there to be refs 4, 5, and 6, there needs to be refs 1, 2, and 3. Like I said, six separate sources were in use at the time in question. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I was referring to the update on this story having only 3 refs. It's not difficult. Kingsif (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t make much sense, seeing as how the article didn’t exist before this story and all six sources were published after the incident.P-K3 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Collapsed since this is getting long, is tangential, and it's already been posted. But how does it not make sense? The section in the article about this had three sources. That is all I said, and it's correct. Continue to debate semantics or misinterpretations if you will, but there's nothing up for debate about saying "the incident was covered on Wikipedia by only three sources", so I don't know why MJ continues to not acknowledge they misread my comment, or why P-K3 has jumped in with 'I don't get it'. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, you said, "for which the article can only scrape three sources", implying that editors of the article could only find three sources about the incident. In fact, all six sources in the article were about the incident. The fact that only three were specifically being used in the "2020 friendly fire incident" section does not mean only three were available. You were being misleading.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - article has been bashed into shape, no referencing issues. The article is a bit sparse on history, but that is to be expected, given who owns and operates the vessel. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. Covered the world over. sinking(*) your own battleship(**) is pretty unusual. (*despite heavy damage (popular mechanics still says "sink"), the obliterated burning vessel was towed back to port. ** support ship but equipped with anti-ship missiles of its own) --Hippeus (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent article; bizarre situation. serial   # 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Looking for an image now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Konarak burning.png was uploaded earlier this morning with the note "Mehr releases all content with creative commons". I would like confirmation of that before using. In the meantime, we have a picture of Jamaran: File:Iranian Velayat-90 Naval Exercise by IRIN (6).jpg &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * can you elaborate on this please? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mehr News Agency releases its images under a CC4.0 licence. There is even a specific template - Commons:Template:Mehr - for use with Mehr images. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MSGJ: What Mjroots said, see the template. The video (of which the image is a frame grab) is watermarked Mehr and is on their website that says "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." (https://www.mehrnews.com/). Vici Vidi (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I have updated the image &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment So I assume that as a result of this, 19 deaths has now become the new bar for military accidents (maritime or otherwise); anything above that number inherently qualifies for posting. Either that or we just lowered the bars on everything because COVID-19.--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't expect any consistency at ITN! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Old journalism saying: "Never assume anything." – Sca (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, each nomination is considered at the time it is made, and if there's consensus it gets posted. Editors must accept with good grace if a nomination does not go the way that they feel it should have done, whether posted or rejected. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather have some sort of policy in place so that we are not just arbitrarily picking which stories to bless and which ones to damn based on who shows up to vote and when.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have clearly written policy already. The standard is two-fold: "are reliable legitimate news outlets covering the story to sufficient depth and breadth" and "is the article in question of sufficient quality and properly updated".  Which of those two standards do you believe this article fails?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All of which applied to the 2017 C-130 Hercules crash, a military accident with comparative casualty numbers, which was nonetheless unanimously opposed. What makes this one different?--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Iran good. Murica bad. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what they all say. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't oppose that one, so you'd have to ask someone who did. Also, the fact that we did the wrong thing in the past does not mean we are bound to do the wrong thing going forward forever.  Precedence is a synonym for "repeating mistakes".  Let's just try to do the right thing every time instead of cherry picking the wrong things that were done to justify continued wrongness.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are saying going forward we should continue to post these types of stories.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying that, going forward, we should continue to post stories that meet the standards I noted above. I am saying no more and no less than that.  "types of stories" is a meaningless concept as far as I am concerned.  Coverage by reliable, legitimate media and quality Wikipedia content are the only meter sticks that can be applied equitably.  "Types" of stories is just about what I am interested in.  Coverage and quality is about what reliable sources are interested in.  Good Wikipedia content is only built on one of those. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - is making an article about the vessel more appropriate than one about the incident? And while I don’t believe a slow ITN warrants lax criteria, I think this event is serious enough on its own (maybe because I personally never hear about military training accidents?) (though the article will need to be expanded if possible in my opinion). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull per my aforementioned rationale. I don't believe the fact we're in a COVID-19-dominated news cycle makes this story more important.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - like others I reject the idea that we should change our standards for stories just because coronavirus is dominating the headlines, but actually I think we most likely would have posted this anyway, even under "normal" circumstances. It's an unusual incident, and it resulted in more deaths than Kobe Bryant's helicopter crash, so I personally think it's fine. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support There is no bar on military accidents at ITN, though I am prepared to accept a somewhat higher bar. In this case, the loss of life as well as severe damage to naval ship justifies the posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Hari Vasudevan

 * Comment Article currently reads as an obit; it contains only a lede and a Life section. Suggest breaking it up into multiple sections: Early life, Academic career, Personal life (for example). The sources are much more effusive about his accomplishments than the current article, and those (perhaps in a Recognition and awards section) would help establish subject's notability more clearly.130.233.2.42 (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've checked over the article and it seems to be very short and I can't see much that's notable about him. Neverbuffed (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nom. DTM (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s no need to do that; AfD is the place to determine notability, not here. The article looks ok to me. P-K3 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Wright

 * Support - seems to noW be adequately sourced and cleaned up. Far too young to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Pavle Jovanovic (bobsledder)

 * Oppose about 75% of the article is about "Doping controversy" which seems a little UNDUE. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What you say as a criticism has some truth to it. But I am the main editor of the article, and it was not my choice.  Rather, it was the essential and unavoidable distillation of the available sources that I could find.  Like it or not, the doping controversy is the axle upon which the wheel of his life turns.  The article is now expanded far beyond what it was two days ago.
 * Like a sculptor, I did not impose my will upon the stone; I found the form buried within.
 * If you can find more and diverse sources, please add them.
 * The article is well developed and amply sourced. Every jot and title has a source. Now.
 * And above all, he is recently deceased.


 * Comment Recognizing that this is the best article that could be written about the subject given coverage in RSs; I don't think it is fair to the subject, on a personal level, to post his BLP to such a prominent venue when the vast majority of it concerns personal and professional troubles. If there is more to the story about commercial nutritional supplements being contaminated with banned substances (lightly touched on in the Doping controversy section), that could be expanded in a separate section and perhaps give some perspective. If the current state I have to agree with TRM above.130.233.2.42 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not proposing a blurb, only a redirect. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too much UNDUE emphasis on controversy. Either distill to a paragraph or expand the rest of his career section. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the career section. I added an overview and explanation of the controversy in a different section. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose MOS:QUOTE: Overreliance on direct quotations. Content should generally be written in WP's own words.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Bagumba I've removed the quotes, paraphrased them, and removed the template. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still more direct quotes than I'd like to see for something highlighted on the main page.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bagumba I heard your observation that: "more direct quotes than I'd like to see." To try to address your issue, I removed more quotes.  The article has been rewritten and copy edited.  The number of quotes is clearly justified and IMO fully within policy.  Of course I have no way of knowing what your personal standard might be.  Please revisit this.  Thank  you.  Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Good enough for RD nowBabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kristina Lugn

 * Support - short but seems to meet requirements, however not sure there is a single English ref. - Indefensible (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no English language refs. 1779Days (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article meets requirements. Any concern about English refs aren't for this discussion. Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced. Doesn't matter what language they are in, as long as the article info corresponds with what is written. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanded and added a English source.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is sourced. Great work on expanding the article. See WP:NOENG for further guidance about using non-English reliable sources. TJMSmith (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD, Closed) RD/Blurb: Little Richard

 * Support, he was both well-known and influential to other musicians, and evidenced by the lead section, broadly awarded by the industry. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not often you see an RD nomination with 253 citations, but it's so big there are still some sourcing gaps, especially in the "Personal life" and "Return to secular music" sections. The latter is very verbose and could probably be trimmed. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And a few Filmography entries. But its like 98% there. I'm not seeing statements of high contestability that need immediate sourcing that if this is the best it ends up with by the time this nom gets enough !votes, that this still represents some of WP's best work to post, but it would be nice for the gaps to be filled. --M asem (t) 14:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as this will be big news compared to current blurbs like the gas leak, black hole and TV station. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, difficult to verify if the article meet BLP standards, it has too many citations to verify within a reasonable time frame. 99.203.21.183 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. Although fairly well sourced, there is a significant amount of unsourced information that needs to be cited or removed first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it still needs some work. P-K3 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support assuming that citation concerns can be addressed. KConWiki (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support has over 200 citations. p  b  p  15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? It doesn't how many citations it has if they don't cover all of the content. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for RD. Solid, detailed article about a high-profile individual. Granted that it's not perfect, but perfection should not be the standard. An article of this prominence and length is always going to reflect some work-in-progress, and there's a tradeoff between timeliness and ensuring a citation for every sentence fragment. The 99 IP's suggestion that the article is too long to be posted is simply perverse. A blurb would not be out of the question, but I doubt it will reach consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Now ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (RD only) – Even though at 6,500 words it's seriously overwritten, presumably by fervid fans. – Sca (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - 6,500 words seems reasonable for one of the most important and influential musicians of the 20th century. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:E058:759C:BD04:5F9B (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Preceding comment is the sole contribution to Wikipedia from this IP address. – Sca (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? You don’t know that, anyway. They may have a dynamic IP. In any case, we should encourage new users to participate in this process. Zagal e jo^^^ 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Discussion on a blurb can continue if desired. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post posting Oppose. This is 90% of a great article, but; there are a number of sections where it isn't clear what cites support what, or if they do. Also, there are significant uncited sections; the whole section from "Penniman's show would stop several times that night..." to "Befriending Alan Freed..." has no cites. Ditto the first half of the first para of "Return to secular music".  The last very long para of that section doesn't see a cite appear until half way through it.  In the "Comeback" section, everything from "That same year..." to "...and Solomon Burke" is uncited.  "Relationships and family" contains details of his only marriage - no sources for the actual marriage dates etc. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're noticing sections that need citations, please remember to put that citation tag in the article itself. That would help to focus others' efforts to work on the article. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed - If there are still aspects of this article that some users feel need citation impovement, please leave appropriate tags at the appropriate points in the article and I (and I'm sure others) will be happy to assist with resolving. KConWiki (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as well - One of the most influential popular music figures of the 20th century. Length doesn't seem disproportionate for someone who can be mentioned in the same breath as Lead Belly and Elvis, and 'too much information' hardly seems a fatal flaw.- Featous (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle sure as hell meets the Prince/Bowie standard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I think his influence on pop music justifies it. Blythwood (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Retired; natural causses at age 87. – Sca (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the article is ready. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Article is ready. No citations needed! -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb in theory. One of the most influential musicians ever. Meets a standard similar to Chuck Berry (who, while not retired, was not setting the world on fire at the time of his passing either, and was blurbed). Nohomersryan (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD / Oppose Blurb The community seems to have established a consensus over time against blurbing deaths of prominent figures who die of old age even when they were among the greats of their field (cf Kirk Douglas). Time for some consistency me thinks. However posting his photo would be ok. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have failed to see that, with people mentioning "Thatcher/Mandela" quite often for these kinds of things. It's just that most suggestions (including Douglas) seemed to have failed that standard, which I don't believe Little Richard does (fail). Also, a photo for RD is only when there's not a fresh one for a story, and the black hole one seems to be fresh enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are of the opinion that Mr. Richards was on the same level as Thatcher and Mandela, the only thing I can say is that I disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not Thatcher or Mandela, but certainly of Chuck Berry or Toni Morrison. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who says Kirk Douglas passes this test? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That discussion appears to be based on the discussion that took place a few months ago when Mr. Douglas kicked the bucket. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  02:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb- being the founder of rock and roll should be enough to put him at or above the level of all other important musicians in history. Top of his field is enough for a blurb. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for similar reasons to that of Chuck Berry. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - does not meet the threshold in my opinion and would be of little gain to move from RD to blurb form. ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy is more noteworthy to keep in the ITN box; it is not worth bumping that off when this entry is already fine and serving its purpose in the RD list. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The ABS-CBN story only got 23K readers yesterday while Little Richard got 1.3M. The ABS-CBN story also has an NPOV orange banner tag.  It seems to be a local media story comparable with others, such as the proposed Virgin/O2 merger. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why there is little benefit in promoting the RD listing to a blurb, the potential gain is almost nonexistent. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS but an encyclopedia, so encyclopedic content should be prioritized. The orange banner seems to have been added post-posting, I see it is being addressed on the talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb no media circus, NOTMANDELA, RD is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I see that the only sensible argumentation for a blurb is his influence on the development of rock and roll but, frankly speaking, he was not of the same stature as Chuck Berry and that should be the end of this. There are hundreds of other musicians with similar honorifics, so it's not really something that adds extraordinary significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope the fact that editors are opposing and supporting a blurb using the exact same rationale (the Mandela/Thatcher standard) is proof enough that our system for promoting deaths to blurbs is broken.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Head on over to WT:ITN if you have a proposal, otherwise my subjective criteria are as valid as anyone else's. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - I oppose the notion that Little Richard's role in the founding of Rock n Roll is only honorific. If Chuck Berry got in, then Little Richard should as well. Awsomaw (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard The Thatcher/Mandela standard seems unclear because they were both politicians and so it's difficult to translate that to other fields. But one way of doing it is to consider their rating as vital.  Thatcher is rated level 4 while Mandela is rated level 3 and so it seems that level 4 is good enough.  The relevant section for that is Rock which lists following individuals: John Lennon; Chuck Berry; David Bowie; Eric Clapton; Bob Dylan;  Jimi Hendrix; Buddy Holly; Janis Joplin; Little Richard; Elvis Presley.  So we see that Little Richard is ranked as equivalent to both Thatcher and other rock stars that have been blurbed such as Bowie and Berry.  He therefore passes the standard. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable line of logic, however the fact that US presidents including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are currently rated as level 5 shows that level 4 cannot be used as the threshold, else it would imply that Little Richard should be posted but President Trump would not be in the case of his death. The simplest approach may be to change the rule so that no individual deaths are blurbed, as that is what RD is for. - Indefensible (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the line of logic should only be applied to those who are well past their heyday. The argument obviously falls apart with exceptions like people who are still very relevant like Trump, or still the in public's conscience, like Bill. But when considering these historically influential people like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, I don't see any reason to abandon this valid line of logic. Awsomaw (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does "well past their heyday" actually mean? That does not fundamentally address the ambiguity currently in the rules, and also it makes the difference between level 4 and level 5 significant. Is Chuck Berry or Little Richard really more significant or impactful than Bill Clinton or Donald Trump? That seems rather contentious. The vital ratings would need to be re-evaluated, which would probably be a very political and drawn out process. There should be minimal (or ideally no) exceptions, and the clearest and most unbiased rule would be to simply keep all individual deaths in RD and out of the blurbs. - Indefensible (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've documented my version of the Thatcher/Mandela standard but since the criteria for significance is highly subjective discussing a standard, or a lack thereof, or denigrating those who cite their own version of one is basically a complete waste of time. If y'all feel otherwise, WT:ITN is over here. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - If Chuck Berry gets a blurb, Little Richard should get one as well... Seems obvious to me. Jusdafax (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not notable enough for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The standard for artists is whether they died during their career, or the height of it, or whether they are household names, or so on. I can't see that here. Being the originator of a whole genre of music is his best angle for a blurb. That's debatable. What about Chuck Berry, or many other contemporaies?130.233.3.78 (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Truth to tell, I haven't heard of this guy before. And while that may say more about my ignorance than anything else, it seems fairly clear from the level of coverage and from the comments above, that he is not in the Mandela/Thatcher category. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andre Harrell

 * Support - Short but seems to meet requirements. Also, notable enough to be on RD. Neverbuffed (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Aurangabad railway accident

 * Weak support deadly incidents involving trains are not unusual in India, but as the nominator notes, this is somewhat unusual and certainly was on the front page of news outlets I read.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Article is on the smaller side. The story is covered by BBC, Reuters and Associated Press (albeit with a lower death toll), however, so coverage is no issue. The last fatal Indian Railways accident was over a year ago, by the way, so the Indian Railways has become relatively safe compared to the past. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Macabre indeed, and the article's in reasonable shape.   serial   # 08:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Reactions section is a bulleted list of sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the norm for "reactions". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bulleted international leader reactions with flags, yes, but straight sentences are normally paragraphs. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose background and reactions sections are filler -- not much about the accident itself because there isn't much to say: some blokes died when they fell asleep on the tracks. There is no long term impact here to rail safety or design. I doubt it would fit into a yearly round-up of everything newsworthy enough for an encyclopedia. Seems tangentially COVID-19 related as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unusual and sad, but both the news ('people slept on a train track, got hit by train') and the article are brief. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, albeit tragic. (Also, as said throughout several stories, "slow news cycle" is not an argument to post, especially since we now have three fresh blurbs.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can be included in one of the COVID links as LaserLegs noted. - Indefensible (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, has one of those garbage "Reactions" sections. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Similar reasoning as above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Unusual accident, worldwide coverage. The blurb doesn't do justice to what was unusual here, I suggest: "In Maharashtra, India, 16 people are killed after being run over by a train in their sleep.". This is incidentally COVID related as they slept on the tracks since they thought the trains weren't running.--Hippeus (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Full Support as per proposer. Invisible Lad (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. However this needs more cited content to improve it's significance.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Wolfson. Also, it's getting stale.... – Sca (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy Horn
One half of entertainer duo, which I believe falls under the RD note #2: "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis". Died on May 8, but only reported on May 9 (UTC). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I considered nominating this, but passed on it because he didn't have his own article. Wasn't aware of that second note, good catch. Btw, on the subject of time, it's still May 8 in Nevada for whatever that's worth. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think ITN runs on UTC (which is already on the next day). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be based on the time zone of where the person died, but here, its quibbling, not a major issue. And to be clear: for articles where it is the pairing/very small group is notable but not necessary the individuals -- but we have enough of a bio of each individuals -- then this is proper for doing the RD to nominate the group. --M asem (t) 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support article in good shape, sufficient coverage of death, updated. Weird coincidence about the double nom and double revert but guess that happens. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Juxlos should get nominator credit and Bloom6132 can get updater credit? The article is being very actively edited right now though and there are a bunch of cn tags (particularly on the Filmography section). - Indefensible (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, just added him back in. Initial edit did not work, because he's the one who needs to be the one who signs.  Finally got it to work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose while the article is really about the duo rather than a strict bio, seven [citation needed] is still far too many for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please look again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ref needed tags are gone - can we some day have a bot which copies refs from linked articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above - yes indeed that would make a great bot! Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't added a tag, but that first part of the the "Roy" paragraph with his DOB and early life really needs a cite? Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a good ref (FAZ) for some facts, and the date of birth can also be found on DNB, German Who's Who, et al. I found a less convincing one for the others, which is obviously where the facts came from (some misunderstood). If not reliable, let's drop the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought the article was in a poor shape when I first looked earlier, have combined the three info boxes into one, read and reviewed the context, edited a little. Hope that helps out, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet the requirements now. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Byron Mallott

 * Hey I have some free time so can you tell me what places need more info? I have Newspapers.com so I can easily find stuff about his fifty year political career. - Jon698 talk 23:06 8 May 2020
 * Thanks for the comment. I think the last paragraph in "early life" is the only one that strikes me as particularly undersourced at the moment, and my search for info on it was fruitless. (Also, some of the preceded by/succeeded by names in the infobox aren't substantiated elsewhere.) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Support Now I have gone through most of the page and reformatted it. I have added multiple references to back up the claims in the article and removed any information that I couldn't find sources for. Jon698 talk 00:19 9 May 2020
 * Tremendous work, this should be ready to post pending a lookover by someone else. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks like it meets the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Storen

 * Support Short but decent article Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Aside from a single extra sentence related to the Colonels, article doesn't have much depth and his career section is basically a resume in prose format. (For example the death section mentions how with the Pacers, he was involved in "choosing the team's name, logo, and colours" but the career section doesn't mention that.  Spencer T• C 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks ready. - Indefensible (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ty

 * Comment - Article has few issues (puffery in the first sentence of the career section, no awards (can someone check if this person has received any awards?)). Otherwise, looks good enough. But regarding notability, I can’t take sides given that I am not really into music personalities... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any person with a Wikipedia article is presumed to be notable enough for RD. I've fixed the puffery and sourcing. Black Kite (talk)


 * Support seems a pretty well referenced article Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chrystelle Trump Bond

 * Moved to May 7, as that was when it appeared on the website (indeed, it's still 7 May in Baltimore at this moment). May 8 is the date it will appear in the print version. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nicely referenced little article Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bridgegate convictions overturned

 *  Oppose  not updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still opposed, a once sentence update will not suffice. This was a SCOTUS decision, they write a book detailing their decision, and it's possible to write a summary. It's important to note, for example, if SCOTUS found they were wrongfully convicted in a miscarriage of justice or if they're rightist criminal scum who weaseled out of prison on a technicality. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make what the possible spin is? As it is, there is a link to the SCOTUS decision in the article. TL;DR: the relevant statutes concern money and/or property loss, and SCOTUS felt that any such losses were too indirect.  (PS: article was updated at 15:07, just not in the lead) 73.81.116.0 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't provide links to articles here, we write articles. The update is improving. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. But the comments seemed to be unaware that the actual SCOTUS decision was easy to access, from the article even. 73.81.116.0 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is sufficiently updated. Please do not #2 "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --LaserLegs (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Legal case revolving around a minor political scandal with no real significance outside of domestic US politics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , to be fair, it wasn't that minor, Christie was on track to be a major candidate for President, and this was in the news 24/7 when this occurred. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was never more than a minor scandal blown up by the press. Every country in the world has politics, and every country has scandals. For obvious reasons we don't cover 99%. We have even generally steered clear of Trump's scandals except for his impeachment. There is no way this rises to ITN level news worthiness unless we are going to turn ITN into a daily news blotter for the domestic scandals of every country in the world. We would need to update it hourly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree completely, it was a nothingburger, but it was a scandal, especially if you sat in your car on those roads. I don't care either way, I'm just glad to see something in the news that isn't coronavirus, and this is an interesting case that was resolved via audioconference and will have ramifications nationally with regards to corruption. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with the need for fresh non-covid news stories. But this just isn't the right one. Posting it would seriously lower the bar in terms of what we accept at ITN and set a precedent that would cause a lot of problems down the road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose hyperlocal issue, little encyclopedic significance. Would I expect to see this in an almanack of the year's worldwide newsworthy events?  No chance.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – due to obvious lack of general impact/significance. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Or as Ben Bradlee supposedly said, "Stick it inside somewhere." – Sca (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm working on expanding Kelly v. United States now, but tend to agree this is not ITN level of news. --M asem (t) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not even sure this 'scandal' is worth a -gate suffix. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you mean Bridgegate? It's in the nomination header. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and in the NY Times source I just added. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ji Chaozhu

 * Support Nice article. Ref. 8 supports most of the Role in [...] section, but it's paywalled, and ref. 10 supports most of the Family and Political life section and I don't have the book. Assuming these details are there it seems fine.130.233.2.56 (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Visakhapatnam gas leak

 * Wait till more details come out and the disaster comes under control. Will support if the article is expanded enough (which obviously will be by the end of the day in a best-case scenario). But there is also the question of notability... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good enough, event is notable and getting coverage. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This event is obviously not important because events like this happen very often in the world. I'm sorry for the victims, but if we put minor daily accidents everyday, that would seem the portal of any news tabloid, and Wikipedia is not like that. Thanks. Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As per List of industrial disasters, the last notable industrial disaster was on June 27, 2019, and the last in Asia was more than 2 years ago about 21 months ago. Besides, while the leak has been stopped, people are still in hospitals. It would be more appropriate to see how this disaster turns out before taking sides. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this event doesn't seem to be relevant worldwide. It's sad that people are affected by this accident, but I checked on Google News, and only one single news website outside of India says something about this accident, and is only a stub. I think that if one wants to consider an event to be worldwide relevant, at least it has to appear in one or two western newspapers and magazines, right? So I'm against this event to be in the portal. Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's getting plenty of mainstream coverage around the world. See below. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose poor grammar disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , have a relook.-Nizil (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Just about enough there to enable posting. No referencing issues at all. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - it's still a stub at present, and a merge is needed from the parallel article Visakhapatnam Gas Tragedy. Weak support on importance once that's sorted out, the event has made international headlines. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , merged and greatly expanded now. Please reconsider. -Nizil (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks like the article was updated. Also proposing the more concise Alt1. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be of sufficient quality. It's short, but well referenced, and probably has enough to qualify for the main page.  Either blurb is OK, but I have a slight preference for the first.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to agree with Humberto. I found it covered, barely, in one non-Indian RS news source (Sky). All the others are Indian or the 'trending' page of English-language websites for gas/energy companies, which obviously have a coverage bias. It's just not in the news. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, perhaps your internet is broken. In a few seconds I found coverage by the BBC (currently second news item on their international news page as well), The Guardian, CBS News, Reuters, Voice of America... the list goes on and on.  Definitely global coverage.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore the below (till my signature). TRM has already pointed out what I was trying to: RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52569636
 * Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-disaster/gas-leak-at-lg-polymers-plant-in-india-kills-six-over-120-hospitalised-idUSKBN22J092
 * The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/world/asia/india-lg-gas.html
 * CNN - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/07/asia/india-gas-leak-death-intl-hnk/index.html
 * The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/gas-leak-at-chemical-factory-in-india-kills-hospitalises-lg-polymers
 * There are at-least 3 British news agencies (including Sky), 2 American and one international agency covering the story. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the search? I still can't find those myself, but the links do exist. Neutral, then, because it wouldn't naturally have found its way to me. Article good. Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one of the quirks of "In the news" - it's taken literally so if you deep search for reprinted wire stories you can claim wider coverage than something is receiving. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I guess if you call doing a Google News search and finding hundreds of articles about it from around the world a "deep search", you're absolutely spot on LaserLegs!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree TRM! --LaserLegs (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support attracting global news coverage, article pretty far from a stub! Good work all those involved. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been updated now. Some grammar help may required but I think it is good enough to be in ITN. I ask others to reconsider their votes now. -Nizil (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event garnering widespread coverage. Article quality is respectable and it is being updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – AP says that in addition to the 11 fatalities so far, "about 1,000 [were] struggling to breathe." – Sca (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In an area where the population density is 4300/km2 it seems reasonable that 11 would die and 1000 people would have breathing issues following a gas leak. ITN gets fixated on numbers sometimes without considering them in context. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Unusual incident, plenty of media coverage, and the article is of good enough quality. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 20:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norbert Balatsch

 * Support a satisfactory and referenced account of his life --PaulBetteridge (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Michael McClure
*Comment just needs a few references in the latter half of the section 'the beard' and a couple of cn's left in other sections Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as no one has been interested enough to clean this article up in the last 3 days Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Around a dozen unsourced paragraphs. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article is unfortunately not ready. - Indefensible (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nearest black hole

 * Tentative oppose per the Wikipedia article, it's an unknown companion that's only hypothesized to be a black hole. Once more confirmation/consensus that it's a black hole is obtained I'd be willing to reconsider. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The nearest black hole is in our Milky Way which makes the question rather moot. Brandmeistertalk  18:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the nearest supermassive black hole. This one is much smaller and much closer. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article isn't referenced, and per Modest Genius, why assume our readers know the difference between a "supermassive" black hole and a "standard" black hole? The blurb needs context and succinct clarity.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Think this may be more appropriate for DYK. - Indefensible (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What does it matter if a reader is unaware of the difference between "ordinary" and "supermassive" black holes? Brandmeister had an inaccurate understanding of the news, MG added context suggesting what B might have been thinking of, but all in all, neither assertion is relevant.  And it's not our job to evaluate the science or take the scientists' cautious tentative language at face value.  News media has picked up on this story (search for "naked eye black hole"; in addition to the usual science news websites, I got links to CBS and The Guardian).  They are, unsurprisingly, reporting the discovery as a done deal.  What perhaps makes this most interesting, as the title of the primary article makes clear, is that this triple star system (two ordinary stars and one black hole) is visible (magnitude 5.3) to the naked eye! 73.81.116.65 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not, and if a reader is unaware of the difference between "ordinary" and "supermassive" black holes then so much the better - they would learn something by clicking on the link. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The original blurb is a snoozefest. The fact that it's 3 times closer than the previous one is a factoid. The real news is that this is the first black hole identified in one of the ~10k star systems visible t the naked, unaided eye. The star system itself is somewhere around the 2000th brightest ones in the night sky, but visible only from the Southern Hemisphere.  2601:602:9200:1310:D4BA:105B:E9C2:D237 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with some slightly less technical writing in article I opened that article and basically hit with numbers and symbols. We need at least a paragraph, not necessary lede but enough that is written one level down from where it currently is (eg assume high school education) to explain the importance of this in those terms. Otherwise it is science noise to most but those few in the astrophysics field. --M asem (t) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Article was a mess, so I dug a bit into it. Should be a much easier read now. 2601:602:9200:1310:D4BA:105B:E9C2:D237 (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Count Iblis (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A certain amount of jargon within a article of this type is expected, and I don't think it's too much as of this writing. Any of the proposed blurbs will do. The fact that they're all equally true lends weight to its notability.130.233.2.56 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. Good work with improvements. --Tone 10:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Florian Schneider

 * Edit conflict on adding the same RD, wow... anyway: Co-founder of Kraftwerk, death from cancer battle. Per source, he died a few days after his birthday which was early April but no exact date was given, and this news is only being reported now, so this is not "stale". --M asem (t) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks generally okay (one cn tag). Trailblazing band. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think all the cites have been fixed. Just one query - did he die in April or May? The article states the latter (as of typing this).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Various IPs keep reverting it. Changed back now. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * German Wiki article says he died at the beginning of May ( Anfang Mai 2020 starb Schneider im Alter von 73) . – Sca (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice solution of saying "after... " Great work.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * German article doesn't follow the source, unless I'm missing something; Hutter said "a few days after his 73rd birthday" (which was on 7 April). Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some confusion about when he died. NYT, like some other English & German media, quotes a statement from the band as saying he "died just a few days" after his birthday, April 7. Others, such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich), simply avoid saying exactly when he died. (German Wiki still says "at the bginning of May.") – Sca (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I suppose "just a few days" could be a manner of speaking – in order to emphasize he died soon after the birthday. - ?? – Sca (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a little odd that no-one's come out and said when exactly he died, but shouldn't hold up posting.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: even German wiki currently says "early May". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now says "in April", with three sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Marked as ready here at 18:37.
 * Ger. WP lead says at the end of April (Ende April 2020). – Sca (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Murder hornets

 * Comment At least America has guns to defend itself, the real horror story here might be those sitting ducks in B.C. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "Sightings" isn't confirmation enough. Per NYT, "...two of the predatory insects were discovered last fall in the northwest corner of Washington State...", meaning that this isn't new. I also would oppose the media nickname "murder hornets" in the blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, not a crime when animals do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see much significance to this, and suspect it's only being amplified in a tongue-in-cheek "2020 is truly out to get us!" way. If these bad boys wind up stinging me to death in the near future, I will posthumously reconsider. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose unless there's a major infestation of them nationwide. Otherwise this leans being overly Americentric and of insufficient importance (especially per Nohomersryan). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's so awful it's funny. Murder hornets. But no, wait until they kill lots of people or the ecosystem. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What if they just kill all the bees? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Manchester will take its revenge? Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. We'll know more in July, anyway. Just a bunch of sapsucking queens out there for now, even in the worst case scenario. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There might be a story here, but not yet. Dunno if this is eligible for ITN. --M asem (t) 03:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) European Economy

 * Comment before the "oppose we have a banner" rains down on this: I want to support it. The Trumpcession is a huge deal that'll have an impact well beyond the end of the quarantine. US GDP contracted by 4.9% in 2020 Q1 which is substantial as well. The thing is, the blurb doesn't have a bold link, and Coronavirus_recession is too proseline-y and has some referencing issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is a forecast, not a fact. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agreed with Sca.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. And this is already covered by Impact section of the special banner. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is only a forecast, not an actual result. (impacts of global warming is probably the only type of news we post on forecasts) --M asem (t) 14:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This sounds really boring. Not 'I don't like it', but 'this will not be on the news tonight' boring. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. Once the rest of the banner is taken down we can post a story on the economic aftermath. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just about every country that locked down is going to have a recession. Multiple predictions of how deep those are going to be have been published, many by respected economic organisations. I don't see any reason to pick out one particular prediction for just the eurozone. It's highly uncertain anyway, as no-one knows how long the pandemic is going to last or what the end game state will look like. Maybe we can post something on what is bound to be a global recession once there's some hard data on how bad it is, not just a prediction for part of it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Didi Kempot

 * Weak oppose Article needs some ref work and some wording used does not fit the encyclopedic tone. Other than that, the article's rapid expansion is impressive. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What about now?  Masjawad99  💬 14:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Kiing Shooter

 * Comment Looks well sourced, but I see GeniusLyrics, YouTube, Instagram and Spotify amongst the sources. I'd be happier with more reliable citations. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sweet Pea Atkinson

 * Weak support just one thing needs citing in there.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Last CN cited.  Spencer T• C 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Millie Small

 * Support once the information queried in this diff requested by Martinevans123 is cited or removed from the page Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, a source has now kindly provided by User:Egghead06. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent; thanks for letting me know. I've now included him as one of the updaters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Nice little bio – looks good. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: marked ready at 15:53, 6 May 2020‎. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment where are the "Selected singles" (selected by whom, under what criteria??) referenced?   The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) When I looked now, there was no "selected", and the records are here, only I know too little on the subject to say if that is a RS. - Discogs is NOT a RS when it comes to classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) - I see that the source was added. I have no concern.
 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the singles are sourced now and I've switched the refs on the albums, as they were from Discogs. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: marked unready at 22:31, 6 May 2020. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) ABS-CBN Off-Air

 * Support – Significant news, and well covered in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, the target article needs referencing improvement before it meets the frontpage guidelines. - Indefensible (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - iff reliable sources are linking this to Duterte mention that in the blurb as well. I am agnostic towards quality at the moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article seems to be in good condition, and the event is well covered in multiple sections. The article has 77 references, which on cursory review are suitably used. If improvements are necessary, plaase CN or section tag. Oppose linking this to the President in the blurb. Neither the article nor sources make such a direct statement.130.233.2.224 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NYTimes is very clear the action is pretty much retribution from their criticism of Duterte, and our article is well sourced that this was basically expected. --M asem (t) 06:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NY Times article in the nom does not make that clear. It documents an antipathy between the President and the media generally, muddies the waters by bringing up a direct confrontation between the President and a third party (Rappler), before finally admitting that it was the Philippine House of Representatives and the telecommunication committee (that is, not the President) that failed to renew the broadcast license. The NYT articles claims that the House is stacked with allies of the President, but that doesn't make their actions his.130.233.2.224 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not currently suggested that it was his unilateral decision to make, but it doesn't take much to connect the dots especially given what you have said about the composition of the House.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality – Large swaths of unreferenced text in the main article, but once that's addressed this is worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with using ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy as the target article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements and I added an altblrub to connect the Duterte issue. --M asem (t) 06:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not good enough, plenty of unreferenced material in there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. It might be worth splitting the '2020 franchise renewal' section into a separate article - that section is better referenced than the rest of the article and it's getting big enough to be a possible WP:UNDUE issue. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Clear escalation of media silencing in a country already criticized for its autocratic government.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Have gone through the article, requires more sources. Suggest spilt as per suggested by and make the new standalone article as the main article for this ITN. robertsky (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * have boldly split the article and suggested an alternative blurb (alt blurb2) with the new article. robertsky (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. New article looks more specific, but could be tidied. Feel free to ping me when that's done or take the support. Kingsif (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – seems like there's a new article for the entire fiasco: 2020 renewal of congressional franchise for ABS-CBN. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated ABS-CBN (TV network) and support original blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested altblurb3. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: Significant and major non-Covid news. Gotitbro (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Late Support Glad that this was here. The topic has been such a major news item that it has even preempted headlines about COVID-19. Other foreign media outlets had since reported about this as well. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 drug development
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/pfizer-vaccine-coronavirus.html Blurb: Human trials for an experimental vaccine for [COVID-19] begin in the United States. Pharmaceutical company [Pfizer] and BioNTech lead the way; the vaccine could be ready by September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofarbitrage (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not new - human trials have been going on in other countries for a bit and in the US even in March  - and the rest of the blurb is unnecessary. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once a vaccine is approved for general use we can post it. This is speculative fluff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good-faith nom. It would be wonderful news once this goes anywhere (perhaps then we could post it), but for now such tests and development are best left for the box. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The article for this would be COVID-19 vaccine. BD2412  T 03:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should there actually be a proven vaccine through MEDRS acceptable papers, the type of thing that changes this all around, that would be the appropriate news. --M asem (t) 03:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose So the human trials in Asia and Europe in the last few months didn't happen? Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

 * MURICA. Suggest speedy close as this won't be pretty. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur. If any trial or public scandal with its own article comes of this, and if any country but the US jumps out of statistic-twisting long enough to report it, maybe it could get nommed again then. Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Meta question - How come US Politics in the nomination is red linked and not covered by the existing redirect? Type it into the search bar and it works as expected. - Indefensible (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uppercase P. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close I was this close to speedily closing it, but given that this might have controversial implications outside of Wikipedia I believe per WP:BADNAC #2 that an admin would be better suited to do so. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close; extremely strong oppose. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  04:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Garba Nadama

 * Support - A short but sourced article. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted though I suspect it won't be there long! Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Greenfield

 * Oppose for now per amount of work. Consider this a support when quality allows (also, his work on "Golden Brown" was amazing). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All sourced now and ready, I think. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Short but seems well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as above Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Adequate without being hyped, and quite well-sourced. Fairly notable in his field. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Don Shula

 * Support blurb as soon as the article is updated. Sports legend and I mean legend.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality is sorely lacking, especially in regards to references. If and when that is fixed, I would support RD only: neither the manner of his death nor the reactions to it are particularly unusual, so do not need to be explained in a blurb.  Because a blurb adds no relevant information to the posting, RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment support when updated, would consider discussing a blurb - the best coach in NFL history probably counts as 'top of his field', but it might be too small a field. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb too small a field per Kingsif, nowhere near Thatcher/Mandela (EDIT: or Prince/Bowie/etc.) territory. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Thatcher/Mandela standard is utterly stupid. There are other multiple blurb-worthy deaths that aren't confined to politics, nor should the standard be "world leaders get blurbs only". The sports world is going to step back and catch a breath from this. There will likely be tributes for days or weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if, when (heaven forbid) Stephen King passes away, for example, he ends up getting a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Thatcher/Mandela" standard doesn't apply only to politics. You can call it the "Thatcher/Bowie" standard or the "Mandela/Prince" standard if you like. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to lack of clarity about what the standard is (and the fact there isn't any written guideline about this in ITN), it is erroneously and frequently applied to politics by virtue of the standard including two world leaders within its name. Whatever you call it, it's a bugbear of this section of Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Muboshgu said, and tried to clarify it on the ITN/RD stage. Regardless of what specifically the "threshold" is, Shula still doesn't pass it IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No blurb Legendary coach, but not so newsworthy a death that he needs a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. When most reliable sources refer to a person as "legendary", that crosses the threshold in my mind (and it helps that the main page is stale.) -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Niche or not, this is exceedingly rare. The last time the career wins leader died was 1983, and I'd give even money we don't see Shula surpassed ever.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I still oppose a blurb (if the article is ever improved), but insofar as we might have one, please make sure that the blurb makes it self-evident why it is worth noting beyond the mere fact that he died... "All time winningest NFL coach..." or some similar phrasing should be in there or there really is no point for it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Object blurb - List_of_Super_Bowl_head_coaches tells us that in the time that the Super Bowl has been around (54 yrs) four coaches have won it 3 or more times, Shula has won it 2 times, equal with many other coaches (9). Given that the purpose of competitive sport is to win trophies, not just games, why is he more important than the others given that the field is quite narrow - Basically only one top-tier league in the world? Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to determine the criteria for sports notability. He is just that notable. Pure and simple. WaltCip (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Super Bowl championships are but one way to assess how great a player or coach is/was. Shula's best quarterback, Dan Marino, didn't win any Super Bowls, but is still one of the game's all time greats. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well in sports, a great player could be in a weak team/country so it is not possible to win even if they were a great player. But the coach has a lot more power to mould the team, so they are judged by winning rather than individual stats/records, and the primary means of winning would be winning titles, unless the coach was famous for some kind of tactical or technical innovations Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Shula being the winningest coach in the history of the National Football League, the most popular sport to watch in the United States, would seem to make this particularly noteworthy. The lorax (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nothing remarkable about his death and therefore no need for a blurb. P-K3 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Does not meet notability criteria in my opinion, American football may be popular in the USA but internationally it is a niche sport. - Indefensible (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - If I remember correctly (and no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) the only sportspeople's deaths we have posted as a blurb in recent memory were Muhammad Ali and Kobe Bryant; the former was a household name worldwide, the latter very well known worldwide and their death was a possible ITN blurb in itself anyway. Someone who the vast majority of the world has never heard of does not rise to that level (on the BBC Sport website, for example, the story is 7th). Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I seem to recall that the word "winningest" was added to the English lexicon on his behalf. Per our article, perfect season, he also lead the clearest example of one in the history of professional sports. BD2412  T 02:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Oh god no, not that non-word!" --Brits, usually. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Horrific, and makes my teeth itch. Probably because it sounds like a word invented by a small child who can't work out how to construct a superlative sentence so just adds "-est" to everything. "He's the bestest"!  Also, if adults are going to use it, I demand the existence of "losingest".  Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to enter into this wondrous debate, but I think "losingest" does in fact exist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *buries head in hands* Actually, to be serious for a second, the problem with "winningest", especially on something like the Main Page, would be that since it only has local use, it isn't clear what it means (winning the most games? winning the highest percentage of games?  Is 36 wins from 36 better than 37 from 38?  Or does it mean the most championships, titles, or awards? And so on). so please don't use it if this gets posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually used "winningiest" in a DYK blurb (not US-related, mind you) a decade ago. Brits flipped out. For what's it worth "winningiest" is always specified what the superlative is. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "winningest". And I'm very glad to see a 25% decline in its usage over the last decade.  Long may that trend continue.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * think it more relevant to say that British people are the whingingest over the use of the word... I'll get my coat. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While there is no other team which has managed the same feat thus far, the perfect season being discussed was only 17 games long. Compared to other leagues such as Major League Baseball with 160+ games or National Basketball Association with 80+ games per season, it is just much easier statistically to have a perfect season in the National Football League. This diminishes the impact of the achievement in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I also oppose, but even with a team having a 70% chance to win each time, it'd still happen only 0.2% of time (once every 500 years) by chance, much lower than what statistics generally requires for a significant value. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But there are 32 teams competing each season, so that would actually lead to it happening every 10-15 years. Of course you could pick any rarity you like by simply adjusting the percentage win rate of a top team... <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the very same year (1972), the Los Angeles Lakers had a 33 win streak according to List of National Basketball Association longest winning streaks. The NFL season is just arbitrarily much shorter than in most other professional sports, if the NBA season were cut down to 33 or fewer games then probably Bill Sharman would be in the same conversation. - Indefensible (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really defensible to say that the NFL season is "arbitrarily" shorter than other sports seasons. The number of games and time between them reflects the sheer violence of a sport where players intentionally try to smash into each other at full strength on every play. Also, Shula did much more than collect one perfect season in the sport. He accomplished that as part of a 33-year run of assembling the most coaching wins of all time in the sport. BD2412  T 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Liverpool had a perfect run of 18 games in the middle of a 38-game season. Big deal. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose everything – Fix the article first. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is one of the most losingest articles I've ever seen. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, not ready for RD. Several sections have orange-level referencing tags. Sure he's well known to passionate American football fans, but not outside that community. Also, 'winningest' is a horribly unencyclopaedic word that fails WP:COMMONALITY. Should be 'coach with most wins' not 'winningest coach'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, not ready for RD, per Modest Genius, TRM, Coffeeandcrumbs and several others above. OK for RD once fully sourced, but not for a blurb at all. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD when those orange tags are fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – As others have variously opined, subject doesn't meet significance standard, elusive though it may be. Re RD, the 5,800-word article is overweight, so oppose that, too. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb p  b  p  23:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's either one or the other.... !!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Zero citations added on May 5.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD once article is ready. No concerns with the article length, but the orange tags do need to be addressed. I don't believe this man meets the Thatcher/Mandela standard, even in America. He was a very big deal in his day, but has been largely out of the public eye for the last quarter of a century. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 12:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prizes

 * Comment Noting that the Pulitzers are not an ITNR (probably because there's no principle "top" category"). This does not mean we can't post them. --M asem (t) 01:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The prose in the lead needs expansion with some highlights. For example, how the NYTimes won in three categories and pointing out who won some of the highly coveted categories like Feature Writing, Investigative Reporting, and Breaking News Reporting. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The postponement was only 2 weeks, not worth mentioning. Stephen 06:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article isn't good enough. No commentary, indeed hardly any prose, 24 references and every single one is primary. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The prizes are restricted to US citizens and organisations and are handed out every year. And notice how the NYT is listed as a source when it won three of the prizes.  So, it seems too parochial, routine and self-congratulatory. The 501 kg deadlift story seems better – that's more novel and objective, a world record and open to anyone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't necessary restrict ITN awards to those limited to a certain country as long as those are recognized as top of the field (eg Oscars aren't strictly American but the field is dominated by American films). But your latter points are likely why we've not posted the Pulitzers before. --M asem (t) 14:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quality is poor. Most of the table text are verbatim quotes from the Pulitzer committee (I presume) and all of the sources are primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Roy Lester

 * Support - Article is a Good Article as noted in nomination. Actually missing a couple references I think, but deserves to be posted. COVID related. - Indefensible (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of unreferenced claims. Stephen 23:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not GA standard, despite what the green cross suggests. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempted naval attack on Venezuela

 * Oppose – Article is vague about when this reported event or series of events took place. Murky. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  in it's current state the article is 80% "background" this time drawing connections to past "incidents" which have not been formally connected, while being sure to include POV quotes like "Maduro dictatorship". Even the title is POV, using the name given by the terrorists instead of a neutral "2020 Venezuelan naval attack". The flag salad "reactions" section will fill in soon, and since those sections are basically worthless I don't care how much prose you put in there. The arrest of two Americans is interesting, if this was state sanctioned and the attack section itself built out then it'd be an obvious candidate, or even a lone wolf terrorist attack if fleshed out adequately and the anti-Maduro hysteria toned down, this would be suitable for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now updated somewhat. Kingsif (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. The section about the Resolute is irrelevant unless an actual connection can be drawn between the two. Drop it, and Guaidó's bellyaching at the bottom of the attack section and I'll support. Seems notable, and it's in the news -- I just can't support WP:COATRACKs. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did remove those parts (checks article) - they've been added back, I'll have to take it to talk. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support attack is well fleshed out, article is lean and focused, even if it doesn't make it to the MP you did a great job. you wanna re-evaluate? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support something newsworthy clearly happened, even if it's murky. Banedon (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Profound oppose something nearly happened. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Seriously? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I hear that 'an attempt to attack Venezuela fails' seems like an almost-event, something clearly happened, and really, does "eight defected Venezuelan soldiers are killed when an American leads them into a poorly thought-out insurrection" read better? ETA: Imagine if 300 people genuinely tried to attack the US at, say, Boston, and the US Navy killed eight of them. It would already be in the box. (Similar to the prison massacre below: 49 prisoners were shot by guards, but it's only got three comments.) Sure, these are much more likely to happen in Venezuela than the US, but are still not normal occurrences. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the difference. The United States is a first world fairly stable superpower. And without trying to be snarky; Venezuela... is none of those. It's a bit like mass shootings. Unless it is exceptionally bloody, we don't usually post them if they occur in America because we expect it. It's part of the culture and it is sadly fairly commonplace. Political violence in Venezuela is the same. This is a failed state, partially run by an organized crime syndicate masquerading as a far left enlightened republican government. There isn't even any consensus on who the legitimate president is. And the nation has been on the brink of open civil war for years. What happened here is par for the course in those conditions. There is no comparison to something like that happening in the United States. Most Americans would not blink at a mass shooting killing a dozen people. But if it happened at the British Museum in London I'd support posting it the instant article quality was up to scratch. A bungled mercenary op in Venezuela is just not ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AO, I know it was a late ETA, but did you read my last sentence? So March was the first month for a decade without a school shooting in the US. Attempted attacks in Venezuela are nowhere near that common. Once a year since 2015 does not 'normal' make. Too much gets written off as 'the country is a shithole, bad things happen', but not every bad thing is normal in every bad place. Merc attacks in the Middle East, normal. Gang wars in Venezuela, normal. But reverse them? (ETA: Note that I generally vote to post anything that kills more than 10 people, feel free to remind me what countries this is inappropriate for) Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Struck and shrunk: this sounds a bit attack-y, and I must have forgotten ITN's collaborative spirit when I wrote it. I stand by the not-normal statement, but this isn't for fighting over. Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You think we can go one week without comparing something to "mass shootings in America"? I've had about enough of it, thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this oppose reason. A group of foreigners attempt to effect regime change and it's "par for the course"? I'd like to see some examples in recent history (say the past 5 years), then. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per AO. His follow-up explanation is insightful.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre incident. If this really had been a 'mercenary army', as claimed in the blurb, it would certainly be worth posting. However it turns out to be two boats containing 60 paramilitary personnel, of which only half reached the shore. Hardly the Bay of Pigs invasion. I do think this should appear on the Main Page, but DYK would be a better venue than ITN. The article is new enough and long enough; it would just require addressing the orange-level tag. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks MG, I'll take it there if this is closed/falls off :) There seems to have an edit scuffle about mercenary/militant terminology, if you want to take any views on that to the talk page, input's always appreciated. Changed blurb to 'militants' here, if that helps. Kingsif (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support article quality is sufficient and text is well referenced, news media are covering the event. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still seems rather murky and meandering to me. – Sca (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Not sure of my opinion as the article's creator, but I initially withheld my opinion until the events developed some more. The article seems to be of sufficient quality and notability for inclusion now.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The opposes might consider taking another look. The Guaidó "government" essentially hired a firm to carry out this botched attack -- it's a pretty big deal. "Rendón signed a retainer agreement in Washington, D.C. on behalf of the Guaidó government with Silvercorp on 16 October 2019 of a retainer payment of $1.5 million USD within five days to Silvercorp in order to initiate Project Resolution Operation, a plan to remove Maduro, install Guaidó as president of Venezuela and to provide security operations following the transition of government, with Rendón later stating "[Guaidó] was saying all options were on the table, and under the table"" --LaserLegs (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks. It's a bizarre curiosity more than a piece of news which I would expect to see in a yearly round-up of everything newsworthy enough for an encyclopedia.  Could easily fit in another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mercenaries hired by one side of a power struggle between two competing governments in a failed state? Sorry, that's not ITN material. If this had been a CIA op I'd reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Though a failed attack, this is getting a lot of news coverage and its a notable development in the Venezuelan crisis. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I withheld my position originally per WP:TOOSOON and to see if there were further developments. However, the article currently has due weight issues that have been expressed in the talk page. I completely support the DYK nomination, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugene Kostyra

 * Comment Page needs breaking up into a few sections and not so sure about all those redlinks being on the main page, there is good content and references in there so consider this as support if the tidying up is completed. Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need to eliminate redlinks if there is reasonable expectation that the articles will eventually be created. Even Featured Articles have redlinks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is a feature not a bug. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is sourced. I think redlinks encourage article creation (a good thing). TJMSmith (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Cross

 * We need to get that citation out of the section header. Otherwise, it looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moved the ref out of the heading as mentioned above Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Idir

 * Oppose for now entire "Early life and career" section is unreferenced. Also, is that illustration really needed in an article when a photo is available? Juxlos (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unreferenced material (as well as the illustration) and added prose with citations. Hope's that works. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now. Nice work. Juxlos (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson sets new deadlift world record

 * Support in principle, although deadlift needs significant improvement and a much better source than YouTube should be procured . – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I swapped the YouTube source with an ESPN link. --M asem (t) 04:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a 1kg improvement to a record that’s stood for four years. Only in the news because of his celebrity. Stephen 05:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do we post again when someone else breaks the record tomorrow? There are hundreds of world records in various sports broken every year. Not for here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a fair question if this is something officially tracked. Most sports records require some type of official to be at the site to make sure all aspects are legit, and its not clear this is the case here. And if this is just a records by the books and not like one of those records tracked with some type of official capacity, that's probably a concern. (I do reject the issue that as a celebrity this dilutes the story.)  --M asem  (t) 06:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose incremental change to a record which has only stood for a few years. Perhaps suitable for other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, TRM. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment fix the refs for the filmography and write three full sentences about the event in which he performed the lift and I'll support this, as futile as it may be at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Arif Wazir

 * Oppose Biography is lacking detail. He was born in 1982, but the earliest detail about his life is dated 2007. Then there is a decade-long gap until the next event. The article needs a few lines to bridge these gaps. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s worse that that; the 2007 reference is to his father. There is nothing about the subject’s own life until 2017. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Arif belonged to the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe of Wanna, Waziristan, and was a cousin of MNA Ali Wazir. ought to be more directly cited. Otherwise consider this a support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs to be more comprehensive. At the moment it appears to be more an article about the assassination than it is a biography. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am reading a BLP of a politician who has never been elected, and whose party is not in the Assembly of Pakistan as either the government or opposition, now or ever. Then, it turns into a proseline crime blotter recitation, before finally ending on the only event that garnered international attention - his assassination. In addition to the article concerns above, this does not read like a biography and even if it did it might well be a BLP1E. At the very least more biographical details are needed.130.233.2.144 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guanare prison riot

 * Support due to the high death toll and international response (including the UN High Commissioner, the OAS and Amnesty Interntional). I think it should also be mentioned that one of the possible causes of the prison riots was the suspension of visits, declared because of the ongoing pandemic. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the last 7 days in the CE portal there are three prison riots: this one, one in Peru and one in Brazil. This article is very thin on details: no cause, no timeline, no demands, no restoration of authority, none of it. There is a LOT of filler though: background, some complaining about the government, and the usual flag salad. The box us uber stale at this point, but championing another poor quality orphan disaster stub isn't the way to freshen it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to help tighten up the poor quality orphan disaster stub (that is neither an orphan nor a stub, to say nothing of quality). I've not rewritten much from the Spanish Wikipedia article, I've been reviewing other articles instead, so if you want to help out, we'd appreciate it. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I couldn't easily find the Brazil riot mentioned above, but the Peru riot had fewer casualties and no article. The casualty count here is high and the international reactions suggest clear notability. However, the article does not give sufficient information about the riot. Most of the prose is background, reactions, theories and so forth. Also, the more shocking details have been sourced from the BBC and Guardian. I am fully prepared to believe that Venezuelan prisons are inhumanely overcrowded, guards withhold food and dead prisoners are buried in mass graves before informing next-of-kin, but I would like to see such from a source not based in the country with a long-standing animosity towards the subject.130.233.2.144 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those details are in the Venezuelan sources, too (and the UK is not the US when it comes to Venezuela) - the highest RS English language sources are used to source them per English Wikipedia preferences. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Lloyd

 * Comment Citation needed, Refimprove Section and Noref Section added to article, if these are addressed by someone in the know it could make the grade Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Thin. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise, mon ami. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I turned the filmography into a table instead of a list, added sources where I could find them and removed the entries where I could not find sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good work on updating the article, it's still short but well referenced now Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks okay now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Nova Scotia attacks

 * Oppose not particularly notable in of itself, merely the aftermath of an event. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support updating the blurb. Real world consequences that seem noteworthy and in a slow news time, why not? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle this is exactly the kind of news that should be out there after a senseless attack. I seem to recall New Zealand did exactly the same thing recently.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - This is noteworthy enough I think and 2020 Nova Scotia attacks seems well written, however the Firearms regulation in Canada article could use some clean up / improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I've updated the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good work on this Nice4What. - Indefensible (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support given the update ... and a question ^_^, I am tired of looking at Netanyahu and Gantz, shouldn't the picture of Justin Trudeau be included? ^_^ in case this nomination proceeds. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt as a blurb and as a sweeping federal restriction, but call the catalyst a "spree shooting" that "killed 22 people" (that part's not current tense). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As been pointed out at errors, about 30% of the deaths were from arson, not shootings. "Spree attack" is the right term here. --M asem (t) 22:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But the law isn't being put into effect as a result of the arson component specifically. "Spree attack" is too imprecise.--WaltCip (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a phrase at all, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, mass shooting is just fine, and is understood around the world. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mass shooting" is fine for a mass shooting, but this is not that. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this important update to the blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A direct response to the attack that's going to impact and upset some very loud people. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saying Trudeau also cited the Montreal rampage, and this does follow that as well, so maybe a countrywide AR ban is news enough on its own. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – "A spree attack" means little or nothing to most readers. As has been exhaustively DISCUSSED, the most commonly used terms are "mass shooting" or "mass killings." – Sca (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I do think this update is good enough for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, so can we rotate in a Trudeau pic since Canada is at the top of the stack again? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't related to Trudeau. If there's no pic then just leave as is. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More related to him than this rampage, he's mentioned getting around to this for months now, but the pandemic stalled it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-Posting Oppose I don't ever recall posting legislative responses to mass shootings. The shooting was absolutely an ITN worthy tragedy. The enactment of restrictions on private gun ownership is not even close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than NZ, are there any other recent examples of "legislative responses to mass shootings"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly none in the US that can be named, where we tend to get the majority of these stories on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Canada already had fairly restrictive gun laws, certainly when compared to the United States. The significance justifies mention in the article on the shooting and in any article relating to gun laws in Canada. But again, this is not even close to enough to justify making the blurb essentially about Canada's firearms laws. Ridiculous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that answers the question really. Other than NZ, are there any other recent examples of "legislative responses to mass shootings"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * California and Nevada have both tightened their laws following high profile shootings. California was already among the most restrictive states with respect to guns. Nevada has generally been more libertarian. The Feds moved to ban so called bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting. Beyond that and NZ I am not aware of any. But then again mass shootings outside of the US are not altogether common. Which is one of the reasons we posted on the shooting. But a country with already restrictive gun laws making them more so does not meet my standards for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. So a couple of progressive US states made minor modifications.  This appears to be a national legislative change almost immediately after the event.  Regardless of the fact that mass shootings are commonplace in the US and not elsewhere, this is a very strong news story that a large number of our readers will be interested in, after all a lot of them will be in the US and will probably be wondering how Canada can make such an impressive change in one instant while all they get is "hopes and prayers" to make it better.  It's proper news.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Nevada, the progressive state. – Sca (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's going to take two years, not one instant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that TRM only supported it to push his own political opinions and agenda.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What a reckless and ill-conceived comment. TRM does far more for ITN than you realize. I hope you strike it out. WaltCip (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WaltCip, I do know TRM's work. And I actually, admire his work here. But his comment was a political comment. Like, "we needed to post it to 'force' Americans to change their own laws" and not because this is ITN worth. ITN is not meant for it. Wikipedia is not meant for it.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are all entitled to your opinions on this news story and my motivations, sure. Speculate away.  I was banned from doing that for years.  But hey, it never stopped anyone else doing it to me.  It's not a political comment, it's simply that, when pushed, a large, strong democratic nation made a hugely important decision and it's important that such a reaction is published within ITN because that's where a lot of people will expect to see such items.  I have no "political opinions and agenda" here in this case other than to reinforce that Canada suffered a terrible attack and immediately sought to rectify things.  That other nations don't is pure fact.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This was not, in fact, an immediate response. This was supposed to start in March, after much planning. Now is just the perfect time to fast-track it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trudeau made this a campaign pledge in last year's election, at an announcement near where the 2018 Toronto shooting took place. So it was not immediate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment: I believe this was an executive order rather than a "legislative change" (I know in Westminster systems the difference isn't as strong as it is in the US), but I might very well be mistaken in that regard. I also agree with the above that this might have been posted with rather RGWy intentions (which is admittedly speculation per TRM); it's quite wishful to think that posting this is going to change anything in American discourse (most Americans already have an opinion on the matter and are either well aware of and/or will turn a blind eye to our differences vis-a-vis the rest of the world), and the law is less significant and more justifiable than Orban's emergency powers, which we didn't post (admittedly largely due to quality issues, though with some discussion on notability). That said, while I did oppose it above, this isn't clearly not ITN material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment: For those opposing, considering that nothing else is up there to replace the blurb about the original attacks (in terms of additional ITNC nominations), this should just be seen as a fair upgrade of the current blurb. At any other time without COVID dominating the news, I would likely guess that the general news that a country like Canada (which is not known for having many such attacks) bans assault weapons would not have been major news. This is a unique situation. --M asem (t) 03:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not the biggest fan of granting stuff free passes due to the pandemic (see that aquatic dinosaur thing), but everything else you said is a great point. I would greatly oppose if this were a new blurb in of itself, and as said above don't care much for the reasoning behind some of the support, but as an upgrade of the original blurb it's decent enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The legislation story is not worth posting in its own right but as it's part of the whole story now, I think the current blurb is fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Proof once again that Canada is the home of the sane. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We roam and ramble, we follow footsteps, while all around us, a voice is howling: "This land is made for you and me!" InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting suggest an alternate blurb: I am shocked that Wikipedia has accepted such a ridiculous blurb. Why ridiculous? The only thing I oppose here is the lack of quotation marks. The referenced article has taken the right approach - it put the "military-grade assault weapons" in quotation marks (...would immediately ban around 1,500 models of "military-grade assault weapons", mostly rifles.). The whole term "assault weapons" is nonsensical, it means nothing, is only used in America... It is a typical ignorant sensationalist American perversion of "assault rifle", a term with a concise meaning and a proper history. Please, use the quotation marks. As to the notability - I fully support the inclusion of this news, as it is the common truth that gun control might spark a revolution in America.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: the image, "Canada" could be modified to "In Canada, the Trudeau administration" or similar to replace the image of Netanyahu & Gantz attached to the older Israeli blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Augustine Mahiga

 * Support a well referenced article Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements, however the article is almost entirely about his time with the UN, is there no information or material to describe his time afterwards as Tanzania's foreign minister? Without that it seems incomplete in encyclopedic material. - Indefensible (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll go into searching for that, however, I don't know how much info there could be given he served until last year. I'll do my best. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks CoryGlee, anything you can add there would likely be an improvement I think. Good work on the article so far. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's my duty as nominator ^_^ . Could you please check the expansion I made on his career?. There's really difficult to find news about his career as Foreign Minister, I'll keep searching, but please check. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks better now, thanks CoryGlee. - Indefensible (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)