Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Phil Lombardi

 * Support A little on the short side but looks sufficient. P-K3 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's short but looks alright --Vacant0 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but fully cited and everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Jason Dupasquier

 * Comment - I'm not overly familiar with sourcing on bike racing, but I do wonder if the racing section could be expanded upon somewhat. That being said, this is a tragic case of a young sportsperson who died very early in their career while competing in a world championship event, so I doubt the article would be likely to expand that far beyond its current size. Unless someone far more familiar with bike racing than I am raises major concerns about the sourcing here I would be prepared to provisionally support listing Dupasquier on the main page. Note: Grand Prix motorcycle racing is generally far more popular in Romance language countries than it is in the Anglosphere so that should be considered regarding the state of sourcing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like for this to get posted, but I agree this needs expansion. The first section is essentially a list of championships he was involved in, and then it's just details about his death. Nothing else about him at all. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lack of text on his career makes this look more like a death writeup than a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, and . I, honestly, don't know how to improve it. He was only 19 years-old. His Moto3 career started only last year and, before dying, he hasn't had any major accomplishment at Moto3. He only scored 27 points with no wins, no podiums and no poles whatsoever. So, there's not much to talk about his career at Moto3. He succeeded only in minor championships. He was pretty young and a promising driver who will never have the chance to prove himself.-- SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He passes WP:NMOTORSPORT, but sadly died at a young age so there isn't much more to say beyond that. Everything there is to say appears to be there, however. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Sky

 * Support - Well-sourced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppport Article looks good for a RD --Vacant0 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Under "Career" his relocation from New York City to Perryville isn't in any of the sources. All I can find ((from a PDF) not in the article) is a mention that he lived in Perryville in the '70s, but nothing saying he actually moved there from NYC or the reason. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced statement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as that was the only problem in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P. W. T. Simanjuntak

 * Support Article is well-referenced and good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good and well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Indianapolis 500

 * Commenting, will support inclusion upon updating of prose - Agree that the article needs some updates, but otherwise would be an uncontroversial inclusion as part of the triple crown. The fact that Hélio tied the record for most wins and the fact that this win came 20 years after his first may be relevant? I think the longest previous gap between first and last wins was only 16 years but I may be wrong. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow up comment - I have done some initial work adding sources and a brief prose summary. Hopefully the page will expand further as America wakes up and their papers go to press. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article has large swaths of unreferenced text and no prose update. It has long way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I updated the article 2021_Indianapolis_500. , . Minerva  ( talk to me ) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "2021 IndyCar Series" section is unsourced in this article, "Race Schedules" text doesn't seem to be sourced, and some unsourced text on Saturday qualifying. Also, lots of text throughout needs to be converted from future tense to past tense. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mythili Sivaraman

 * Support Comprehensive enough, and the information in the English articles match the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted Gwen) RD: Gwen Shamblin Lara/Joe Lara

 * Support Gwen Shamblin RD only as her article is the only one that's long enough, as well as almost being fully cited (just an unimportant TV appearance missing). Joe Lara's is a stub so it shouldn't be posted until it's RD quality. I don't think combining them would work as it takes up the same amount of space and it'd go against the RD format, so it's better to just split them. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Gewn Shambiln RD only Looks good, there's one cn tag to fix. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Gwen only Gwen's article is clearly good enough, and ready for RD. Joe's article is barely more than a stub, with half the text focused on his death. Needs more information about his life. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Gwen Shamblin Lara. Work can continue on her husband.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

RD: B. J. Thomas

 * Comment - Not ready yet. Some sentences and paragraphs missing refs.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gavin MacLeod

 * Support - Last lift to the Lido Deck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - References have been added, unsourced material removed, and poor quality sources have been replaced with reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Filmography missing  Is it the new norm to split off an existing unsourced filmography to seemingly fast track an ITN nom? Is this in the reader's best interest?—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Aside from the filmography discussion, the first paragraph's first sentences are now tagged, as they were not supported by the lone citation at the end of that paragraph. I'm also wary of the large paragraph beginning "MacLeod's breakout role as Murray Slaughter ..." which also has only one citation at the end, itself a dead url.—Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've struck my oppose based on eyeballing the updates.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Splitting off a completely unsourced filmography to create a completely unsourced new article, purely to push an ITN nomination is not acceptable. It should be merged back and sourced. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Kudos to User:Serial Number 54129 for fixng the citations. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 The important thing,, is that receives no credit whatsoever for this item, due to their obvious gaming with disingenuous edit summaries, creating a completely unsourced article—and calling that merely "problematic"—and then moving the material back when all the work's been done for them under the guise of doing everyone else a favour.  ——  Serial  10:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * : it wasn't the filmography that they called "problematic". It was another paragraph that I flagged, which they did resolve and source.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obvious WP:GAMING attempt, to the detriment of readers. Put the filmography back. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Filmography has been merged back into the article and is fully sourced. Tagged unsourced content in first paragraph of career section has been sourced as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The paragraph that raised as problematic has now been sourced as well. Article should be ready.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Issues appear to have been resolved.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - some bits in the lead (including several actors he starred "opposite") are not cited in the body. Also there's an unattributed quote regarding his divorce. Will support once these fixed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead has been reworded so not to include anything that is not sourced in the body, and the unattributed quote regarding his divorce has been removed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for handling that. Contrary to what's written above, I think you've done good work on updating this article and I would assume good faith regarding the filmography, that you thought that would be a legitimate thing to do... Obviously now you know that it's frowned upon to do things like that to get an ITN! I'm therefore crediting you as an updater. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Way to enable Tdl1060's fucking gaming, . ——  Serial  10:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any gaming going on. This isn't the first time I've seen editors simply remove uncited text from articles when that issue is raised at ITN/C, and I regard it as an innocent error made by newcomers to ITN rather than intentional deception. In this case, Tdl admitted their mistake when it was raised, immediately put the section back with appropriate citations, and then worked to resolve all the other issues that had been raised with the article. also queried your account of their deception in reply to you above. Perhaps I'm being naive, but IMHO a little good faith on your part wouldn't go amiss here. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added nearly 80 fucking citaions, without which you wouldn't have been able to post the fucking thing, and you're lecturing me about good faith? Bullshit. ——  Serial  10:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'll credit you too then... I hadn't noticed your contributions on the, that's obviously good work. But doesn't mean that Tdl's actions weren't themselves done in good faith. It's not like it makes a massive difference to anything, but things run smoother if we don't get at each other's throats all the time. Obviously if Tdl does something like this again, I'll think differently, but for now I think we should just move on. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't add their own name as an updater, and they don't seem to be involved in WP:WIKICUP or anything where one might be wary of an ulterior motive, so I'm inclined to think they had good intentions. They did made a lot of other contributions to the page after the filmography was restored.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Munirathna Anandakrishnan

 * Support There's one cn tag that has to get fixed, otherwise it looks suitable --Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cornelius Sim

 * Support looks a very decent little article, suitably referenced JW 1961 Talk 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – everything seems to be in order: solid referencing, no prose issues, a thorough overview of the topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks great --Vacant0 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 UEFA Champions League Final
*Oppose No prose summary of the match. P-K3 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not sure I see a prose summary of the match. Added alt per house style. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a match summary is now there, and what an excellent and inspiring piece of work it is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lack of summary, uncited statements in several sections, and lack of a complete "Road to final" prose summary. It will need a ton of work to be ITN-ready.  Sounder Bruce  22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets the minimum standard of quality. STSC (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice one TRM! P-K3 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb2 Proper summary with picture Sitaphul (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no match summary. It's an article about a match, and we have almost no details on the match itself in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added a summary. STSC (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a real summary.,  perhaps you could re-consider your !vote?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please consider cropping the suggested image to remove corporate logos on the uniform in the proposed pic. Don't want to give free advertising on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That image is tiny. I ran it just to see what it looks like: File:N'Golo Kanté profile.jpg. Same issue just a few weeks ago with Mark Selby, it makes an awkward crop. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we keep his shoulders? --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Here's a wider shot which is better, but still about 200 x 200 px, so IDK how it will look on MP. We also just put up the Assad blurb so there's definitely photos we can use there. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AllegedlyHuman. I think this looks fine. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (Altblutb2) Article much improved since last evening JW 1961 Talk 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Eaton

 * I've updated it some, but referencing still needs a bit more work.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing now improved.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Jehochman Talk 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of mass graves in Canada

 * Comment There's precedent to post this from when a similar thing was discovered with the Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland. This is, again, the result of a congregation part of the Catholic Church. However, that was only posted once the investigation was completed and the final report was made, and for this the articles make it clear these results are only "preliminary", so I think it's worth waiting for a similar report so we have a more comprehensive article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems the report you are looking for was Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The general mistreatment in schools was already known; the bodies at this particular school is the new discovery. Perhaps the main target should be Canadian Indian residential school system, which has Canadian Indian residential school system, as that page already has the necessary background missing inthe specific school page.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt per Bagumba. The target article in that has enough information regarding the update. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb with FA Canadian Indian residential school system as the target. The actual school page is currently too underdeveloped to provide enough context on the bodies. Perfect opportunity to showcase FA related to news item.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is an interesting story documenting a major discovery. I also prefer the alternative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt per above Kingsif (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt nice article. Harrowing. Should it be in the grounds? ——  Serial  10:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Culturally and historically significant. Prefer Alt2, offered above as a slightly less prolix choice. – Sca (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: – The blurry, horizontal pic. shown is subpar and doesn't really illustrate the story. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the cropped version with less of the ground works ok for tablets and laptops, and have posted it.—Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Namibia Genocide

 * Conditonal support The update needs to be much longer than the 1 line addition to the lead that isn't even expanded in the main text. Someone with knowledge about the genocide would also need to give the okay that the information is correct, as it mostly relies on book references so I can't fact-check the information. I think this can be differentiated from Joe Biden recognising the Armenian Genocide from a month ago, which didn't get posted, as Germany was at least involved in the region, and because there's a €1.1 billion reparation so it's not just politicians talking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of update. Widely covered, historically significant. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment article has been updated. I also altered the blurb slightly. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant recognition and reparation by a nation culpable in a colonial genocide. Major event. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support This is an important event & the article looks good for the most part, but it has a “verification needed” tag, a “citation needed” tag & a “dubious” tag that need to be taken care of. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Support It looks like the article is now good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, added two alt blurbs Support; Prefer if we say reparations. Maybe we could mention Namibia? -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think mentioning Namibia is important, but Germany doesn't consider the financial aid to be reparations (though the financial aid certainly seems like reparations), so I'm not sure if it should be called reparations (what's most important is what it's being called reliable sources). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I fixed all of the tags. 2601:204:D400:7310:91E0:66B:FC9B:B330 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lois Ehlert

 * Support article meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nigeria boat accident

 * The article needs lots of work, but tentative support if fixed. Nevertheless, this nom should be moved to the day it happened. --Tone 17:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle but oppose on quality. The article needs to be longer than two sentences, but I do appreciate the editor who started the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is 378 characters long, it's a micro-stub. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A stub can be of good quality, lots reliable sources on an area of the world that's difficult to find credible news articles for. What else would you expect to be written in this matter? We may never get any more information on this nor an aftermath. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please work on expanding the article. This would be a suitable item if the article had more information. Jehochman Talk 00:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Abcmaxx The point of ITN is to highlight good quality articles and give people looking at the front page of Wikipedia something to read, not to just post every article written about something in the news. There's literally only three lines to read in this, and posting would require pushing off articles that are actually comprehensive (right now, that'd be this stub replacing a blurb with both a featured article and a B-class article). Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * whilst I take your point on board I nominated 2021 Mali coup d'état when the news broke. No article could be found so I created one, a short stub to begin with. Other users expanded it thanks to the nomination proposal so much so it was posted in the end. Whilst I understand your point this article could still follow the same route. Even a stub nomination can be of benefit to everybody Abcmaxx (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx I appreciate that you nominated this - it's certainly significant enough to get posted, it's just that there's not enough information out there to write an article about it. I couldn't find anything myself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * without wanting to sound derogatory what else is there to be added? The cause and effect of this tragedy is fairly simple. Sadly in that part of the world there are minimal health and safety laws, poor conditions of transport, weak enforcement, inadequate licencing regulations etc. In reality there could be little to no aftermath other than a public outcry and sadness. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - nothing. If that's all the information out there it doesn't meet the quality bar for me, and as for significance this kind of thing isn't new, it should've been easy to spot (everyone knows about overloading boats), and it'll happen again. - my view is that ITN is for highlighting quality articles, and that's it. Not bringing attention to this kind of negligence or injustice for the sake of it - there needs to be a quality article behind it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality not quantity though. There's plenty of quality in this article, although not much quantity. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support There has been an expansion by User:NorthernFalcon. I think there is enough there to post now.P-K3 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of what's currently there is just filler. There needs to be more information about the actual event. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As well as that, "the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) gave 168 persons as the estimated figure of casualties in the last one year" [1 ]. This kind of thing isn't new. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Actually in contrast to Uses X, given that what happened was that the boat was overloaded with passengers and broke in two, I think what happened at the accident is all that is needed - the response section - the need for better safety measures in the future, is absolutely appropriate for the expansion here and makes this sufficient. --M asem (t) 17:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the change in safety measures is a vital part of the story then the blurb needs to include it. Right now, the summary given in the blurb is that the accident is the only notable part of the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not like the safety measures are going to happen overnight. Airplane crashes lead to similar changes but it takes time to implement. The news story is still the boat sinking and loss of life, there's just not much more about the details that need to be explained. Too many people were put on beyond the rated limit. Not every disaster needs an in-depth analysis of the cause-and-effect. Similar to the above Iran navy vessel story. --M asem (t) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Nigeria, so they're most likely not going to happen at all. As I said, filler. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If it's not too late and condolences to the victims' families. Cheers, 70.23.250.93 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Decent length. Citation coverage is good (try to avoid clusters). Joofjoof (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted I put it at the top of the list so it gets equal exposure.  This might be irregular.  So what?  The news was a little slow arriving but it is informative for the reader and helps provide a better view of world events. Jehochman Talk 23:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman "ITN items are in a bulleted list, ordered chronologically by date of occurrence", no exceptions. Bait30 made the WP:ERRORS request so that's been fixed. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew someone would complain. I thought it justifiable per IAR, myself. P-K3 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fifth on a list of up to six, so it will hopefully remain for at least a few days. Jehochman Talk 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robbie McCauley

 * Support Can post this on MainPage after more reviews by other wikieditors. --PFHLai (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Hodge (engineer)

 * Support Nice article, assuming good faith on book citations JW 1961 Talk 11:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This looks ready to me, but the oldest name currently on ITN-RD got there less than 24 hours ago. So, I'll wait a few hours. --PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kees de Jager

 * Support I've added sources and reworked the article for a bit, it looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait There are problems with referencing. For example, the sole reference in "Sun-climate relations" is an obscure book written by a climate skeptic with only a B.A. degree in social sciences. Typical. I'll work on it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think I can get rid of that bad citation as it's a decent synthesis of the actual method de Jager used, but I've added reliable citations for the factual things instead. That's the most that can probably be done. Otherwise, fully referenced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Foster Friess

 * Comment – refs 7–14 are bare links. Also, refs 5, 6, and 35 are sourced to his personal website without qualifying the info in the prose (contrast with ref 8). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replaced or filled in the bare URLs, and also either provided better sources, clarified or removed some stuff cited to his personal site. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – corrected one minor chronological inaccuracy as to his cancer diagnosis, but other than that, it looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks alright! --Vacant0 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carla Fracci

 * Support Looks good! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harvey Schlossberg

 * Support more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Llew Smith

 * Support Looks fully sourced and ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Only one unsourced sentence, which I just added citations for. Looks good otherwise. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Murray Dowey

 * what are your thoughts on this? Does it meet the minimum requirements for ITN? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK for a basic short article, and covers the most important aspect of his life, the 1948 Olympics. Marking as ready and attention needed etc, so hopefully this can be posted shortly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Syrian presidential election

 * Support ITN/R and the article is satisfactory. Mlb96 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks ready.--Sakiv (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support nomination but strong oppose blurb: blurb make it sound like an ordinary election rather than an attempt to legitimise a dictatorship with very few standard electoral procedures. I would propose adding; "disputed", "contentious", "un-accepted", or "widely discredited". Abcmaxx (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITN/R and the article is fine. The blurb on Vladimir Putin's 2018 re-election is an example that commentary about the legitimacy of the election shouldn't be put in the blurb. There are 2 citation needed tags, but it's just a list of countries so it's not vital information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: We should not unquestionably report the results of sham "elections" put on by autocracies in our voice. What about "In Syria, Bashar al-Assad (pictured) is announced to have won re-election as president.  Sandstein   12:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "is re-erected as president" – ?? ... ;-) — Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on the comments above I am going to adjust the blurb to try to accurately summarize the content of the article and not create a misimpression (as the current blurb clearly does). Jehochman Talk 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, "that is denounced as illegitimate" seems rather too strong for our own voice, leaving us open to POV criticism. Suggest "that is discredited by critics." – Sca (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I can fix that by saying who the critics are. The reader can decide for themselves what to believe.  The article cites a source using the word "denounced" with regard to the US, so let's stick with that.  I changed "illegitimate" to "undemocratic" to more closely hew to the source for the EU's statement. Jehochman Talk 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The new language, that is denounced as undemocratic by the United States and the European Union, works for me. TNX. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we add that the Syrian actual opposition thinks its undemocratic too? After all their voice is probably more important than that of an outsider.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The present blurb seems forceful enough – altho perhaps there's still something to be said for the more generalized "that is discredited by critics" – maybe expanded a bit as "that is discredited by domestic and foreign critics" – ?? You tell me. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we keep the ITN blurbs short, please? I'd rather people click the link on MainPage and read the article for details. Just a short one indicating that Bashar is back for another "term" is long enough. --PFHLai (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment we don't editorialize on elections in blurbs unless we want to include Egypt and Russia as well. Just put it back. He doesn't "claim victory" either. Readers can dig in on the target article and make their own decision. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree: while it is a true statement it is inappropriate editorializing for an ITN item and reflects a very specific world view that ITN should not necessarily be promoting. If the news was some international court case to challenge the election, that would be appropriate, but to add this when we haven't it for, say, Russia's elections is extremely hypocritical and unnecessary. --M asem (t) 22:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also editorializing to just say he won the election without further comment. We are not here to whitewash dictators who stage fraudulent elections.  The article documents what each country has said.  The blurb doesn't have space to list all of them, so we highlight a few of the most significant critics.  This is better than an anonymous, "some say the election was undemocratic."  That's my reading of the above discussion. Jehochman Talk 23:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not WP's place to classify elections as fair or unfair unless it's determined through evidence and appropriate review processes that an election was deemed unfair. While there's certainly numerous questions about Syria's election process here and the US + EU are absolutely morally right to put these questions forth, that's not WP's issue to try to take a stand on. This is not an issue we should be taken a position on in a brief statement. The article should absolutely cover it, but out of Wikivoice and without comment. --M asem (t) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original blurb. As noted, It is not our place to editorialise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems like the original blurb editorializes that the election was a normal election that was free and fair. It’s misleading. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a grave error. It is not our job to serve up propaganda put out by the Syrian government.  It is very important to report, according to the reliable sources that appear in the article itself, that it is seriously disputed that this was a democratic election. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is disputed by some governments, but WP is not the mouthpiece of these governments. Other governments support the elections. The article should absolutely cover that the election is disputed by some governments, but we should not be pretend that the US or aligned governments are necessarily "right" here. --M asem (t) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are we a mouthpeace for Syria? They claim to have had an election. Anyone who cares about democracy is laughing at this sham election.  Why are we spreading the propaganda of Syria, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea?  Jehochman Talk 02:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the "axis of evil." To avoid being a mouthpiece for them, let's instead be a mouthpiece for the CIA, that solves the problem entirely. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the EU, France, and Germany are mouthpieces of the CIA?  Your comment is very strange indeed. Jehochman Talk 03:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If there was complete worldwide rebuttal against the elections as rigged with only Syria acting as if they were legit, then yes, we may have room to speak against them. But all we have at least documented in the article is what appears to be five or six countries in the entire world that are speaking against it, far from anywhere close this to even consider it a fact that the elections were rigged. WP cannot make that assumption in Wikivoice, period, this is a fundamental NPOV issue. Now, I'm not saying the blurb as modified made that assumption in Wikivoice, but it stressed a point that made it clearly non-neutral. It would be like saying, back in 2016 "President Trump won the US election by a out-of-date electoral college system according to many experts." as the blurb. Fact and sourcable, but its editorializing that we cannot do. --M asem (t) 04:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't give North Korea a veto. You are being patently absurd. All reliable sources are reporting that this is a sham election.  We must say so or we are seriously deceiving the reader. Jehochman Talk 05:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a simple and neutral "is re-elected president". It only links to the article which does a good job. It does not say the election was democratic, or free, or fair, either. People unfamiliar will find out from the article; those familiar will know something's up anyway. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the election is rigged, then he isn't "re-elected." He's declared president in a rigged election. Syria reported 95% support for Al-Assad with 78% turnout.  More people voted for him, allegedly, than the total population of the parts of Syria under government control.  This is painfully obvious fraud.  Lying can take the form of stating something that's untrue, but there is also lying by omission, failing to include highly relevant facts. Wikipedia shouldn't do either.  I know this is hard, but we should do the work needed to get this right. Jehochman Talk 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is world politics. If there is demonstrable consensus among world countries or world academia that the election was rigged, we could do that. But we can't put out a blurb that claims more than our article can. "Assad is declared winner in an election that had more voters than the population in the territories which could possibly hold an election," and was condemned by the United States and its allies but welcomed by Russia and its allies" is too long. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is universal consensus among reliable sources that the election is a sham. Read the article. We are not judging what countries think. We follow what reliable sources say. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Egregious case of false balance. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How about the alternative blurb? Jehochman Talk 05:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a less sensationalist blurb as altblurb2. I personally don't think it should be added as, again, people can read the article and make a decision for themselves, but that is strictly factual so I wouldn't have a problem with it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Introducing "disputed" seems like a slippery slope to me. We'll have to decide in future which to label as disputed and which not - after all, plenty of elections are disputed including the most recent US election. Far better to just state the raw fact that there was an election, and person X won it, without attempting to editorialise in the blurb, then leave the detailed analysis to the article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t seem like a slippery slope to me because it’s what reliable sources are calling this election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull – This bland simple sentence does not summarize the story in a balanced and accurate way. There's been ample RS reporting to show that Bashar wasn't (re-) "elected" in the normal sense of the term. If we can't agree on "disputed" or something similar, the blurb should be pulled. It's misleading, thus an error – Sca (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore that other countries/the EU consider it unfair. It's not us judging it unfair(which we shouldn't do) but merely reporting what others say about the fairness of the election. This is a significant aspect of the reporting. I agree that just saying "sham" or "disputed" should not be done because that would be us judging it. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason you're saying "restore" when it hasn't yet been pulled? – Sca (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I call for restoring the part of the blurb that was removed. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's only a small subset of the rest of the world calling it unfair, it's not like the rest of the world is. Its a decidedly pro-Western democracy stance, which we should avoid trying to focus on even if we generally agree with it. --M asem (t) 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Absent a supranational body to make binding legal determinations about the fairness of elections, that's all we have. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the article cites other countries giving congratulations to him without questioning the elections (albeit those countries having their own questionable politics under Western demographic standards), no, that's not the only bar, and that's the issue. WP can't take a moral stance here. --M asem (t) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reporting does not focus on the countries that say it was fair and as you point out most of those conduct unfair elections themselves. That's not our moral judgment, but that of RS. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Fine as is, let's follow precedent (e.g. Russia) and try to not go beyond that. Gotitbro (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull If we can’t accurately summarize the article then let’s be silent. The article says this election was a sham. It also says the results are not accepted by the US and the EU. I’m fine with sham, disputed or saying who disputes it. I am not fine with suggesting this was a legitimate election as we are currently doing. Jehochman Talk 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The US and EU are irrelevant, because the election took place in Syria. And it should not be pulled, because elections are ITN/R. But what recurs is that we post the result of the election and its impact on who will lead the nation going forward. All things which are unambiguous in this case. What we don't include in the one-line blurb is value judgements on whether the election was "legitimate" or not. This is not rocket science. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Headlines we never saw: "Brezhnev elected president of U.S.S.R." – Sca (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If a head of state was appointed to the position, that's what the blurb says. See: Miguel Díaz-Canel's blurb just over a month ago. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Maybe this should be discussed in general on the talk page, though it still might remain necessary to decide on case-by-case basis. Looking back at two controversial elections, the 2019 Bolivian general election and the 2021 Ugandan general election: For the former, we posted a blurb pointing out some aspects of the controversy, for the latter, we did not. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The final blurb was "Amid days of protests in Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales is re-elected to office." - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=923291336 Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Uses x! I also tried to find what we'd posted after the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, but it appears that the focus then was on the protests: "Pro-democracy protests intensify in Belarus after the contested reelection of incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured)"] (btw, if anyone knows a better way of navigating through what we've posted other than clicking through diffs of the template, please let me know). I still think it might be worth having a discussion outside this thread, since there doesn't seem to be agreement in this instance. ---Sluzzelin  talk  14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment if we're going to use the blurb to highlight that the election was disputed by the US and EU then we need to include Egypt and Russias more supportive position. Or maybe just leave it alone, and not editorialize in the blurb? Y'all act like somehow a blurb on the front page of Wikipedia "legitimizes" al-Assad as if we included the word "disputed" then suddenly all our WP:READERS would unite and help overthrow the regime. Get ahold of yourselves. It's easy to be "neutral" when everyone agrees, it's much harder to set emotions and POV aside when the outcome is undesirable. Also, unless we seriously expect the outcome to change, I think this has run it's course. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull The current blurb is very misleading & it doesn’t reflect that reliable sources are calling it a disputed election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Claims victory in a disputed election" or "controversial election" should suffice, alt blurb II is ok in that regard. The details are in the article to click. Pulling is not the best option here, it should be reserved only for articles with insufficient quality or where consensus for posting has not been reached. Brandmeistertalk  07:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm a doctor The current perfunctory blurb doesn't work because it's just a continuation of the current administration so where's the significance? How about showing how this matters?  For example, Assad now has a seat on the executive of the World Health Organisation.  But he's a qualified doctor so that's all good.  What could possibly go wrong ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITN/R, the significance has already been determined. And writing "Bashar al-Assad is re-elected as president of Syria, giving him an executive seat on the WHO" is more obvious POV-pushing than whatever else has been suggested. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The election of Syria to the WHO executive happened at the Saturday session of the World Health Assembly, whereas the presidential election took place a week ago. So it would be good to report this fresher news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Lahusen

 * The entry is now thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well-cited now --Vacant0 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looking ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) San Jose shooting

 * Oppose There's nothing particularly notable in this one. A man with anger issues hates his job so he goes all Falling Down. It also got much less media attention than these attacks usually do. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose in principle — another one? osunpokeh (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As has been determined to be a workplace-related shooting and nothing related to terrorism, it falls into the usual violence in the US --M asem (t) 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose It's really sad to have to say this, but mid size shootings like this in US are no longer notable or sufficiently unique, IMO, unless there's some special angle, and from what I can tell, here there is not.  Mel ma nn   07:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another routine shooting in the United States. I suggest immediate closure per WP:SNOW before this turns into another pointless and time-consuming discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Bay Area has a population of 7.75 million, larger than many nations, and yet has never had a shooting of this scale until two days ago. This is certainly not "routine". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An area of 7.75 million is not bigger than most countries. Claiming to be the biggest in an area (without even saying it's the biggest ever in the state) does not make it ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Read again: I said many, not most (although it's close either way). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is 'routine' because it took place in a country with extremely poor public safety, comparable to countries that are currently in war, with hundreds of similar incidents per year. You can always find something to claim it's deadliest (e.g. deadliest in a city, deadliest in an area, deadliest in a neighbourhood populated by an ethnic group, deadliest on a Wednesday, deadliest during a weekend, deadliest using a handgun etc.) but that's implausible when you see the big picture, that is, shootings are all over the United States on a daily basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If a warzone underwent a record death toll, I, for one, would support the nomination. "Deaths" is not as obscure or trivial of a metric as you are making it seem for a mass shooting. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose a mass shooting in the US? These only happen a few hundred times a year. Like half the US shooting articles, I fail to see how it's even notable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it to AFD, then, if it's truly non-notable, and do this encyclopedia a service. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The AFD will be populated with loads of Americans and kept. Which is the wrong outcome, but the one that would occur, because Wikipedia suffers from massive recentism issues. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "When I like the result, it's consensus. When I don't, it's American bias." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's my opinion of many articles about recent events. It just happens that American shootings seem to be the ones coming up on ITNC all the time. I never mentioned American bias, I mentioned a problem with recentism. Go check how many non-US ITN items I've opposed before claiming that I just scream "American bias". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of your comment was "The AFD will be populated with loads of Americans and kept", not "The AFD will be populated with loads of recentists and kept." The comment implies that someone's nationality would compel them to support inclusion of every article about things happening in their country, and that it would be impossible for them to a fair arbiter of notability or non-notability (read: bias). I don't care if you also happen to feel strongly about Malagasy bias or Icelandic bias or Antarctican bias or what have you, and I didn't say anywhere that opposing stuff in the USA was a recurring thing for you (I'm really not that inclined to check one way or the other). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: domestic violence. Also Oppose the nominator bludgeoning the discussion. ——  Serial  08:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the notion this was an act of domestic violence? It very much is not. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Obvious oppose completely routine mass shooting, nothing of any note, nothing will change etc etc. According to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021, this is just the 178th mass shooting of this year. It's not encyclopedically newsworthy in the slightest.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mufti Abdul Razzaq

 * Comment / oppose for now. The subject is being lauded as a freedom fighter for India, yet there is no coverage of this in the article. The narrative doesn't really begin until 1952. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , addressed with a related fact. I'd surely update it further whenever I've access to more information ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Owais Talk 15:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * do you still have any objection? I've not heard from you since two days., may this be posted now? ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still feel this is light on detail. Surely if sources are describing him as a leading freedom fighter, there must be more to say than just "he was involved in a fight"? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it happens that if someone takes even a little part in any good effort, he is lauded very much. I skimmed through the whole 600+ p. book on him and his works; and the best I could get was the fact that I've added in the article. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  17:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also see that he was 22 at the time of India's independence. It doesn't make sense that he would have been a leading figure; unless he was born some years earlier (or started any movement etc). I often see exaggeration while Indian freedom fighters are venerated. The best I can think that he might've participated after he was "18 yo" until 1947 when he was "22" because he was close to Hussain Ahmad Madani - but the major source on his life and works omits all of these and mentions in light detail his little participation. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support However I believe that the "Literary works" section needs some expansion. There should be a short introduction about his writings. --Gazal world (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this going to be posted? I've already addressed the major and necessary issues. 7- days are going to pass and this should be getting sometime on the ITN. Noting that, I'll surely update the details about literary works if possible. Thanks. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  06:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any further input from, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies for not coming back to you, but I see it's been posted now so all's well that ends well. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, . --PFHLai (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Carle
Support he was a very influential author, also wrote "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what do you see?"
 * Support RD, maybe blurb I am open to a blurb for him, a major author -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I would 100% support a blurb seeing how his book became the best selling children's book of all time. However, the article is in bad shape and needs to be beefed up with sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please consider holding off on the blurb debate until the quality is addressed. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Drawing attention: If someone has existing newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia library it'd be helpful for citing his early life. I'm hitting a paywall. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * working on cites... will work thru more tomorrow. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Selected works might need to be renamed. Judging by the pace of output and timeframe, this might well be an exhaustive list (thus strike "Selected"). They're all books published in the US (save the doodle) so a search through Library of Congress should give both ISBNs and reveal whether anything is missing. If the list in indeed "selected" then there needs to be clear criteria for selection or else tagged with list missing criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Many people have heard of and read this book, but that doesn't make its author automatically transformative. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per Amakuru. A charming kids' book, but at most a literary footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, maybe blurb Major author who died at a very old age; I think the general consensus is that he 100% needs an RD nomination, but the blurb is optional. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Looks like the article is now of a sufficient quality to post to RD.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD It's now fully cited and it's long enough for RD, but not blurb-quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)″
 * RD only He was influential but not enough for a blurb.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a few unsourced claims. Stephen 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be all resolved now unless I've missed anything Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Appears on virtually every list of the most read children's authors, most of whom are long dead. We posted Sendak, and would have posted Seuss, Lewis, Alcott. This is the peer group.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb whilst The Very Hungry Caterpillar is a household name, Eric Carle is not. Until seeing this RD nom, I didn't know the author's name. His name is much less well known than other people who have been refused blurbs for their deaths here previously. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's specious reasoning. He is extremely prominent in his field, so if you don't know who he is, that means you have very little knowledge of that field. So how can you weigh his relative importance?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know exactly who Sendak, Lewis, Seuss and Alcott are, without having to be told their most famous work(s). That simply isn't the case for Carle. Just because lots of people know the book, that doesn't mean they know the author. Which is why I'm disputing the fact that his death is notable enough for a blurb, which is something we reserve for extremely rare cases for super-important people. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Carle is not famous for a single book. If you exclude his top seller, he's still outsold Lewis Carroll, ER Burroughs, Ian Fleming, etc.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for individuals whose death and/or funeral could have a stand-alone article.  Abductive  (reasoning) 13:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Observation - not even 12 hours after posting and he's off RD, despite receiving numerous blurb supports, in favour of several very non-prominent people that received singular supports for their RD on May 27. This system is very broken. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we have lots of RD noms, sometimes we have fewer. Can we restore under-exposed ones on lull days? Or shall we set a minimum time for MainPage appearances? --PFHLai (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be a non-starter and might lead to disputes, but is it possible we could have two tiers of RDs - those that have strong blurb support could be tier 2 and therefore retained on RD for longer than the run-of-the-mill entries? Personally I think it was right not to blurb Eric Carle, but then again it is legitimate to say that some people were looking for his article after he died and that it might be good to keep him up for at least a couple of days. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is on-going discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:In the news. Please join. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: H. S. Doreswamy

 * Support Looks ok, I can't see any referencing problems.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell

 * Comment: This is the first time a big oil company is ordered by a court to cut its carbon emissions. The Guardian calls it a landmark ruling and the Wall Street Journal argues it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments This does seem like a case that could set a major precedent, and I'm seeing coverage in plenty of major outlets (Bloomberg, NPR, CNN, etc.), but it's also a three-sentence article. I understand nominating things at ITN/C to help get the article developed, but this one needs a lot of development; based on importance, I would be inclined to support based on what I've seen of the story if the article is greatly expanded.. Also, I would take "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb; I get that it's theoretically notable, but IMO, not enough to take up space on the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded it to the point that it would be minimum size for main page. --M asem (t) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you very much, Masem! And I agree with you, Kicking222, to leave "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's great news and thanks to Masem it has enough information, but Royal Dutch Shell have said they're likely to appeal the decision, so ultimately it's a district court ordering something which might end up just being overturned. [Irish Independent ] Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The court declared the verdict immediately enforceable. Shell must uphold the verdict until the verdict is overturned. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with Dutch law but doesn't every civil law system have a mechanism that allows the appeals court to suspend immediate enforcement until the appeal is decided? Regards So  Why  20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We also generally post on the conviction of a major trial even though we know that appeals are usually 100% assured. --M asem (t) 20:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is up to date, sufficiently detailed and referenced (though a bit short), and the story is in reliable news sources now. Since the story is in the news now, it is most appropriate to post it now.  What may or may not happen at future times regarding appeals and overturning is irrelevant as news sources are covering the verdict now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I am pretty sure that this will be overturned on appeal but it is being reported on in a lot of media, including here in Germany, making it ITN worthy. I did tag one statement as needing a secondary source though. Regards So  Why  20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Provided the secondary source--a German secondary source even :-). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in good quality, and it's an interesting precedent which has received plenty of coverage. Of course, this case will drag on for years, but that's a different story. KittenKlub (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is an encyclopedic article, not a trash overhyped piece of pulp. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose misleading. The claim "contributing about 1% to global emissions" is cited to the Guardian which itself cites nothing but "court claims". Here is an actual fact: Shell is the 9th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions when you factor in Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions which factors in other parties burning oil produced by shell. That's right. KLM burning oil? That's counted against shell. Dutch energy burning oil? That's counted against shell. Climate change is real, it is a serious threat to human health and food security, but this lawsuit is bullshit and the target article is propaganda. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As the article notes, this decide applies to all of Shell's buyers and suppliers too, so absolutely not BS. --M asem (t) 22:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As someone who has recently published two peer-reviewed manuscripts on topics from energy economics, I consider this verdict of strategic significance in relation to efficient energy consumption. This doesn't set merely a precedent that may be followed by other judiciaries but it impacts the way energy consumption will be optimised in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support an important case, not least because it includes all of their suppliers in this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose post-posting: I understand the political significance highlighted by the support votes above. However, there is virtually no legal significance to this at all. As Judiciary of the Netherlands explains, this is a first-instance decision which is already under appeal. Given the issues and money involved, it's almost certain to end up in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and probably also the European Court of Human Rights. It'll be literally years before we can tell whether this is genuinely significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the same Dutch judicial system upheld similar action taken against the country's gov't in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation a few years back to undertake actions to meet climate change goals, so there's a strong chance it will survive a challenge. I would agree that if this was a case originating out of a US federal district court, where there was little higher level action at SCOTUS, it probably would not have had similar news-shattering events. --M asem (t) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All that may be true, but it is also irrelevant. It is in the news now, which is why we post it now.  Everyone has reasons why they find a story significant or important to themselves, but we rely on reliable sources at Wikipedia, not personal feelings or preferences.  Sources are covering this story now, and it doesn't really matter what the story is, just that reliable sources are treating it as a big deal, which is why it is appropriate to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-post support Not every blurb is limited to eradicating cancer ... or completely solving global warming. Quality new page that's prominently in the news works for me (not to be confused with a WP:NOTDIARY update of a celebrity) .—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PP Comment – The complexity of this issue, and its possible transitoriness, make it quite dubious as a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I suspect it's nowhere near as significant as this discussion seems to think it is, but hey ho... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's life in the big city. (But hey, I learned that transitoriness is actually a word.) – Sca (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Another comment - why is there a picture of Shell's headquarters attached to this story? I thought images were included to assist readers in understanding a story, but that picture of a building has very little to do with the court ruling or its ramifications. We'd rather just stick with the pic of the Samoan PM-elect, which at least is relevant to its story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that the royal we? ;-) – Sca (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Swapped. The building is uninvolved.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

X-Press Pearl

 * Comment The article implies that the crew safely evacuated with no deaths, and doesn't say anything about an oil spill. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As no deaths occured, specific information about the environmental impact is needed before it can be considered. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – More information from more sources needed. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once more information comes out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose/Wait Article needs to be more developed, per WP:WEIGHT, the article is likely at the wrong title. It should be about the event, something like X-Press Pearl fire, as the article isn't about the ship, it is about the fire onboard the ship.  If you want the article to be about the ship, you'll need a LOT more information about the ship before the fire.  I'm not entirely sure we need an article about this ship, and since this fire is all we really care about, it should probably be moved.  Furthermore, the article itself needs some expansion before it is main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based on the lead and the page title, it seems like the page is about the ship itself, but it's dominated by the fire. It the ship is notable, more background text is needed.  If it's the fire, name it as such, so it's notability can be judged against Notability (events).—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Samuel E. Wright

 * Comment. Needs some work - it's currently orange tagged, and sparse in coverage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Does ITN-RD require footnotes in the filmography sections? If not, this short little wikibio would be ready. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the filmography needs to be sourced. P-K3 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, P-K3. Fakescientist8000, please add footnotes and refs to the filmography section soon. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to do that as soon as possible. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I see that User:Кирилл С1 has added quite a few footnotes to the filmography section. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone Yaas

 * Wait While it has caused a large number of evacuations, if there are minimal deaths, this likely will not be appropriate to post for ITN. --M asem (t) 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Around 10 deaths (7 before and 3 today, as of now). And coastal villages and towns flooded. (Aljazeera) <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF"> Stay safe  </b> </b> 13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that number of deaths won't make it, but it is this time of year that storms will threaten several parts of the world and will do damage, but we simply don't have room to post all landfall-making, damage-dealing storms with few-to-no death counts, even if it causes temporary displace of millions of people. I'm only saying wait here because the landfall was this morning so full impact is not yet known. --M asem (t) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that everything can't be included in the ITN. But, the degree of damage is very high, as the areas got flooded (it didn't even happen during the Super cyclone last year) due to high tide at the time of landfall. <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF">  Stay safe  </b> </b> 14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Very high impact, potential/likely further impact, number of deaths already. Article is decent.  Mel ma nn   13:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did my best to find all the reported deaths from Yaas and I got 7. When did you get the three more, ? You are welcome to edit the article to reflect the latest informations about the impact of Yaas. I'm currently on my wikibreak, but I'll do my best to update the article. Thanks and stay safe, 🌀  Hurricane  Parrot🐦  13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 more deaths in Odisha <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF">  Stay safe  </b> </b> 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait – storm surge looks bad but death toll is relatively low at this time. Will revisit in ~12h and see if the death toll jumps after sunrise. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose. Death toll hasn't risen since yesterday, evacuations, mangroves, and numerous rescue operations by emergency services seem to have done their bit. Coverage by news outlets outside of India is fading quickly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – We need to wait until more death/damage reports come in and things stabilise in India a little bit.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is excellent and while it might be nice to wait for damage reports, the reality is that it's in the news now, not so much later. Only thing that might be nice is a current fatality/injury count in the sidebar, but it's ultimately trivial given the article quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough deaths... appears to be an average storm thus far. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait We need to know the full scale of impact first, it isn't enough right now for ITN. codingcyclone   advisories/damages 20:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per KN2731. Nothing much has changed overnight, I don't think much more impact will come from this storm... codingcyclone   advisories/damages 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Come on, evacuations aren't going to be enough to make this storm notable. --WaltCip- (talk)  20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb II is just pure trivia. More fitting for DYK than ITN. --WaltCip- (talk)  20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait pending the article being updated with impact information. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Yaas is notable enough for many ways: it triggered a mass evacuation in Odisha and West Bengal in India and Bangladesh. Second, it caused a wide swath of destruction, as seen in media reports, an example is flooding. Third, it already caused 9 deaths and the reason the fatalities were low is due to the immediate action of the authorities from Yaas; the evacuations. But we have to wait a little for more impacts about Yaas, as the system is still active and the reports of impacts are not that fast to transmit to different media services, newspapers and articles. 🌀  Hurricane  Parrot🐦  09:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, another tornado outbreak in Ashoknagar Kalyangarh <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF">  Stay safe  </b> </b> 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Okay, added. Is there any more? 🌀  Hurricane  Parrot🐦  02:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no... <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF"> Stay safe  </b> </b> 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , last-minute request: can you change the blurb of the article? I don't know how, I'm new here. And, the article itself is updated. Over $2 billion in damages and 20 deaths. Thank you so much. 🌀  Hurricane  Parrot🐦  06:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * did some modifications. <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF"> Stay safe  </b> </b> 09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment blurb should probably be updated, as it's now affected places in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh- possibly change the places to Indian subcontinent, or list the countries? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per Masem, Jayron, Walt. Australian AP says six fatalities "reported." This, in a country of 1.4 billion, seems of questionable import. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Nothing exceptional about this, the seasonal monsoon is more notable. Given India's massive population and the population density of Bangladesh, evacuations of more than a million people in this region are normal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per . Honestly, this fits more for DYK more than ITN,  since the blurb is mainly trivial. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 17:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: more than 20 deaths reported and the blurb has been updated <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF"> Stay safe  </b> </b> 08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even with 20 deaths, this is just an average storm, not notable enough for ITN. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cotton Ivy

 * Support Fully referenced and comprehensive. With a spot-check of information everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eilat Mazar

 * Support Looks to be sufficiently referenced and updated.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Warner

 * Oppose There are little to no citations for the Early life and education and Secretary of the Navy section. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still has large unsourced sections. These sorts of entries are too bad because I am guessing pretty much all is verifiable, just not verified, which is usually acceptable to WP policy. I guess understandable to have different standards for Main page tho, given potential for embarrassment. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too much unsourced text. As an aside, why does that article have a succession box for "Husband of Elizabeth Taylor"? He didn't succeed anyone as husband, and the next person was five years later. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ben Kruger

 * Comment Good work updating, there are just some 2006/07 awards mentioned in the career section that aren't cited, will Support when fixed. JW 1961 Talk 21:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it turns out the awards in question weren't wins, they were just nominations so I've updated that (and hived them off into their own sub-section). I've also added a bit more detail in what remains of the Career prose. Let me know if anything else needs doing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks - that looks fine for RD now JW 1961 Talk 22:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tarcisio Burgnich

 * Support All looks to be cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Lazzaro (university administrator)

 * Support Excellent article, fully cited and comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Overall it looks alright, the references only have to get fixed --Vacant0 (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  One-sentence lead is too short for bio with so much material.—Bagumba (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Also see comment below about the refs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strike my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed 7 of 16 refs are bare URLs. I tried to fix this, but then I realize that Ref.#6 is about the removal of a bust on campus, but the sentence where the footnote is found is about the installation of a globe on campus. Something is not right ... --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:ITNCRIT advises: References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark York

 * I have a concern that of the sources present in the article only one predates his death (the People source). Otherwise, we're looking at a BLP1E issue here which is a problem both from a notability standpoint and RD posting. I'd recommend trying to find a few more sources pre-dating the death to show he was notable before this point. --M asem (t) 15:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Are people only allowed to become notable if there is writing about them before they die? How do you square that with the existence of articles like Vincent van Gogh where, most certainly, there is not enough source text about his life written before he died.  Why are reliable sources written after a person's death not suitable for citing in an article?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously for people that lived well before the existence of mass media, there's different standards (and of course, people have written at length about Van Gogh well after his death). But for an actor who's career was 100% within the realm of widespread Internet coverage, to have almost no coverage until their death indicates that they were more a minor actor, only getting attention due to death of the actor of a character from a popular show. I'd love to be proven wrong in terms of more sources that existed while the Office was being filmed, for example, but if we're just building an article off obits, even semi-lengthy ones, that's a general BLP1e issue. --M asem (t) 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you are invoking WP:BLP1E here; surely his various acting roles count as multiple events for which he is notable. Also, where can I read about this Wikipedia policy or guideline that says for people who died after the internet existed, we're not allowed to use sources written after their death.  I would like to make sure I am following this from now on... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1E is his death here. Acting in small roles are not significant events if they drew no coverage at the time of their broadcast and only attention at the point of death - otherwise any credited actor in any work would be immediately notable and that's not something our notability guidelines allow. --M asem (t) 17:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But he's not notable for dying. He's notable for acting.  The 1E is not his death.  Furthermore, you still haven't told me where I can read about this rule that sources published after a persons death during the internet age can't be used.  I would really like to read this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BASIC or WP:ENT would be more appropriate, but the result is the same.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comment, in digging around only managed to find one other RS besides the People magazine one,, I'll have a look to see if I can find anything in local newspapers though.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mark+York%22+before%3A2021 - can't find anything. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I managed to find these 3 clippings in local papers . These 3 + the other 2 previously mentioned, what are your thoughts? Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Local sources would be fine, not best, but better than nothing. --M asem (t) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything with a DuckDuckGo search either. Site note: all the news sites are just re-writing his obituary in their own words, so they should be treated as primary sources. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For searches, the subject also was known as Marcus A. York or Mark A. York (was torn which article title to put as mostly credited as Marcus A. York but obituaries only went with "Mark York" so chose the latter) His IMdb for example is under that name . Pre 2021 I have found two articles   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think people don’t realize that even internet-age newspaper articles will not always appear in a Google search. There’s a whole other world of material available in newspaper databases that you can access via libraries. I found one Dayton newspaper article about him from as far back as 2003. Zagal e jo (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blatant plug time: Any registered Wiki editor can apply for a |Wikipedia Library Card, and besides immediate access to other sources, you can then apply to get access via your Wikimedia account to newspapers.com. It is not full 100% access there (you can search but you can't necessarily read all but you can at least search and see a clip image (sufficient to see the ones that Spy-cicle pointed out). --M asem (t) 14:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Now at AfD, so ineligible until that is resolved. P-K3 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD was marked as speedily keep. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I've withdrawn the AFD due to the additions of the newspapers expanding his advocacy work. The article is now fully cited, and has a good amount of information. Non-primary sources would be preferable for his personal life, but there's absolutely no reason to doubt that info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Even without the recent additions, I think this would have been fine. Decent coverage before death and a broad, if short, set of credits. A well composed BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose York has not "received significant coverage in multiple published" sources (WP:BASIC), nor has he "had significant roles in multiple notable" works (WP:ENT). I know some like to ignore the word "significant" to force through these borderline cases, but I believe it's there for a reason.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD was speedy kept.—Bagumba (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was withdrawn with modest comments. That doesn't mean anything.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's quite short, but has enough I think for ITN. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia train collision

 * Comment – Largely absent from English-language RS sites. No word on casualties. (Nominated by Jeromi Mikhael.) – Sca (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What does the last part of your sentence mean? (the one with the tag? I'm not nominating this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake! – Sca (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this mistake isn't an indication of something else.... :) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the nominator. . Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now: Article is currently a stub and the chronology section needs expansion. Might change my vote if the article is improved. ColinBear (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance given the (fortuntately) lack of deaths, especially considering the other fatal incidents we have posted currently. And oppose on quality of the article right now - empty section, and large chunks unreferenced. -- KTC (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; the article is lacking citations, among other quality issues. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose background section is unsourced, and chronology section is empty. The current article gives almost no details on the incident itself. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Stuart Ross Taylor

 * Support except for the death is sourced to Twitter, the tweet doesn't explicitly state that he has died, our article doesn't say that he has died, and the article is three sentences long. Looks good otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So everything? Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready Please expand this stubby bio. It does not mention the subject's recent death yet. --PFHLai (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little amount of text, his death isn't even mentioned. It'll have to get expanded for an RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rated stub class, needs expansion JW 1961 Talk 21:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mali coup d'état

 * , is there an article to consider? There needs to be an updated article to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can be viewed as Act 2 of the 2020 Malian coup d'état. No, the article have not been updated with the new developments. -- KTC (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Once the article is updated.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What article? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support another one? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update created article quickly just now at 2021 Mali coup d'état. Rapidly developing news so I expect we will know much more very soon. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once it grows beyond the current three sentences. Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, which is what the previous support votes should be taken to mean as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Article is only a stub right now,but will be expanded in a few hours. So,from what I understand,the military ousted the same guy they installed a few months earlier? Does that still count as a coup? Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now expanded. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update Article now expanded, lots of good sources Abcmaxx (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The situation seems somewhat fluid. Wait a bit for possible developments? – Sca (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * given the political and journalistic climate in Mali and its difficulties the situation is likely never to be any less fluid Abcmaxx (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would seem to imply that coups of this sort are not unusual in Mali. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and quality. The article is in better shape now, and the subsections are about as long as their counterparts on the 2020 Malian coup d'état article; all that's lacking is an aftermath section, and it's obviously too early to expect one. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Constitutional Crisis in Samoa

 * There is also an article for the 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis. Joofjoof (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 added it because the first blurb is a bit all over the place. Changed article to 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Premature. Let's wait 'til the results of this imbroglio are known. – Sca (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - I considered nominating this, but decided that Mataʻafa being sworn in outside parliament by itself isn't quite enough, especially since we only a few days ago posted the election result. If more develops, then will probably support. Basically waiting to see whose orders are being followed in the coming days -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Had this not fallen off so quickly, I'd say update it for sure and bump it back up to the top. Since it's not on, I support waiting at least 24 hours. If after 24 hours, there's a resolution, then we post it. If not, I think ongoing would probably be better and then post a full blurb whenever there's a resolution to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 - it's significant, consequential, and adds geographic breadth. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is news now, no need to wait. If there's a resolution then it stands as a completed story, while if there isn't, it can roll down into Ongoing in due course. I don't see a valid reason to wait, and as noted this would have probably been "bumped" had the announcement of the election still been on the carousel. The article looks in OK shape for posting at this point, although some expansion and reorganisation in due course would be useful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT III A budding crisis in the news. The Supreme Court doesn't declare a PM per se—they allowed her party to form a government—so the first and ALT blurb are out.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is anyone creative enough to work in that she's the first female PM?—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Prior to the cancelling of the swearing in ceremony, I'd have considered it political grandstanding, but it is quite something to obstruct a swearing in ceremony ordered by the country's supreme court. I think that elevates to it being relevant and notable for ITA. I also support reworking the blurb to mention that the incoming prime minister is the first woman to be elected to the role.  Mel ma nn   14:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, comprehensive, well referenced. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 as it's more concise. The event is in international news, and it's a notable event. The article is also good. I've added the significant contributor to the main article as a creator. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALTIII per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 per Uses x <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, major event, worthy of reposting. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  01:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the posted blurb from "former PM" to "caretaker PM", as he was not former at the time, and it avoids WP taking a stance on current PM status.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb corrected I removed mention of the "former" PM in the lock out, as technically the clerk kept the doors locked per the Speaker of the House, who was following the Head of State. The  former PM is not directly linked. Discuss if he should be integrated back into the blurb somehow, or if mention of first female PM should be added.—Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Soon to be a major motion picture. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be best to carry on discussions of errors in the blurb at WP:ERRORS, the venue designed to discuss errors. They tend to get handled faster there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The error was already fixed. The question I posed was whether the blurb needed expansion after its shortening, which is not an error, per se. But sure, there might be less eyes here for a topic already posted. Its a gray area where it belongs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Mosley

 * Support as it's a Good article. rawmustard (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per rawmustard. -BSMIsEditing (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced section Max Mosley. The section is collapsed, which begs the question per MOS:COLLAPSE of why is it even there if its trivial enough to hide.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a source to it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I am not too worried by the Ancestry part of the article as that's fairly-clearly sourced in Family and early life section. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in India

 * Oppose posting the third country to cross an arbitrary figure; it's no longer significant if that's the case. Given India's large population it's also less signficant than in other countries as it's a smaller percentage. Furthermore, such figures are very inaccurate as many deaths due to covid are likely unidentified. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the pandemic is on ongoing, and developments in individual countries aren't ITN worthy. Especially when they're not the first country to do it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If, and I mean if, they surpass the United States in total COVID cases, THEN we can start talking about putting it as a blurb. Right now though? Not so much... Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arbitrary figure. It's a big country so it's going to get big numbers. It's already covered in Ongoing, as well. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Boutin

 * Comment: When it comes to language, length and referencing, this nom should qualify for RD. However, as I read through this article, it seems somewhat lacking -- it's more like a record of job changes turned into prose than a biography. There is no info on the subject's accomplishments as President of the Board of Ed. There is no mention of what happened in Aberbeen when the the subject was mayor for a few years. There is date, place and cause of death but nothing on how. So, I am not sure if this is a wikibio that should be showcased on MainPage. Perhaps this nom needs another pair eyes to go through it. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I noticed that you've removed the "(Attention needed)" tag from the header. Would you have any comments on this nomination, please? Am I expecting too much from a wikibio? Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai Usually attention needed is for when you need an admin's attention so they can post (it stands out more than (ready)). Really, most RDs and blurbs need improvement before they post, so there's no reason to mark them. Honestly it's a good bio anyway at a glance, but I haven't checked the references. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Uses x. Some attention from RD veterans would be helpful here. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very well cited and all the information matches the references. I agree that most of the information is just jobs he held and things he pushed for, but that's fairly typical for politicians. It's certainly RD quality anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Thank you for the review, Uses x. --PFHLai (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Peru mass shooting

 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is of sufficient quality, and a terrorist act of such breadth is unusual in Peru, making this notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support highly unusual and notable. Target article is ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Rare in the region, and the article is good. Note: someone with more knowledge about the attack than I do should look into whether the category "Violence against LGBT people" is relevant, as I can't find a single thing to support it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull This article has changed not a whit since it's very first edit/creation, and it's fallen off the news so it apparently never will. It's still a janky disaster stub, which does not even have a section for the attack itself (the tiny bits of information are hidden in Investigation). It's 99% background, narrative and reactions; there is not even a description of the attack. While I don't dispute the notability, nor the unusual aspects, the article is completely uninformative and might as well be moved to a list somewhere.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfection is not required, and the article, which can always be improved in the ways that you notes, is sufficient for the main page. There's no need to pull it, it appears that what is known about the shooting is in the article (the number dead, who is suspected of undertaking it, and what the current state of the investigation is).  Could it be improved regarding sectioning, expansion, and narrative flow?  Sure it could.  Are these problems insurmountable or so egregious that it shouldn't be on the main page?  No.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ron Hill

 * More footnotes and refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Work on referencing still needed.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paulo Mendes da Rocha

 * Oppose Stubs aren't okay for the ITN but if this article is improved, I may give a new thought. ─ ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  00:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 PGA Championship

 * Support altblurb upon the addition of final round as prose. The record certainly should not be left out. rawmustard (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Altblurb prose needed in final round. Age record adds significance so put it there. Article looks good now. Jbvann05  23:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and  - the final round summary and final leaderboard have been added by the wonderful  and, respectively.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Compy90 (talk)
 * Comment Interesting to see if inclusion of the "oldest" is considered trivial here as mention of the first Japanese winner in The Masters was.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Lefty!!! Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting without the age, I find it too trivial for the blurb. Feel free to update the picture at some point. --Tone 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support adding age as it is an integral part of the reporting on this story. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding age the important thing is what was won, and who won it. People who are interested in him or his age can click his article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support adding age unlike ethnicity, age is a factor in ability. His age is also in the news as age adds significance to the win. Jbvann05  18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) SC Magdeburg win EHF European League

 * Comment Oppose use of "dominated" in first blurb per NPOV. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close We're not going to post the winner of the second tier of European handball. Not even the Champions League is ITN/R, and though I personally like handball, I'd almost certainly !vote against that, too. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SNOW, results of the second tier of a regional handball tourney is not significant even if three German teams come top 3. Jbvann05  00:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Statistical fluke. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Stresa-Mottarone cable car disaster

 * Support. Significant disaster. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Two-digit toll is significant indeed. Such incidents are rare in Europe if I'm not mistaken. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The death toll has since risen to 14. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the proposed blurbs (which could probably do with copyediting in any event). -- KTC (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and quite unusual disaster.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently important accident & the article is easily good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked it ready. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Very significant accident. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a simple accident, no (or at most very niche) long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two recent tragic events which I think are quite comparable, this and In_the_news/Candidates. Given there were more deaths in the China incident, I think to post this and not the China one would be a bit Eurocentric; it probably should be both or neither. Adpete (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article could use some restructuring-- intro shouldn't have extra info that's not present in the body of the article.  Spencer T• C 02:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, I will modify the blurb a bit, feel free to change. --Tone 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I would modify the blurb to say "In Italy, 14 people die/are killed in a cable car accident near Lake Maggiore." The use of active voice sounds strange when the "actor" is an abstract concept like an accident. Mlb96 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ryanair Flight 4978

 * Support Lying about a bomb on board to force the plane to land, when it was travelling between two EU countries on an Irish airline, to arrest (and possibly in the future execute) an opposition reporter who has asylum in Lithuania. The European Commission and the Irish government are taking steps, so this is becoming an international incident. Alexei Navalny's hunger strike was posted, as a comparison, so I think this meets the significance critera. The article is also fully referenced and has the current information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support all kinds of significance on this one, and one of those few times where it's enough to overlook the stubbiness of the article. Keep an eye on that reactions section: Latvia, Poland, and whoever else responds is mostly irrelevant filler. Belarus, Greece, Lithuania and probably the EASA reactions are meaningful. "History" section should be renamed "Flight" or something it's not really a history. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- KTC (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait no more than 3 hours, then support. I expect reactions from Russia and the US in the next hour or so.  The article is getting de-stubbed about as quickly as news is coming out.  I'm personally just doing meta-work here; formatting, inter-wiki links, etc. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is an unusual incident that involves an apparent forced landing of a European plane, and an arrest of a dissident. In addition to this, top EU officeholders, foreign ministers, ICAO, and Reporters Without Borders have commented on it. -- НСНУ (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment image added to WP:CMP. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting event – similar to what happened on Navalny's return to Russia in January. Article is in OK shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event, will for sure lead to even more significant consequences. Mellk (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This event is pretty much unprecedented. Strong significance. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments I've given the credits. I'll leave posting the image to another admin. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MPE - image not protected. Krinklebot has stopped working. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Very significant, reminiscent of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702, in some half-way, at least. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we update this to reflect the EU sanctions? (barring the Belarus state airline and barring EU airlines from Belarus airspace) 331dot (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lorrae Desmond

 * Oppose Early life, The Lorrae Desmond Show, A Country Practice - Shirley Gilroy, Writing, Filmography, Celebrity appearances, are all uncited. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above --Vacant0 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add more refs before this nom can proceed. Thanks --PFHLai (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Eruption of Mount Nyiragongo

 * Comment: The article should be 2021 Nyiragongo eruption. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reports are coming in that 15 people have died (Source 1) (Source 2). Maybe change the blurb to: At least 15 in Goma, DR Congo are killed following the eruption of Mount Nyiragongo.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The evacuation, casualties & damage make it easily important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, the article has been expanded since its creation. --Tone 09:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At least 22 deaths are reported. The blurb should be updated. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bob Fulton

 * Oppose Two sections with yellow tags and several uncited sentences. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely needs more sources --Vacant0 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs to the article. --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) St Johnstone's double

 * Kudos Glad to see an alternative blurb coming straight out and admitting it's not ready to reach the Main Page yet! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I have ever seen such majesty presented on ITN/C. Kicking222 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose No match writeup. No opinion if this non-ITRN item is significant.  Perhaps WP:IAR piggyback with an ITNR football item, if one ends up being posted.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All European leagues except those in polar climates are concluding now. This one is the 11th best in Europe, and the competitions named aren't even the main ones in Scotland. If we assume each better league has a championship and a cup, there are 20 stories in football that mean more right now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose - The second and third most important competitions in Europe's 11th-best domestic league. That grandiose alt blurb has not been written with the smallest grain of neutrality either. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good faith nomination, interesting item for football fans, but not of sufficient importance to justify an ITN listing. Article quality is also lacking, but this could be a suitable DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment some of these opposes are unfairly harsh. Perth has a population of 80,000 and SJ's attendances are around the 3000 mark. Considering Celtic and Rangers regularly pull in 60000 on even obscure cup games and have won almost everything; the other teams that even challenged their dominance are from large cities (Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh); this double win is a remarkable achievement, more so than when Leicester won the English Premier League. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose better suited for DYK. Interesting, but they didn't even win the league, or even get within 50 points of winning the league. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have to have some limits to the football stories we post. The Scottish cups are not significant enough. P-K3 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whilst interesting in the UK, this doesn't have significant enough impact to be ITN worthy. These are two cup competitions, not even a league competition. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syamsuddin Mahmud

 * Comment Pinging other ITN admins due to the lack of attention:
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Gansu ultramarathon disaster

 * Support - it's hard to think of a greater disaster in any sporting event in recent years, so by that measure it is ITN-worthy in my opinion. Has had worldwide coverage. Article is small but sufficient, and appears to be properly referenced. Adpete (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - There is an unusualness to the whole thing "freezing to death in an ultra-marathon" which would make it ITN. Wait for the article to fill out further though. Albertaont (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, the even is certainly highly unusual and is getting worldwide coverage. I have expanded the article a bit from its initial stub state. It is still fairly short but I think it is long enough now. Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose for quality. The article needs a lot of expansion from the Chinese Wikipedia, as apparently the government spokemouth Xinhua was vowing deep investigation on the local government from the first minute while the article reads as if only the grassroot are in anger, quoting some sources written in a tone to ridicule China with partial fact. The article should refer more from neutral media such as South China Morning Post, with both overseas media such as BBC News and government spokemouth such as Xinhua equally presented. Btw, is this a trail running or ultramarathon? Most Chinese material suggested that it's a trail running due to complex terrains. Maybe "trail ultramarathon" is a better choice? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at this latest version on Chinese WP and did not see text on the investigation that you referred to.—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply - It is quite common for ultramarathons to also be trail running. It is mentioned in ultramarathon, though perhaps needs more prominence. Adpete (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient quality and breadth on timely news item of unique nature. As a new article, it can cerntainly grow, but what is here meets MP standards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * posted. — xaosflux  Talk 13:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: André Ribeiro (racing driver)

 * Oppose Still too short and needs more references.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Two major earthquakes

 * Oppose Damage of this magnitude as far as earthquakes go is not notable. We probably wouldn't post hurricanes, floods, or tornados with 3 deaths either. Albertaont (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Earthquakes are only news because of their destruction, and this was relatively minor. Also not a slow news cycle these days.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RD or blurb: Yuan Longping

 * Support blurb in principle, oppose in content If we were to judge posting death blurbs based on the scale of global influence the person has, then this person definitely passed the threshold. But unfortunately there are several problems regarding references in the article – Special:Contributions/173.68.165.114|173.68.165.114]] (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Subject was 90. His primary work was in the 1970s. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Not notable enough for a blurb - fine for RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Citations needed. He's a very important figure but it's been very long since his career and his death needs no explanation in a blurb, so once the article issues are resolved I support RD only. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Although his impact is likely blurb worthy, he isn't exactly well known, even outside scientific circles. Albertaont (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Beckwith

 * Support Sufficient quality and breadth of coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, well sourced! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Atletico Madrid wins La Liga

 * Support La Liga is ITN/R. Furthermore, Atlético Madrid's win seems extraordinary given that the league is usually dominated by two teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid). It is Atlético's first win since 2014. signed,Pat talk 06:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If Getafe won that would be extraordinary, not one of the world's richest teams, one of the failed Super League founders, a regular CL participant, the 3rd best Spanish team of all time, one that has only been relegated twice, spent only 2 seasons outside La Liga since 1934 and have finished either 1st 2nd or 3rd in the last 10 years. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality needs more prose e.g. a season summary section like the Premier League article has. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not sure the national leagues should be in the ITN.--WEBDuB (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The event has already been determined to be ITN/R. Its notability has been assessed.AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic, not the event. Hardly newsworthy, this is merely routine coverage. Much more newsworthy footballing stories have been turned down. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this specific event, La Liga. It has already been pre-determined to be newsworthy.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current form - Page has every kind of table and graph imaginable, but the only prose refers to what happened at the end of the season before. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely nothing special or unprecedented about this, nearly all the leagues are concluding around now. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all league are ITN/R; this one is. Being special is irrelevant. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Only prose on season play is two sentences ... in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per all of the above; article in question has no significant prose writing about the season. I would expect a full season synopsis, covering all of the major highlights, before posting this to the main page.  Consider this vote a full support after that has been done.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski breaks Gerd Muller's record

 * Weak Support! More or less as important in Germany as Patrick Marleau "outplaying" Gordie Howe was to Canada, Europe can learn from that New World mistake of the past. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In light of the earlier Premier League post at the time of clinching—not at season's end—do we consider Bayern Munich stale now? Consider that the Bundesliga clinching was nominated a couple of weeks ago but was not posted.  —Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Messi breaking this same record, but in the scope of all European leagues, was posted in 2012. It seems like splitting hairs to post again the record being broken just in Germany. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's interesting for fans, but blurbs shouldn't make comparisons as the event should be significant enough by itself and we can't assume people reading ITN are familiar with the previous record. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2021

 * Support - part of ITN/R. The blurb looks good. BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, also comment I've added an alternate blurb, please discuss as necessary.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose many unsourced statements on the event article, including but not limited to the whole Scoreboard section, the text in the Returning Artists section. Also multiple instances of tense updates needed. This is far from ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The article has been improved since last night. --WEBDuB (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, they performed great in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I will omit the venue from the blurb since it is long enough already. --Tone 12:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jorge García Carneiro

 * Weak Support Minimum coverage. As someone who has served as governor for thirteen years it would be nice to see a sentence or two about what he did while in office. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "As someone who has served as governor for thirteen years" You served as Governor for 13 years? Seriously though, I can't find anything about his career on the internet, so I suppose we can't expand it further (unless a Spanish-speaker decides to work on this). 45.251.33.189 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Served as a governor for 12 years and it only has text about sanctions that happened in 2019... --Vacant0 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I couldn't find anything on the internet about this person's career as governor, but someone with knowledge of Spanish may have better luck. Besides that, there is no other issue I see with this. 45.251.33.189 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too brief; inadequate coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing: Colombian protests

 * Oppose Looking at the scale of the protests I think it's significant enough, and the article is decent quality. The problem is the most recent update to actual events (not reactions, etc) is only three brief and insignificant sentences for 20 May (they got removed from a football championship, and confirmation that the blockade continued). That's the only proper update since the date of the oldest blurb currently on ITN (dated 15 May), which is what the critera for 'Updated' is, so that's not currently met. Looking at the sparsity of updates I don't think it'd stay updated for long anyway, so I suggest waiting for a significant event and nominating that as a blurb instead, and seeing how it goes from there. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Concur with Uses x. Article not having significant, consistent updates. If there is a singular event of importance, would consider a blurb.  Spencer T• C 01:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Usman Mansoorpuri

 * Support. looks fine. - Owais Talk 15:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more detail on what he did during those position. At the very least a sentence about what he does during his 12-year long tenure as the National President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (which translates to the number one person in India's largest Muslim scholar organization). If fulfilled I'll support. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I added whatever I could get online. I hope more will be available in upcoming dates and I'll definitely be updating it. Ideas now? ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Support --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * May this be posted today so that I can focus on another RD? I've addressed the issues & this should be okay now. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  00:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Leader of Boko Haram dies

 * Given multiple reports of his death in the past, there should be some kind of official confirmation before this gets posted.  Spencer T• C 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support, pending a statement by Boko Haram or other reliable confirmation. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only We blurb him, we make him a martyr, a saint. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't we blurb Osama bin Laden when he was killed? I agree that this person probably isn't blurb-worthy because his impact is limited to part of Africa, but to use "he was evil, so we shouldn't blurb him" as an excuse against the blurb just seems to be wrong IMO. 45.251.33.186 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not about evil, it's about infamy. You didn't have to Wikilink your example, he was already a household name in English media. With lower-tier warlords, blurbing feels like we're pushing them, spotlighting, raising awareness. And OBL's death was at least intended to make a popular president look cool. As a suicide bomber, we'd only be putting suicide bombing over. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aight. 45.251.33.186 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC) And I guess I Wikilinked Bin Laden as it's a habit for me to unnecessarily use formatting like links, bullets etc. :-P
 * I'm glad you did, or I wouldn't been able to make a point out of it. Keep up the good quirks! As long as we're admitting we have problems, I sometimes arbitrarily paraphrase strange heroes of mine, that was one of Skeletor's lines. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD only The nomination of blurb by 24.28.96.202 looks like it more eligible for RD. 36.77.64.147 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very notable; Boko Haram is literally ISIS/L in West Africa. Wait per Uses x, pawnkingthree, and 45.251.33.186. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nigerian Army spokesman: "It’s a rumour. We are investigating it. We can only say something if we confirm it" [Reuters ]. If/when they're convinced, and when the citation needed tags and article issues are resolved, I support RD only since he's not a particularly notable figure, and he'll just be replaced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, RD only if confirmed. P-K3 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support but for RD only, once his death is confirmed as he is not significantly notable. 182.1.27.161 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed the nominated article from Boko Haram to Abubakar Shekau, which would be the RD target. Blurb remains unchanged.
 * Oppose blurb, Support RD if and when the death is confirmed by military. 45.251.33.186 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if his death is confirmed - Boko Haram are one of the world's largest & most active terrorist groups, who have killed thousands of people. Jim Michael (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – If confirmed only. Per Hulk, plus lack of name recognition in most of the English-speaking world. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are couple more sentences that have to get fixed+sourced, after that it will look fine for an RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering that his death is still unconfirmed, should this discussion be closed and re-nominated once it is confirmed? Mlb96 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. – Sca (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose until it's confirmed beyond a doubt. From the WaPo article: "The Nigerian military and regional forces have declared Shekau dead at least four times since 2009. After such announcements, Shekau released video messages, mocking the government while firing bullets into the air." Johndavies837 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb if well known respectable people don't get blurbs, then terrorists definitely shouldn't. Oppose RD until it's actually confirmed, particularly given the comment that he's previously been incorrectly confirmed dead. I would say close this, and open or renominate once actually confirmed.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being well-known & respectable isn't sufficient for a blurb. Shekau is/was Africa's highest-ranking terrorist as the leader of the continent's largest & most active terrorist group. No-one here is claiming that he was a good person, but his importance in his field can't be denied. Jim Michael (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only source currently cited on the page says The circumstances leading to the death of notorious terror group leader, Abubakar Shekau, have been disputed by various reports, with many insisting that he may in fact still be alive. The page seems to be a current BLP violation with no tags or discussion to be found.—Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD is for people who are verifiably dead. Per the above observations, we should wait for a suitable number of statements from both sympathetic and antagonistic sources. Strong oppose blurb Osama bin Laden was posted because he was an internationally known, notorious, and hunted leader of a terrorist organization which perpetrated the most notable attack in a generation. It was not because he was merely the leader of Al Qeuda. I could not have told you who Shekau was before yesterday, and did not even know Boko Haram had a defined organization, and while the kidnappings were certainly brutal, they were not as unusual as the simultaneous destruction of several highrises.2001:708:20:1300:0:0:0:1650 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - BH frequently uses very young, often female, suicide bombers - some of whom are the kids they've kidnapped, so they're also unusual. Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021) was created today. The battle is important enough to be posted, even without Shekau's death. The two large jihadist groups used to be closely allied. Jim Michael (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Klemen Tinal

 * Support Good depth of coverage for a sub-national politician.  Spencer T• C 01:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

 * Support removing from ongoing and posting a blurb for the ceasefire. This is clearly a conclusion of this episode in the conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Should the truce be documented in a separate article that we can use as a target?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. There's not enough to say about it, and its background section would just essentially duplicate this one. Best left as the beginning of the aftermath of the main event article. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support moving from ongoing to blurb section. Article remains high quality, news sources indicate this is a significant event worth mentioning.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait This ceasefire seems less shaky than other ceasefires have, but we should maybe give it a couple of days to be sure(r). Wouldn't want to look foolish. Encyclopedias aren't papers, timeliness can relax a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the ceasefire ends at a later date, it has been declared recently, and news sources are covering it now. Waiting would mean that the story we post is not also being covered by news stories, and the primary purpose of ITN is to provide people who visit the Wikipedia main page with a Wikipedia article that elaborates on a story they are also reading about in other articles.  Should the ceasefire prove ephemeral, updating the blurb is trivial and easy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy update, sure, but then we're left with a blurb that announces Day 13 (or whatever) of something that was already ongoing. Or we could just restore it as Ongoing. Not quite opposed to posting fast and just staying optimistic, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At least the lead should be cleaned up from present tense, "so far", "have been", etc.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – pending expansion of article update – This has been by far the No. 1 RS story internationally since Thursday afternoon (U.S. time). Amazing that it hasn't been posted yet. Note that Guardian leads with "World leaders have hailed (the) ceasefire." – Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's definitely no rush to post if there's only a one line update to talk about the ceasefire. There needs to be details about that before it can go up. --M asem (t) 13:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 10-4. Thorough coverage at NYT. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've used Sca's NYT report to expand the article's coverage of the ceasefire to a full paragraph, using basically everything the NYT article had that was new information about the ceasefire itself (i.e. not merely recaps of the conflict). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jay. I stuck "– halted by a May 21 ceasefire –" into the lead. Does that work for you? – Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment does not appear that the ceasefire will last long . PotentPotables (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT describes Asqa Mosque incident Friday as "a small skirmish," and Reuters calls it "brief clashes." Seems your Twitter citation may be somewhat outdated. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's expanded enough for my liking and it's the end of the "ongoing" event, at least for now. Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked attn. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb and delist from ongoing — ceasefire appears to be holding and article appears to be good. osunpokeh (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still dominating int'l news on Saturday.   There's absolutely no excuse for this blurb not being in the box. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's unbelievable not to be on ITN yet! MSN12102001 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing→blurb, definitely a high-quality and well-cited article. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Vacant0. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No longer appropriate for Ongoing, so let's blurb it and then let it roll off. P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Clear consensus to post. What's the holdup? – Sca (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted, but someone should check my work as I've never posted a blurb before, only RDs. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Australian climate strikes

 * Oppose How is this significant compared to other protests mentioned in the article? On a procedural note, I don't see any update text for this recent item.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Not seeing enough significant coverage to justify ITN right now.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this strike instigates a new wave of climate-related protests around the world, then it may be worth re-considering this for posting. For now, it's merely a series of small-scale events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comment above --Vacant0 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose and SNOW close — Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at In the news will not be placed onto the live template. It is clear that the School strike for climate in Australia article doesn't exist and the School strike for climate article hasn't been updated at all. osunpokeh (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sunderlal Bahuguna

 * Support Overall, it looks decent. There are two-three sentences that have to be cited, after that it will be alright. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The cn tags have been fixed. Joofjoof (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi

 * Support Looks good, well cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. --Gazal world (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Garland

 * Support Everything's cited, the citations check out, and there's a good amount of information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Len Badger

 * Support All-sourced English right-back. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in decent shape, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eric Winstanley

 * Comment: Playing career section could use some expansion; some citations needed as well.  Spencer T• C 03:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I second . I will definitely support if these issues are fixed. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  03:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just too brief, merely a list of jobs and there is still a citation needed tag.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Kentaro Miura

 * Support Does not appear to have any unsourced statements & article is at least not a stub. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article of sufficient quality, no unsourced statements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I am unfamiliar with this author but have seen quite a few friends mourn their passing. This article looks quite large and relatively well sourced for an article about a Japanese author. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Support blurb He was probably THE most famous living mangaka in the world, with all the implications to the ACG culture. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment My !vote was posted before this was made into a blurb nomination, so I will clarify that it was a support RD !vote. I tend to support RD blurbs for individuals who are at the top of their respective fields, and I'll admit that I'm a bit ignorant on the subject as someone who doesn't read manga and hasn't seen Berserk, but while it is true that it's one of the best-selling manga series of all time, there are other currently active series with significantly more sales. I'm willing to be swayed, but I'm not really sure yet. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 08:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Author of an extremely prominent manga series, and the article is a requisite quality. However, this is certainly not blurb material (with all respect for the medium as an animanga editor, very few to no manga artists are). — Goszei (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting RD, which is currently the consesnus. --Tone 08:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No harm in keeping the discussion open for some more. The blurb option had only been added after the first 3 votes had already been cast, which means only two people had voted for RD and against the blurb explicitly. And I think it's deserving of blurb. At least here in Russia his death was widely reported in the mainstream media (RBK, Tass, Znak). More so than the death of Prince, for example, who was posted as blurb. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Oppose blurb Not nearly notable enough for a blurb, but I'm fine with keeping the RD nomination up. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll just throw in a few sources to show that his death is genuinely being reported fairly extensively worldwide: Le Monde, la Republica, The Sun, etc --212.74.201.233 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No blurb, no way - Doesn't come close to being sui generis in his field.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not anywhere near notable enough. RD is fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Legendary mangaka, but not very notable in the grand scheme of things. (For the record, I only nominated him as RD, someone else added the blurb.) Mlb96 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, that was me who changed it into a blurb. And given the votes above, i guess we can close this. Oh well. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral on blurb I was skeptical at first, since I'm not familiar with manga, but an initial bit of research indicates that Kentaro Miura is on every single top 10 list of the greatest mangaka of all time (living or dead), and he's usually quite high up those lists, which makes this more of an argument than I initially believed. I'd argue that manga is a significant enough field for this kind of discussion as well.  I'm just a little uncomfortable with his fame being derived entirely on one work, although perhaps that's just a characteristic of the manga field? NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in regards to his fame being based on one work, there is a reason Homo unius libri exists as a phenomenon. For reference, I am guessing we had posted Salinger when he died in 2010? Certainly we would have posted Griboyedov if he died in our timeframe. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Salinger died prior to the implementation of the RD/blurb binary. Harper Lee may be a good comparison; she's at least on Salinger's level in this context. She did not get the blurb, though there was considerable support.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD It is no clear consensus who the blurb should come to be. 180.245.100.76 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wiranto Arismunandar

 * OK This wikibio could use a little more info on Wiranto's participation in the 1992 election (presumably he lost? how? to whom?), but overall it seems good enough for ITN:RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Election systems in Indonesia used the party list system, as in there's a list with numbers from one to probably a hundred so there's no competition (Wiranto is number 92). And I do not see his name in the list of parliament members, so how do I cite the absence of something as a prove that he was not elected? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a small gap. Let's not worry about it if there is no useable reference materials. Spencer's suggestion works for me. One may expect more about the outcome in another election system. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. as long as the article has a link to party list system election, that should be adequate.  Spencer T• C 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you for reminding me for that and for posting. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles C. Hagemeister

 * Weak support Pretty underwhelming article and would like to see more expansion about his military career, but I guess putting the whole MoH citation works. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no one else has commented, and this is scheduled to be archived in <40 hours. I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Quintin Jones (prisoner)

 * Comment Ahh, another article carefully cleansed of any disturbing details of his crime to present the execution as completely unreasonable in order to push a certain narrative. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix your NPOV concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have already, but i am way too tired/lazy to work on it especially since given Wikipedia's biases my contribution would most likely eventually get discarded after a day/week/year(s). --212.74.201.233 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article missing explanation of rationale given for his sentencing.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, article still suffers from heavy advocacy/POV pushing. osunpokeh (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per two statements above --Vacant0 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ’’’Oppose’’’ per NPOV concerns above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I'm withdrawing the nomination due to the NPOV issues stated which I don't believe will be solved (or at least stay that way), and because there's a page move that's gathering support. As the article currently doesn't have concensus to post right now, the page move means it won't be posted. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paul Mooney

 * Oppose: The Boston Marathon bombings subsection is completely unsourced.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The contents of the dedicated "Controversy" section needs to be integrated into the rest of the page for WP:NPOV. Also concern if these have enduring notability or a POV collection of WP:NOTDIARY items.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose NPOV tag + needs a lot more sources --Vacant0 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Cullison

 * OK This wikibio could use more info on Mr Cullison retirement and how and where he died last week, but overall it looks good enough for ITN:RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fully cited and a good length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jesús Santrich

 * Oppose It has a little amount of text, it will have to get expanded to get to RD --Vacant0 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – a 697 character-long stub. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stub, not worthy of the ITN. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  02:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gilles Lupien

 * Support It looks solid and it's well-cited! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good depth of coverage for a sports bio; marking ready.  Spencer T• C 20:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Montreal Canadiens defenceman. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Franco Battiato

 * Oppose too much CN tags and his article doesn't meet the ITN quality requirements. It's tragic that one of the best Italian singers has his article of poor quality. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Refs are still needed. Perhaps someone who knows Italian can import some refs used in the wikibio in Italian Wikipedia? --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rennie Stennett

 * Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - No refs issues as far as I can see.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Naomi Mataʻafa becomes Prime Minister of Samoa

 * Support as nominator. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Good nomination. Her article needs a lot of work and she's not the PM yet, as BBC's source says she is set to. I'm willing to support this nomination as it's obviously ITN, but not yet. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- at least for countries which have transition periods before the head of government changes, we usually post that they "won the election" or similar. Couldn't the blurb just say "is declared the winner" or something to that effect? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Citation needed" tags have been added to her article. Joofjoof (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. I have proposed an alt blurb, see what you think. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment per Alsorian97, I think this should wait and be re-nominated when the parliament convenes and she is formally appointed JW 1961 Talk 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Renominate using the April 2021 Samoan general election article. I agree with the comments about waiting, since the incumbent PM has filed court appeals to delay the process . Joofjoof (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, conditional support The article needs cleaning up. I will support this if the article is changed to April 2021 Samoan general election, as that article is in better shape and it is customary for the main link to be the election, not the winner. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment She hasn't become Prime Minister yet. But in the case of the recent U.S. election, we posted when the press declared Biden president-elect in spite of ongoing attempts to overturn the results and months before his actual inauguration. What is our standard?—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba. Can't have a double standard where we "accept" the results of the US election once the major challenges were shot down, but we don't do the same for another country. I would reword the hook to either include a statement of "while legal challenges continue" or to clarify "presumptive", or some combination thereof - similar to what we did for Biden. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability iff a more appropriate altblurb is proposed. I'd try to write one myself, but it'd probably be better to have someone more knowledgeable on the subject write it. To my understanding, courts affirmed that her party (FAST) won a majority of seats in the legislature, giving them the ability to declare victory, which would make Mata'afa the presumptive next Prime Minister. However, at least at the time that I am writing this, FAST has not yet done this & Mata'afa is not the incumbent, so the wording of "becomes Prime Minister of Samoa" is slightly misleading. As for quality, both the articles about the election & about Naomi Mata'afa herself are decently long and no sourcing issues stand out. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 07:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 I've added altblurb2 because it represents the results of the election properly and it bolds the correct part of the blurb. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much agree with altblurb2, tbh. My idea was that she would either become Prime Minister soon or that we would leave the nomination "half closed" so that we could open it once she was inaugurated, as we did something similar with the "Israel-Palestine crisis" nomination for Ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt III The FAST party needs to form a government before they name a prime minister. Mataʻafa is the party's leader but not PM yet. The winning party has been determined now, and we should post as such. Anything that may derail this would merit another blurb, nobody has identified a precedent to delay because of what aboutism.—Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt III Most detailed, plus more accurate considering context based on how she is not yet PM of the country. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For convenience, alt III is generally reflected in this source.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 as that gives the best context around the elections. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altIII per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alt 3 per consensus-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Charles Grodin

 * Comment RIP. Joofjoof (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately, the article has several cn tags and sentences without a single ref. Not close to be ready to the MP.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose okay but citations. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Tauktae

 * Extra Comment, for those that don't know, the article uses the India Meteorological Department scale and "Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storms" are one of the classifications they use. It is not adjectives, it is the same as calling it a "Cat #" hurricane for the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I had expected to see this on main RS sites today, but they don't seem to be carrying it prominently. (Even on Al Jezeera it's two-thirds of the way down the page.) – Sca (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the Alt Blurb – This is pretty bad storm that came at pretty much the worst possible time for India. Since it struck India in the middle of their massive COVID-19 wave at a high intensity, there is probably a good deal of damage that was done, and I expect the death toll to end up much higher. (Many of the missing people probably will be confirmed dead.) It's definitely in the international news, and given the weight of the disaster, I feel that this event is notable enough for an ITN posting. Since the Alt Blurb is clearly the superior blurb, I think that we should go with that one. Suggestion: I would mention that the storm struck in the middle of India's COVID-19 disaster, and I would consider mentioning that India's Government evacuated over 200,000 people. The COVID-19 pandemic definitely ties into this disaster, and since a bunch of sources mention them together, I think that it should be mentioned as well.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the Alt Blurb – Per LightandDark2000. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 14:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tentative support alt blurb . Concise and clear. No need to jam it full of unnecessary trivia regarding coincidence with COVID-19. However, I would like to see more reliable source coverage before we post this. --WaltCip- (talk)  15:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb – Definitely notable for ITN. The alt blurb is better since it actually talks about the impact of the system. Also, possibly include some information about the evacuations. ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb per the above  HurricaneEdgar    15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Users Elijahandskip, HurricaneEdgar, Hurricaneboy23, LightandDark2000, StopBoi, and HurricaneCovid are members of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. — Sca (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * forgive me for asking, but what does this comment really mean? Is it a suggested Advocacy without attempting to say that?  In all reality, the fact that we are all parts of that WikiProject means nothing.  I have made 1 edit total to the tropical cyclone article, which got reverted.  Elijahandskip (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It means that half a dozen users involved in this nom. are members of a WikiProject whose subject is relevant to the topic nominated here. – Sca (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He is suggesting a possible bias or proclivity to nominating and endorsing tropical cyclone articles. Given the America's Cup debacle that happened earlier this year, I can understand his suspicion. WaltCip- (talk)  18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait - As a member of WP:WPTC my feeling is that we should wait for the impacts to become clearer, as it only just made landfall about 24 hours ago. However, I saw the TC on the BBC News Bulletin earlier and they say that 90 people are currently thought to be missing.Jason Rees (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 27 deaths is not enough for a tropical cyclone to be posted. We should wait and see where the rescue operations on those ships end up. Opposing on quality as well because the most impacted area is a mere two sentences. It needs significant expansion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "27 deaths is not enough for a tropical cyclone to be posted." WaltCip- (talk)  16:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It very certainly is for a region where storms causing hundreds to thousands of deaths is commonplace however. Deadly tropical cyclones are often seen in South Asia.  Java Hurricane  12:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - The most impacted region has only two sentences. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, also support leaving this open for further updates if death count/other impacts are updated after posting - no reason it can't be posted now (obviously ITN eligible) and updated later, but I think that is better done by leaving this open for 24-48 hours after posting for more discussion here rather than relegating updates to ERRORS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Impactful on many people, especially considering this is India, and many people will be displaced. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb – I've been absent from ITN/C for a while, especially given some of the hostility from and toward WPTC members, but this is a pretty straightforward nomination of a high-impact storm at a terrible time for India. Article is well-sourced and fleshed out already, don't see any reason to wait. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb the article looks to be about the same quality as Cyclone Seroja when it was posted. There has been significant news coverage: see this. Therefore, I don't see a reason to oppose. codingcyclone   advisories/damages 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Users Cyclonebiskit and CodingCyclone are members of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. – Sca (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? Respond to their arguments. Are you going to start tattling on British editors when they support British topics? Zagal e jo (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If British users pushed blurbs about brexit for the 80 quintillionth time, they would be denied. ITN is not a place for bias, and a flow of editors from WPTC coming to support the biggest storm of the time probably counts as bias. This kind of thing happens just about every time a cyclone passes 15 deaths, and is pretty counter-productive. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think WPTC can win here as we create decent articles for tropical cyclones impacting land and people nominate them for WP:ITN independently of WPTC. WPTC members then come along and give their thoughts on the system reaching the main page by either supporting or opposing the system and have a lot of crap thrown at us including accusations of biasness, timing our nominations and gaming the system. Some of it is deserved, but some of it isn't especially since we have tried to work with you guys to figure out some criteria for when TC's should go up.Jason Rees (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only some certain members who do it, but there are certainly other motives. I don't think any criteria can ever be made for these kinds of things, as everything is different. A tropical storm that kills a single person would never get on ITN, but depending on who that person is or what kind of damage is done it might be. However, from what I've seen a lot of WPTC members just hop onto ITN on the rare occasion that a storm is doing damage. That's fine, but I'd rather some real insight be given in votes, instead of "this storm is going to/doing major damage! I can't see how anyone could oppose this! I don't think anyone is using any kind of strategy here to cheat the system, it's just a whole lot of people with similar interests who all have the same idea whenever a storm is doing damage. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well WPTC is going through a lot of changes at the moment, that I hope will eventually lead to us identifying which tropical cyclones/weather events are truly noteworthy of being put up on WP:ITN while providing the evidence outside of news reports to prove our case. However, this will take time and a lot more TC nominations by editors, who I will try and encourage to justify their statements.Jason Rees (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Honestly, what does this mean? Notice that I opposed the last tropical cyclone nominaton on grounds of quality. I am not interested in supporting every nomination there is. I certainly don't want to ram through TCs because they are TCs. I just want to support what deserves to go on ITN. If you're worried about me only commenting on TC candidates, that's becuase that's what I'm interested in. (I have Tauktae on my watchlist, and I'm not very sure about my skills when looking at other candidates that I don't know much about.) I'm only asking why you've decided to compile lists of the !voters who are part of WPTC. I can understand your concern because of the America's Cup debacle, but I don't really understand your line of reasoning when doing this, so could you please clarify for me? Thanks. (please ping on reply) codingcyclone  advisories/damages 05:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb Decent quality article, and this is an impactful storm in India. And no, I am not a member of Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones, thanks for asking.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems evident that the death toll will rise significantly, and it already meets notability requirements as is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was affected by this storm (I live in Mumbai) and honestly speaking, this is not getting the amount of coverage from RSs that we'd expect for a system that gets to ITN. I might reconsider should the death toll rise significantly, however.  Java Hurricane  02:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: To add onto what JavaHurricane said, I'm honestly surprised there is such a small amount of coverage of a storm this big. But even on Indian news sites like The Times of India, The Hindu, and Gujarat Samachar, the front page is dominated by Covid news, with only one or two mentions of the storm.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – RS coverage Wednesday centers on 22 deaths in sinking of barge.  – Sca (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched to oppose. It's not meeting the RS coverage necessary for a disaster of this type.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are two citation needed tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given how this is being treated by the media, this seems to be given the same type of weight as torandoes that may hit in the midwest US - they happen, people may die, but there are larger disasters that generally get larger coverage in that region of the world. I'm certainly seeing coverage from Western sources but not what I'd expect for a storm considered impactful in India (even from India-based sources), which is rather odd. It could be that most of what live may be lost were from offshore boats caught in the storm and very little landfall deaths, or that right now, India's trying to rein in COVID. I'm not saying we can't post, but we should be aware that relative to all other types of hurricanes, typhons, and major storms of this nature, this is getting a footnote's treatment --M asem  (t) 12:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable and 2nd strongest cyclone in history of Gujarat where it made landfall. Article needs some work, update and expansion but it is good enough to go ahead with minor cleanups. -Nizil (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus in favor of posting. Some opposition related to relative lack of coverage in some reliable sources, but there is demonstrable coverage in international media commensurate with other items that are posted here, as well as a death toll (51) also commensurate with other "typical ITN" items. CN tags have been resolved.  Spencer T• C 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PP Comment – Given the scale of dead and missing, that seems reasonable. TNX. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rajendrasinh Jadeja

 * Support article quality is sufficient for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD at a quick glance. Nice work. Ktin (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Did some additional copyediting/reorganization and added a section header. Meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ki. Rajanarayanan

 * Support Referenced, updated; could use some MOS-style edits (e.g. why are some items in the bibliography referenced while others aren't?). Marking ready. Ktin, ping me in 24 hrs if this is still ready and not posted then (no guarantees that I'll be on but will try).  Spencer T• C 00:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Darwin's Arch collapses

 * Oppose Doesn't really seem to be all that significant. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment was this intended to be a "mineral" RD? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was labeled as a RD, but I thought that was simply an error. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: so what? Interesting-looking rock formation broke. Not too notable. osunpokeh (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Given that they are not chalking this up to climate change but natural erosion, and that that article seems rather underdeveloped if it is such an unusual rock formation (yes, it is UNESCO, but that's not necessarily making it unique), I'd have to oppose this. I would encourage a possible DYK if more can be written to expand the article. --M asem (t) 21:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was already in DYK in 2015, see Template:Did you know nominations/Darwin's Arch. Regards So  Why  12:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Anyone been around ITN/C long enough to know if the '08 collapse of Wall Arch in the U.S. Arches National Park was posted? – Sca (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We did post the collapse of the Azure Window in 2017 (see nomination) Joofjoof (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Rock falls over" isn't notable. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support primarily because the arch is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and I think that gives it sufficient significance. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) While a number of news sources stated that the arch was a UNESCO world heritage site, upon investigation it turns out they were referring to the entire Galapagos archipelago, not this arch specifically. As such, I'm reducing to a weak support. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, it's not often that a notable rock feature collapses and this is certainly in the news. Also per Joofjoof's reply above. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Tavix. The arch is pretty well-known and recognizable. Banedon (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A notable rock formation undergoes significant and permanent destruction. It's connection and links to Galapagos and Darwin serve as an excellent springboard to lead readers to other encyclopedic topics. This is the sort of quirky news that suits ITN. The article is well composed and referenced, if a little short.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose on quality  I expect updated articles to be in good shape if the blurb itself is not front-page material. The article conveys neither the significance of the arch nor the impact of its collapse.—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit improved.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I really wish this could be included in RD, because in a way, it is a death, but I'm not sure if it should be a blurb. Alas. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent ITN material of high encyclopedic value and we also posted the collapse of Azure Window as a similar structure four years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of people have seen this shape, if not know its name, RIP. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A well known site.  The people on a boat cruise to view the arch got their money's worth. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support A marginal article in terms of depth, topic is being covered marginally by reliable sources. I would not object to posting this, but I'm not too upset if we don't either.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Ditto per Jayron. Not terribly significant but moderately interesting – and not blood & gore. (Is a post-collapse photo avail?) – Sca (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, and it is a notable looking rock, Azure Window was posted a couple of years ago so I think that this can go through too. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: if its possible, can this article get expanded in the future? --Vacant0 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has not improved since I opposed for quality. Me thinks people want the picture on the MP.—Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With this type of natural, non-disastrous event, there may not be that much to say about it beyond what-when-why-with what result. But I do think a post-collapse pic would be essential to telling the story. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it will be diffucult to get a free photo, since the area is rather remote. Unless there is some government agency taking photos that get to public domain. The Azure Window was a tourist spot, a rather different story. I wonder how much content there could be added to the article? The basics are there. --Tone 13:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to people wanting the picturesque shot in the nom, not a post-collapse shot.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * there may not be that much to say: Not true. The CNN and NYT articles in the nom have lots of info missing from the WP page.  No mention that it's a UNESCO World Heritage site, and surely there must be more on the factors that earned it selection.  NYT says there's been warnings for years about the impact of global warming on erosion . This page is barely a stub, which we typically might only overlook for a blurb if the page was fast being expanded. It's not for lack of material.—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's see, how many words do they say a picture is worth? – Sca (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the World Heritage Site refers to the entire archipelago, not only to this particular rock formation. Otherwise, I agree that there is room for improvement. --Tone 13:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT mention of global warming was about the region in general, not specifically regarding erosion.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Notable rock formation collapses permanently, although it isn't the most significant thing that could go on the main page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Important enough in the Galapagos, plus more diversity ITN. (and by that, I don't mean WP:SLOWCYCLE. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll remind the mob here that our intent is to write an encyclopedia. If this formation is so important that its natural demise it ITN worthy, the brief article hardly demonstrates that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're encouraged to jump in and expand the article so that it better demonstrates the importance of this arch. Griping about technicalities that can be easily dealt with doesn't really help to write an encyclopedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ... technicalities that can be easily dealt with ... Perhaps not, if supporters and opposers alike have yet to do so.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been here plenty long enough to know that this is a volunteer project. I'll contribute where and how I choose, like everyone else.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true but then you should re-consider your nonsencial vote if you want to be taken seriously. We never use an article's shape before some event to judge its notability when 90% of the target articles we post here are either newly created or significantly expanded after the topic made major news and it's normally because more information becomes available that we put in as encyclopedic content. That's how we write and will keep up writing an encyclopedia. Of course, you can volunteer and comment whatever you want so you can freely dismiss my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've struck my oppose above after adding a few sentences on being a tourist destination. I'm neutral on a post. At least a casual reader is now less likely to come away with "so what?" from the short article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Upon reflection, the pre-collapse pic looks fine. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Torreón massacre

 * Nominator's comment: First time the Mexican government publicly acknowledge and apologize for the atrocities of Torreón massacre. -- love.wh  14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose an apology for something that happened 110 years ago isn't significant in the scale of things. Jbvann05  17:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, when should the apology happen for it to be consider "significant in the scale of things"? -- love.wh  17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was more of that an apology isn't very significant, and the action happening 110 years ago makes it even less significant. Jbvann05  19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obama apologized for Hiroshima and that wasn't considered significant. I fail to see how this is significant. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 17:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just have a look of the Japanese news coverage of the Obama's apology tour - it was a huge event in Japan. Having said that, I do feel the US public did not consider either the nuclear bombing itself or the apology afterwards to be significant. -- love.wh  17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - The public apology from Mexico is a timely significant event when hate crimes are rising In the US during this COVID-19 pandemic. STSC (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, did we even post to ITN anything related to hate crimes in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic (besides the Floyd protests)? osunpokeh (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Hurricane Noah above: people have apologized for far worse war crimes, but it's not news. osunpokeh (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Historical footnote that smacks of politix. – Sca (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, apologies for historical internal affairs aren't very notable. Also WP:NOTRGW. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Great for DYK, not for ITN. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable, but it could be good for DYK, though.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist)

 * Weak Support article is short, but mostly fine on quality, with only one short and relatively unimportant sentence having a Citation Needed tag. If consensus forms on this article, then someone can delete that sentence just before it's posted; but I'll leave it for now in case someone finds a citation for it in the next few hours NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Citations are now sufficient; changing to support. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article could use copyediting and some expansion about his career.  Spencer T• C 03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Updated. Fixed citations. . I hope this gets few moments in the ITN.─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  02:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Spencer, needs a bit more expansion to capture some essence of his career beyond a prose listing of titles and honors.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I've tried to expand some career related things in the article. I hope this should be enough now. Please have a look again. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is definitely improved, but still reads much like a CV in prose format. He has over 100 publications-- what was his area of research? He had many leadership roles-- what did he accomplish in those roles?  Spencer T• C 19:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Stale) Tigray War

 * Comment: The only update from May that I see in the article is the following unsourced line: "On 3 May 2021, in London, England, Eritreans and Ethiopians attended a "Peaceful Rally" supporting the actions of the federal Ethiopian government." From what I can tell, it doesn't look like it meets the "continuously updated" criteria needed for Ongoing unless there is a different target article.  Spencer T• C 04:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Having followed this since January (full disclosure, I have investments that depend on the outright resolution of this conflict), absolutely nothing has changed. It's been months of declarations by each side against one another, and a bunch of innocent civilians used as fodder "as necessary". With no substantial updates, I oppose. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As pointed out above: not ongoing. Disputed orange tag in After the capture of Mekelle.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not updated enough, there's a disputed tag, and "Protests by the diaspora" needs tidying. Even if it gets updated right now, I'm not convinced it'd stay that way. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – As a topic, it's a murky mess, unfortunately. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

 * Support Heat's obviously rising. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but only post when the article is bumped of course. osunpokeh (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified, to post to ongoing after bump. Albertaont (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support completely reasonable to continue there. --M asem (t) 04:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely in the news and definitely ongoing. Jbvann05  04:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: I was gonna nominate this myself but you beat me to it. For the past few days news about Israel/Palestine has been at the top of major news services including the New York Times, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Deutsche Welle, Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, and Haaretz (obviously).  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support when the blurb about it is fallen out into use. In addition, it gets a much more international coverage than usual. 182.1.62.161 (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It’s indisputable. I think it’s one of the ongoing nominations that I will support the most. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Still in the headlines JW 1961 Talk 09:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely needs to be ongoing since the tensions are escalating --Vacant0 (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very impactful on geo-politics almost universally. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing, because it goes on and on. KittenKlub (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. S. Narasimhan

 * Looks ready for ITN --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fully sourced and describes his work. Joofjoof (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 UEFA Women's Champions League

 * Comment ITNR only has the FIFA Women's World Cup of women's football events, not Champion's league. --Tone 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume we'd bold 2021 UEFA Women's Champions League Final, which is currently missing a writeup of the match.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - no opinion (currently) on whether we should post, but as a point of order I'm removing the "ITN/R" flag. The text at WP:ITN/R says "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series" (emphasis mine). The men's Champions league will not conclude until 29 May so is not simultaneous, and is in any case a different event from the women's one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on Principle seems fair enough to me as a point of avoiding sexism against women to feature the women's champions league winners. Granted many women's sports don't attract much if any attention whatsoever, but the women's champions league is not one of those cases.  The article already has a decent amount of prose in it but a little bit more prose about the final would help the article before posting.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, although it will be interesting having three football events on ITN at once. Not bad at all, just slightly humorous. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Could use a women's club posting given all the more obscure men's sports we post. League following is only growing. Pending sufficient match writeup.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a "house style" alt blurb on the off-chance that someone writes up the match summary. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I support quality and significance. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still no prose on the actual game action at 2021_UEFA_Women%27s_Champions_League_Final.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruno Covas

 * Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough. I wanted to nominate it myself, but I had no time to update it.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Rajeev Satav

 * Comment. Needs a thorough copy-edit if it is going to be posted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now--four citation needed tags, and another paragraph that should have a citation needed tag given its complete lack of citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: New Jack

 * Support Looks good to me.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least eight CN tags, the section "Return to professional wrestling (2016-2021)" without any reference, as well as many paragraphs. For now it is not ready in any way. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait An unusual and interesting bio, by wrestling standards, but still verified in the stereotypical blurry style. I've seen worse get better. Some stay sketchy forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, as I counted nine citation needed tags. Should be fine once quality concerns are taken care of. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Calls for clemency for Quintin Jones

 * Oppose isn't it the case that pretty much every single individual on death row has a call for clemency prior to their execution? What makes this newsworthy?   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the feedback, I've now changed the nomination to make it clearer why so many news sites are covering his clemency petition. The victim's family and over 120,000 other people (very unusual) have petitioned the governor, as well as his 21 year solitary confinement in prison. Just to clarify, is your question 'What makes this newsworthy?' specific to the ITN proposal or in general? This would help me describe this better. I don't know if your question of  'pretty much every single individual on death row has a call for clemency prior to their execution'  is true or not, it would be helpful to have a reference. John Cummings (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but perhaps this is an indication of the frequency of such requests? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for signatures, this guy had more than 600,000... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply, to answer your questions first, the first link is a list of granted clemency requests, not all clemency requests, I'm not sure how much we can learn from this given clemency has been granted less than 300 times in 40+ years according to the list (for context the US prison population is over 2 million (Incarceration in the United States). I'm not sure how someone receiving more support diminishes how newsworthy this story is.... I'm also not an expert on this subject, however reading the criteria for ITN The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. I'm confident that this fulfils all three. Its definitely current (he is due to be killed in 2 days time), he is written about in 7 news sources I've referenced in the article that were published in the past week including the New York Times, The Guardian and Texas local sources and its occuring within the timeframe of ITN. I'm unclear why this wouldn't be considered newsworthy given these are the criteria, am I missing something? Thanks again. John Cummings (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did Pervis Payne ever get ITNed? I don't think so. osunpokeh (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. I would suggest DYK instead, as this is a new article. P-K3 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment see above for my reply and changes I've made to the nomination to make it clear why this is newsworthy. John Cummings (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Second sentence makes clear that this is a advocacy-based proposal. This isn't newsworthy at all. Clemency requests occur before any execution really, and the clemency requests right now are political - not based on some evidence of a miscarriage of justice such as some other high profile requests are. He murdered someone, was correctly convicted, was given a capital punishment, and people are merely opposing his execution for the sake of opposing it in general - not based on any newsworthy reason. Not newsworthy, and Wikipedia isn't for attempts at advocacy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that this nomination relies on facts that are stated nowhere in their attached sources (I see zero reliable sources mentioned in that article that say anything about solitary confinement), this article would need a lot of cleanup before it'd even be main page eligible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. This is standard for someone nearing an execution. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Hi, can you explain what you mean 'this is standard'? As you can see from the references news story has been covered internationally.John Cummings (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck convincing us that two articles, one a blatant advocacy/opinion piece, the other re-reporting the first, constitutes "international coverage" osunpokeh (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as per Berchanhimez above (this definitely feels like it was written with advocacy intention). Widespread mainstream media coverage (which I'm not even convinced this is widespread) is insufficient. osunpokeh (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose. even if itn were regularly used for advocacy, this prisoner does not seem particularly notable, considering that he was sentenced about two decades ago, while his wikipedia article was created only about three hours ago.  also, the proposed blurb could probably be shortened, as it is nearly as long as all of those currently on itn combined.  although i can understand the desire to advocate for prisoners scheduled for execution, itn is probably not the best place for it.  dying (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Honestly, the second sentence in this blurb and the last sentence in the article are a WP:SYNTHESIS. And I doubt that the article is notable at all....should we change the name? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Clendenen

 * Support article meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Little (New Brunswick politician)

 * Support Would like a little more on his political career besides his views on nuclear power, but given that he wasn't elected in multiple years and overall had a pretty short career, what's there is adequate and meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support What's there is cited, article meets quality standard. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sunil Jain

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this nom. I believe this meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 18:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New Isotope - Uranium-214

 * Need Help The "Article" syntax is broken. Not able to put in Isotopes of uranium into it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't have the capability to point to a section, you just need to leave it to the article name, but you can id it in the blurb as you have done. --M asem (t) 20:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good to note for the future.  Thanks for that fix! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I was going to create a redirect, however somebody beat me to it. Uranium-214 will redirect. As far as the nomination goes, it needs be expanded a lot more to be considered. KittenKlub (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The coverage of this currently consists of two lines in the linked article. It would preferably have its own dedicated article, but if not then at least some detailed history and methodology of the discovery, as well as why it's significant would be needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn't rise to the notability of discovering new elements. Period 7 elements will naturally have more and more isotope possibilities, even if most of them will be highly unstable and of little utility. Albertaont (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * question: the first source appears to have been published last month. is there a reason why the more recent date of the second source is being treated as the date of publication?  dying (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are right. This was last month.  I made a mistake and was thought they all were "May 14/15" since Sci-News put it out today.  I withdraw the ITN nomination. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no worries, we all make mistakes. i actually appreciate the nomination as it was something i was interested in, but didn't catch a month ago.  dying (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Đorđe Marjanović

 * Support Well sourced, long enough and interesting article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elserbio00 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * COmment - it's in pretty good shape, just one uncited claim about "Rokeri Đorđu Marjanoviću" in the legacy section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a citation for that sentence, thank you for noticing that. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for adding the cite. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Leicester win FA Cup
Now that it looks like it is not going to SNOW like I feared, I am willing to support if there is prose added on the match itself.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose Conditional supportArticle seems decent, but the FA cup is not in ITNR and I fail to see a compelling reason to post it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but obviously the match itself needs a write-up. This is the oldest cup competition in world football and although not ITN/R, is significant enough in my view. (Also no team before Leicester has had to wait until their fifth attempt to win a final, which is an interesting angle.) P-K3 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Full support now that prose is sufficient. P-K3 (talk)
 *  Conditional Support per P-K3 - prose needed for the match . Although not ITNR, I think it is significant as the oldest football competition in the world JW 1961 Talk 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prose has now been added so no further concerns here (it really needed that magical level of inspiration) JW 1961 Talk 22:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose no prose summary of match. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support inspired prose update to the summary, truly excellent. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - ITN/R includes the Spanish, English and German leagues, but doesn't include the French or Italian, which are also generally considered amongst the top club competitions in the sport. As such, when we're not posting those two things, adding a second domestic competition for England seems a bit of a WP:WORLDWIDE issue. Then again, the FA Cup is the oldest and is the sort of tournament that brings in the magic moments - you can read all about two of those magic moments in Featured Articles, if you know where to look! And actually Leicester winning it is a little bit of an underdog victory in itself. So I don't know. Leaning slightly against, but I can see the case for inclusion. Either way, the prose needs a write-up as per TRM. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that for the college football championship in January, your oppose rationale was: Here in England, our most popular sport is association football. The Premier League is in WP:ITN/R, but we don't post any other English competitions, such as the FA Cup - still in itself a big deal domestically. In fact only two other national leagues, those of Spain and Germany, are in that list. As such, given that we already post the top competition in US American football, it would be overkill to post a second one. I get that this is a big deal in America, nobody's denying that, but so are many other things within their respective countries and we don't want to inundate ITN with endless sporting events. I generally think we should be posting more timely, quality ITN content, and be a bit less stringent on "importance". If you elect to support a second domestic competition for the same sport in England, barely a week apart, I trust you will similarly reconsider your oppose rationale for college football in the future. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * well technically I said I'm leaning oppose here, so I haven't really supported this one, but I take your point. We did end up posting the College championship, despite my oppose, so by that token it would be a slightly greater reason to support the FA Cup now. Re timely ITN content, I think I do agree on that point, but it's important that we do so across the board. We've faced accusations before of focusing too much on sport at the expense of other news items. So we could ask why the FA Cup is posted but not the Colonial Pipeline, even though the latter has generated more news coverage worldwide. I don't know what the answer is here, but to answer your request I shall avoid opposing college football going forward, it's clearly a big enough deal over on that side of the pond to warrant posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did know that you didn't firmly take a side yet. CFB actually wasn't posted this year but was a year before. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, my bad. I must have misremembered. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unwilling support: It's ITN/R but ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "unwilling support." This is not ITN/R and no-one has claimed it is. P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the oldest football competition in the world and Leicester's first title. It's very significant and deserves ITN. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with comment I will support this as I do feel it is certainly something worthy of inclusion. However, as the majority contributor, I do feel I should be credited in this nom too.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Arguably the biggest domestic football cup worldwide and was most likely watched in every country around the globe. Leicester winning as well was a bit of an underdog story in itself. User:AnthonyIreland (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ITN/R. If a lower league football club won the Cup then it may be newsworthy. STSC (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support To Bagumba's point above, our intent here is to encourage the creation/update of quality articles. We need to de-emphasis relative importance and treat in more like a binary, especially when the quantity of quality updates are substantial. The article reflects a lot of work, and it looks good.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state Not sure if earlier supports were seeing a different version of the page, but the match summary is two massive TLDR blocks of text. If this is the standard of quality writing, verifiability and neutrality to get a story on the front page, I don't know what we're doing: "Timothy Castagne was lucky not get booked for another foul in the aftermath". "Pérez went safety-first by punting the ball out for a throw-in and hurting himself in the process by catching N'Golo Kanté's foot. Thankfully it was just a minor knock". "Chelsea were starting to look short of ideas". "In the 87th minute Schmeichel made an incredible save to tip Mount's snap shot from inside the box around the post. In the 88th minute Chelsea thought that they had found the equaliser that would send the match to extra time when Silva pinged a fantastic ball towards Chilwell who darted behind Albrighton to shoot from a tight angle". Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an addition from a sock Sockpuppet investigations/DJdjPollard15. I have removed it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So now we're in a different, but still unsatisfactory, state. 24 hours on from the game and no summary of any sort? Wikipedia has articles on millions of football players, clubs and seasons, but no user wanted to write about this big game? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If posted, consider combining with Premier League blurb. Two English football blurbs might be excessive, and we still could potentially get more ITNR football posts shortly for 2020–21 La Liga and 2020–21 Bundesliga.—Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose quality, undecided on significance Seems we're back to no match summary after this revert.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strike on eyeball test (no fact check, AGF).—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , summary added! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this is ready. Possibly could be merged with the PL blurb for those about to get testy over "two British soccer blurbs???  Is this a UK soccer ticker???" etc.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 06:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a rough consensus to combine with the PL blurb. Posting. --Tone 13:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment the grammar of the blurb seems off. Shouldn't it be "In association football, Leicester City wins the FA Cup and Manchester City wins the Premier League."? --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR. As this is a British topic, it takes British English grammar, which in this usage British English uses notional agreement rather than formal agreement.  If this were about a primarily American topic, we would use an American grammar.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting question Going forward, how many association football tournaments are there that are ITN? I know there are usually only one, maybe two, for all the other sports. Thanks. CoatCheck (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See In_the_news/Recurring_items—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Going forward, there is no way to predict a) which articles will be properly updated and b) which events people, who happen to stop by ITNC that day, will agree that are significant enough. ITNR should give a rough idea of events that have, in the past, been deemed significant enough on a recurring basis to cover every year, but each nomination at ITNC is judged, at the time of nomination, on its own merits, and as such, we don't have any pre-determined rules on how many of each <insert random category of article> type of stories we will post at any time.  We just look at each nomination as it comes up, and make a decision at that time, based on article quality and how reliable sources are reporting the story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raimund Hoghe

 * Support When citation added to "Productions" section, otherwise looks ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the page from his official website. Some productions are also mentioned in other refs, but no list of that detail. I still think it's reliable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you JW 1961 Talk 16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some works not covered in the single refs provided. (e.g. 1989: Forbidden Fruit and 1990: Vento) do not appear in the given ref here. Should be covered by other refs.  Spencer T• C 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tianwen-1

 * Support as notable, and article seems to be of high quality. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight blurb change. This was the landing of a smaller craft that includes a rover, which will be deployed in a few weeks from now. The lander is not the named "Tiawen-1" craft that reached orbit a few months ago. --M asem (t) 03:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The little guy is named Zhurong, has six wheels, used to be a fire god. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And just to note, they have not offloaded Zhurong yet, which they consider another mission milestone, though that sounds less of a concern given the payload landed safely on Mars. --M asem (t) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support atlblurb but wait  The article is in good shape, but still light on the landing details. We should wait until that gets fully updated, since thats the real ITN. Albertaont (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The lead of the article has been updated but not the body, which still says "planned on occur on 14 May 2021. P-K3 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have copy-edited the content. STSC (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Good article, ITN/R event. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb with added named Zhurong rover. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The article should be ready. STSC (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - But maybe consider remvoing the link the mars landing article as it seems underdeveloped. –DMartin  14:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright to me, gj! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit the blurb to reflect a more nuanced, yet still factually accurate reading of the situation; that the CNSA's Tianwen-1 mission successfully lands its Zhurong rover on Mars. As alluded to by editors above me, "Tianwen-1" is the name of the mission, not the spacecraft, of which the orbiter and lander are unnamed except for the Zhurong rover. As far as I understand, we italicize the names of individual spacecraft and vehicles, and not the names of intangible concepts such as missions. — Molly Brown (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Though the rover itself has not yet been deployed, only the lander-rover payload. --M asem (t) 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated image If possible, please update banner with the image from article. Albertaont (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the one in the infobox, it's a non-free image with a rationale for that page. It wouldn't apply to the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farooq Qaiser

 * Support - Well sourced and good enough for RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well-cited, RIP! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jay Barbree

 * Comment - Few cn tags and sentences unsourced, but it seems "easy" to fix.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Easy to overlook problems, too, blast off! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support GA status, well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenneth Mayhew

 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good Article. More than enough for RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, GA status, RIP! --Vacant0 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David McPhail

 * Support – all referenced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above --Vacant0 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abel Murrieta Gutiérrez

 * Support I was going to nominate him too. His article covers his career in depth and is well referenced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced, deserves a RD--Vacant0 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Penpa Tsering

 * Oppose. Role has no actual on-the-ground power, and we don't AFAIK generally post changes to pretenders to power. Indeed, we failed to post the new leader of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recently, an entity which actually is listed at List of sovereign states and controls real territory, so it would seem odd to post this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted by Amakuru, we don't post leaders of nations that do not exist on the ground, unless they have some other claim to significance. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this be closed? Clear consensus to close this discussion. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Indu Jain

 * Oppose. Very little basic biographical information or context, and it reads like promotion. AleatoryPonderings (???) <(!!!) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support per (with thanks to them and IF for their work on the article). Would be nice to have some more background detail, but sometimes such things just aren't available. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it has a little amount of text, it will have to get expanded for an RD in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Support, it looks good now.--Vacant0 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support it is now long enough and referenced. Jain was clearly a private person, the story remains somewhat weak. KittenKlub (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The entry now a solid start and even illustrated. Indeed a private person, but KittenKlub was able to find materials documenting that—well done. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seamus Deane

 * Support - Well-referenced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriately referenced and comprehensive enough. I've labelled it ready. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Spencer Silver

 * Support - Good enough to RD.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Quality good. More Spencers needed on the Main Page. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 05:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Koester

 * Support Neat, short but suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - just a query about this sentence in the lead: "He also operated the Jazz Record Mart in Chicago, once the world's largest jazz and blues record store, and later a record store specializing in blues and jazz in Irving Park, Chicago." The claim about it being the world's largest such store doesn't appear to be in the body, or indeed cited. I'm also having trouble parsing the last part of that sentence. Is the record store in Irving Park (specializing in blues and jazz) a separate institution from the Jazz Record Mart? If so, that is also not AFAIK mentioned in the body or cited. CHeers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now clarified and cited both statements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Thanks, that looks good now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment My father-in-law knew him. He showed old movies at his house on Friday nights.  Funny to see a name you knew personally in RD; he was well-known in the Chicago music circle.  A big thank-you to the folks who got the article up to scratch. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lester L. Wolff

 *  Oppose for now  There are still 4 cn tags. I will support it once resolved. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , They are now addressed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support enough referenced with ITN minimum requirements. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Tags addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for RD now JW 1961 Talk 20:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Serge Bouchard

 * Comment article has been expanded from stub-size. PotentPotables (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak support – 10 entries in the "Works" are unsourced, but the rest of the article is well-referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually finished the referencing of all those works 10 minutes after you posted this, but I've only just seen your comment now! Myself, AleatoryPonderings and PotentPotables have also worked on adding more detail to the Career section. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks all good now. Full support. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Good to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support well cited and looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this article has been "ready" for over 24 hours now, while others finished after it have been put on RD. PotentPotables (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Helloooo, is anyone there? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Sorry was traveling and only had time to post the 1 blurb before I lost Internet access.  Spencer T• C 17:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Lloyd

 * Support - Article is very well-referenced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks fine. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ballymurphy massacre

 * Oppose – Historical note half a century after the fact; lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see much British news covering it (although I'm checking the BBC from over here in America). -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ultimately it's just a correction for the historical record. The result isn't particularly eventful or surprising, and no prosecutions, etc, are planned to come from it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - 10 innocent people were found unlawfully shot by the British Army. This is absolutely significant news, doesn't matter when it happened. STSC (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If the Brereton Report can be posted, don't see a reason to oppose this - article looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hard to see how this is significant or important or, frankly, even interesting. Mlb96 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is interesting -- I imagine particularly interesting for those involved in the Troubles, but I don't think it's ITN worthy. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support So a first-world government admits that it murdered its own citizens, and the argument here is that it is insignificant specifically because of the length of time that government lied about it?  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose What's the impact in the present day? An apology from BoJo isn't enough. Maybe if they put the soldiers on trial it'll be significant enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Manchester City win the 2020–21 Premier League season

 * Support Top sports news story at the moment on both BBC and NBC, and it seems reasonable to post when championship is achieved, not when season ends. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not internationally notable. -- Hey mid  (contribs) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Event is listed at ITN/R. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and if it weren't, please see worldwide media coverage of the Premier League. ---Sluzzelin talk
 * This is a joke vote, don't worry!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not internationally notable? BAHAHAHA, I'm in Indonesia and my math teacher spent like half of his class time to talk about this. He's a fan of MU, btw. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality is not there yet; barely any prose. My personal preference is to wait until the end of the season, but I can see the opposing view as City's win is "in the news" now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no prose summary of the season, and information in lead is not repeated in prose anywhere else in the article. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the end of the season. ITNR explicitly says 'the conclusion of the ... tournament or series'. There are still several games to go; just because Man City cannot be overtaken doesn't mean the competition is over. Also, the article is not ready because the prose summary is extremely brief, giving no more information than the table. See 2018–19_Premier_League for an example of the sort of treatment required. Article maintainers have a few weeks to sort that out before the season actually concludes. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The now-expanded prose summary does look good. It just needs to be updated with the European places once those are settled - which is unlikely to be until the final round of matches has been played. I still think we should wait. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The European places don't form part of the blurb, as far as I'm aware, so not sure why that should hold this up. We don't wait for the electoral college or the inauguration on US election stories, we post as soon as a result is known. I.e. when the story is in the actual news. The same should apply here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, they're not part of the blurb, but they are a necessary part of a complete encyclopaedic article on the entire season. This isn't a bold link to a single game (like 2021 UEFA Champions League final), or even a single club (2020–21 Manchester City F.C. season), it's an article about the entire season so should have reasonably complete for all clubs over the entire season. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Everything is about getting in the top four these days. (It's like a trophy...) The article isn't complete until we know those places. P-K3 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Generally post at end of season, when readers can also see final standings. See past blurb which mentions "concludes".—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't care, but thought I was upholding a precendent, which it might not be (see below).—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - obviously the quality isn't there yet, but if and when that's resolved, it should absolutely be posted now. In English football, the winner is declared as soon as one team cannot be caught; that's what reliable sources report, and the trophy is usually presented either at that game or before the next game. Last year, Liverpool clinched the title on 26 June, and we posted it on that date, not one month later when the season finally drew to a close. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please update WP:ITNR so fans and non-fans alike don't need to quibble over this again.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting early was a novelty in 2020 and was controversial. That was a Covid-disrupted season played partly while the rest of the country was in a strict lockdown, so I don't think it sets a precedent. 2019 was posted at the end of the season, so were 2018, 2017 etc. (I got bored of checking them all). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't remotely controversial. Some opposed, but the vast majority supported posting an ITN item when it was actually in the news and not a month later. Even a 12 day delay is enough that the nom could be reasonably considered stale.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually did try to update this previously and it had majority support. The opposition largely missed the point (what if an unassailable lead isn't really unassailable?) but others called it CREEP and said we can address the issue in ITNC, which we did last year. Some would prefer to quibble.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Updating !vote to Support - with thanks to for reopening the discussion. I've updated the article with an expanded prose summary of how the race for the title panned out, which hopefully meets the quality doubts above. If there's anything else that needs looking at quality-wise, then let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for the end of season (and establish this as ITNR for sport events where such a winner can be determined early). While the event is around one team mathematically winning the season, the rest of the games will still be played out as there will be 2nd, 3rd, etc and other placements, and other things can happen - eg I would assume M.C. here would immediate drop into their 2nd and 3rd strings to risk injuring their lead players for next year. We should feature the completed season when all is said and done and while this will still end up with M.C. as the winners, the article will document all other placements and other things that happened afterwards. --M asem  (t) 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article has very little useful prose. Needs a lot of expansion of prose.  If and when that is fixed, consider this opposition to be a support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The 2020–21 Premier League season isn't over yet. STSC (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stat filled article, half of the available prose is about COVID-19. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I would concur that the prose is now sufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm marking as attention needed. Please could an uninvolved admin assess the state of this nomination? Most of the opposes above are either on quality grounds, which I believe are now resolved, or based on the misconception that we usually wait until the end of the season to post Premier League winners - something which has been shown to be incorrect in the discussion at WT:ITN. Personally I think it's time to post this, but obviously I'm too involved at this stage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to post it but the last person to assess a consensus got improperly accused of abusing the admin tools so I'm frankly not sure I want to go there with this nomination. Is there a second for posting this?  331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: the last time an admin posted against consensus, it was correctly called out. Don't start again 331dot, defending the indefensible again is not a good look for anyone, let alone an admin.  You should know better. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait - When Man City are presented with the Premier League trophy officially (after their final game on 23 May). STSC (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Post on May 23rd after the official trophy presentation.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this isn't "in the old news from a couple of weeks ago". Deary me, the meaning of "NEWS" is that it's NEW and it's being currently reported and commented on.  Waiting for trophy to be awarded renders this a report about items that are not in the news.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events in the tournament or series" per WP:ITNSPORTS. Please note the word "conclusion". STSC (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you please note the purpose of ITN, point #1: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Manchester City winning the news is in the news *now*. Or at least it was when this was nominated, before all this ridiculous Wikilawyering pedantry held the posting up. Sorry if this seems like I'm not mincing my words, but I'm really annoyed about what's happened here, for something that doesn't serve readers and doesn't serve the editors who've put in the work to get this article up to scratch. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you post it as an ITN/R event, then follow it's rules. Believe me, when Man City lift the trophy, there will be bigger news all over the place. STSC (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Maybe in lesser developed countries where news is slow to travel, but City have already been declared as winners, the headlines have been and are going. We’re missing the ITN boat here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Consensus narrowly in favor to post at this point. Concerns about international notability and article not being updated have since been addressed or were unfounded.  Spencer T• C 15:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colt Brennan

 * Support article seems well developed. –DMartin 21:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding citation tags .—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing improved and sufficient.  Doing a mass ping as one more day before this is stale and it might get lost on the bottom here. Pardon the interruption.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Kazan school shooting

 * Support Absolutely in the news. I expect those who supported two-digit death toll in USA shootings to also support this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What about those who spit bile and venom at two-digit death toll shootings in the USA? You know Russia is a different country, on a different continent right? Maybe you should try to stay focused --LaserLegs (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gratuitously contentious. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I mentioned USA because mass shootings from USA are the most frequent here and I rarely see mass shootings nom from other countries. Thank you for your understanding. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Most definitely should be in the news. Although the sources I'm reading say that it's at least 8, not 11. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 09:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting when now the article's quality is good enough. It's currently too short, but is rapidly being expanded. Jim Michael (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is a micro-stub, 602 characters long. Needs to be a minimum of 3-4 times longer than that before we should consider putting it on ITN. Also, cn tag needs to be addressed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now that article is good enough. This is an uncommon event, and therefore ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as above. A weak stub at the moment.  Event is notable enough for ITN however. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article much better than when I first assessed.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality per above. The article is WAY too short. Try following the disaster stub template. It's a neat tool to get out of stub status. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the article has been developed to ITN standards. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is too short to be put on the main page. As always, if this is fixed, then consider my opposition to be ended.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not ready yet for ITN. STSC (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Cited sources indicate this is another disgruntled former student, apparently acting alone on personal motives. Wider significance might be doubtful. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes it less notable than if it were carried out by a terrorist group, but I think it still notable enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support As of now, the article is ready. And per nom, school shootings in Russia, particularly the deadly ones, are relatively rare. Brandmeistertalk  16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we would not post this if it happened in the US. We should not post it just because it happened elsewhere. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that argument is deeply flawed and I suspect you know it. There are plenty of instances where mass shootings outside the US are  much more notable (like almost all  of them) because the frequency with which they occur in the United States is far higher than almost any other country in the universe. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't get mass shootings of 9 people that often here, though. I just don't see anything that makes this notable beyond that it took place in a country where mass shootings aren't as common. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings, as you know, happen in the US practically every day. This is not just about the numbers, this is about the infrequency and the numbers. But you knew that.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very few mass shootings in the US (or anywhere) kill 9 people. I'm just saying that if we wouldn't consider this shooting notable in the US, it shouldn't be notable elsewhere. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of examples of mass shootings in the US which go way beyond nine deaths, but very few indeed elsewhere.  You know that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sad truth is that school shootings happen way more often in the United States than anywhere else in the world. A school shooting that kills 9 people in the context of the US isn't notable, but in the context of Russia, a country with relatively few school shootings, it is very notable. It made international news, so I would say it's notable. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish things were different in the United States but there have been more mass shootings this year than in Russia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 18:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Good enough quality-wise now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PP Comment – Not entirely convinced happening in Russia made it major. Oh well. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: please add more depressing events to ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:91B9:30F0:652:3D3B (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to see more "positive" events posted, please develop articles about such an event in the news and nominate them. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We seem to get these amusing comments on a semi-regular basis. Are you saying we should ignore fatal events? The world is a messy place and ITN correctly reflects it. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * comment: this photo seems appropriate for the blurb. dying (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Joseph

 * Comment - I've had a go at whipping this into shape, so any comments or suggestions welcome please. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice job updating, well sourced (even has the filmography fully sourced) JW 1961 Talk 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. A. E. Nababan

 * Support Good depth of coverage, AGF on the sources, referenced.  Spencer T• C 17:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support definitely good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  One-sentence lead too short. Even missing the country per MOS:CONTEXTBIO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bagumba, thank you for your input, I have expanded the lead. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking my "oppose"—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks alright and notable enough for a RD.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Dean (footballer)

 * Comment: I've added some more on circumstances surrounding his death. There doesn't look to be much more that can be added, it looks just about long enough for RD now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's short, but per above there's probably not much more to say.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Information on the page seems to be well-cited even though its short, seems good.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) Colonial pipeline

 * Oppose I was ready to support this based on the blurb, but that's not what happened at all. Their IT systems were hit by malware and as a precaution they shut down their industrial control systems. In that regard, it's not really notable it's the internet equivalent of checking for unlocked doors. Targeted attacks on industrial control systems I would support. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The gas shortage that since transpired is the bigger news now.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose + per LaserLegs, single entities being hit by a cyberattack (regardless of means) is far too narrow for ITN. We'd be focused on something on a far more massive scale like the 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine (which also hit numerous orgs outside Ukraine). --M asem (t) 13:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Overblown.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor stub, story is not of particular note. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I was just listening to the latest BBC report. They said that the main pipeline is still shut, that there is no date yet for resumption and that President Biden has declared a state of emergency.  This seems to be a bigger deal than the current top blurbs -- the bombing of a school and the collapse of a bridge.  The latter was a week ago now so, as usual, ITN is not keeping up with what's actually in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least part of the problem is that it's a crap stub. And I don't recall standards for inclusion being on a sliding scale depending on the age of the material in the ITN template, but perhaps I missed that discussion and community consensus.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a big deal given the circumstances. It has the potential to economically impact the US -- -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gas prices will go up by $0.20 a gallon. That's about it. Any further speculation on potential economic impact is WP:CRYSTALBALL and contingent on a continued shutdown after the end of the week. --WaltCip- (talk)  19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And an increase by $0.21/gallon would set a record for most expensive petrol in the United States. osunpokeh (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prices go up. So what?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To note - it's affecting airports as well - it's a primary source (because it's basically brand new information, but it's the airline saying itself that it's due to the pipeline) but one AA flights from CLT-Europe and a long-haul flight CLT-Hawaii have diversions planned en-route to pick up more fuel (or possibly to pick up fuel to tank it back to CLT). This twitter thread has the screenshot of the flight data that AA put in directly for the reason for the stop, and this (unreliable source afaik) has more information. Just saying, this should be left open for another few days at least as it certainly has the potential to impact more industries than just auto fuel. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now covered by multiple reliable sources (including reuters, cnbc) and officially confirmed by the company that the stops are because of fuel supply issues at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. I'm going to work on adding this to the article on it, and I don't think at all that this should be part of the blurb, but it's not just "gas prices will go up by 20 cents a gallon" - it is having impacts on multiple sectors other than just the automotive gasoline industry. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Breathless reliable source coverage does not equate to actual newsworthiness. WaltCip- (talk)  13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for having significant coverage in the news. Einsof (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This has resulted in a formal state of emergency, so I think WP:N is well satisfied here. The article is okay.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this has already dropped out of the top eleven news stories on BBC News' world homepage.  If this happened in any other country on planet Earth it'd just be an inconvenience, but in the US it's a "state of emergency".  Give us strength.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are now four other US-related stories ahead of this one on the BBC News world homepage. Then you have "Americans panic-buying gas".  Wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it's currently (see my timestamp) the top story at BBC's US & Canada News page. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rambling Man's comment. Just a minor disturbance, gas price hike is common. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose if this wasn't in the US, this nom would have been snow closed by now. No evidence that it is important enough for ITN, or that there will be any lasting impact (for more than a few days) of it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can say this. It would absolutely be posted if this happened in another developed country. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prove it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody can prove anything, this is all people manifesting the biases that exist in their head into something tangible. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Joseph2302. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant news, and it's having a domino effect on many states. STSC (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with an updated blurb - now there are gasoline shortages in several states. The article is good enough, though I expect it will be better tomorrow. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Now there are significant gasoline shortages affecting several states, with two of them, North Carolina and South Carolina, having declared the state of emergency, and Florida having activated National Guard. Even before that happened the CBS News characterized the event as "the worst cyberattack to date on critical U.S. infrastructure". Nsk92 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also still seeing this in the news. Willing to post, however, please suggest a blurb that reflects the recent developments. --Tone 09:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll make it today's item. --Tone 09:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, not to be rude or something but when the majority of !votes here are opposing the blurb to be posted I expect the posting admin to make a concise explanation as to why the admin posted it. Thank you... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull there is absolutely no consensus to post this story here at all.  Indeed, opposers outnumber the support.  What are you doing?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My reasonins at this point is that the topic has shifted from a cyberattack to a disruption of supply. Several of the initial opposes did not consider this new development while the recent supports do. I did not just count the votes. But no hard feelings from my side if another admin decides to pull. --Tone 10:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal reasoning about what earlier commentators now think isn't what we're here for, consensus is still very much against this story. You have just "supervoted".  Suggest your revert yourself. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull  This should not have been posted without any consensus whatsoever, especially with a numerical majority against it. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull and leave discussion open, there's still quite a few days left. No need to rush this one, if consensus develops then it does – but absolutely never post before that point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I endorse the posting, per the reason given. This is not a vote count. I too, however, won't feel bad if this is pulled. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasoning that an admin can read the minds of other editors? This has no consensus and the admin action was a supervote.  This is procedurally negligent and an abuse of the admin tools. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want us to count votes, you know where you may propose that. Calling their evaluation "abuse" is a gross misuse of the word. If you disagree with the rationale, okay, but it was in good faith. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was pure and simple abuse of position.  There is absolutely no way Tone could have known the feelings of those who had commented previously about the developments  since.  To post an item with not  just no consensus, but consensus against posting is not what admins should be doing.  What happened is called a "supervote". I think we all  know that, and this is now defending the indefensible.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull consensus was not reached. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull I don't think the blurb extracts the exact notability of the cyberattack. I see that oil prices in the US reached a historical high since 2014, which seems more important than the oil shortages in a few states. Anyway, this causes only a short-lived disruption with minor impact on the US economy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulled. With due respect to and  for their rationales above, it seems crystal clear to me at this point that the posting of this item does not enjoy the consensus of the community. This may still find consensus to post, but probably it's best to actually ping in the earlier opposes to see if they've changed their minds based on later developments. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems the post could have been reasonable if it was discounting the "relating to a single country" opposes. However, that was not stated.  Many of the new opposes are over the procedural reading of consensus, not specifically "not significant to be a blurb" opposes.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are three problems with this story. Firstly, notability is not well established. Secondly, proposed blurbs are not the best that we can get out of it. Thirdly, it took place five days ago with a couple of consequential events afterwards. Given that only the last blurb in the box documents earlier news, this could quickly become stale and nomination for ongoing would be a better fit.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems the pulled blurb was more about the shortage, which is more in the news now than the date of the cyberattack. A similar example is the current Isreal–Hamas blurb using the later airstrike date, rather than the orginal clashes in Jerusalem.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we're talking a shortage of gasoline (raising prices) to a portion of a first world country. Oh no how ever will we get through this. Gas prices were already elevated from the driver shortage earlier last month. Unless we have something that is having world-pricing effects (eg the Suez Canal blockage), we really should be careful about stories related to "inconveniences" in first-world countries. --M asem (t) 12:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No different than posting leisure entertainment "news" from first-world countries, or continuous doom and gloom from developing countries.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-pull endorse pull - while I support posting, there clearly wasn't consensus to post yet. I do still support posting, though. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-post - It's still very much in the news: Panic buying and hoarding add to long lines and outages at gas stations as Colonial Pipeline shutdown drags on - STSC (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is daft, there was no consensus to post in the first place and there's still no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not daft at all. Consensus can change. STSC (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, but consensus hasn't changed!!!! You already supported and there's still no consensus to post.  Duh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, we didn't post the toilet paper shortage, did we? WaltCip- (talk)  22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, which commodity is more important to you? Like the toilet paper shortage, panic buying gas worsens impact of Colonial Pipeline hack - STSC (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Panic!! I can't drive my gas guzzling car!! Meanwhile tens of thousands of people a day are dying of Covid.  Talk about "inconvenience"!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a covid related nomination to make, please do. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're being deliberately challenging here, I mean defending supervoting from an admin is one thing, but of course the use of Covid here is to provide some context for the relative significance of this story. A few Americans can't make a 500-mile round trip to pick up a Wendys.  Big deal.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-post -- it is ongoing and continuing to effect the southeastern US. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is daft, there was no consensus to post in the first place and there's still no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT states Colonial is restarting the pipeline and it will take "several days". Nothingburger. Suggest this nom be closed.--WaltCip- (talk)  22:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just like the politicians used to say, "Crisis? What crisis?" - STSC (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-post w/ alt blurb II The gas shortage is the bigger news now, days later after the initial nomination from news of the shutdown. Alt II corrects early "opposes" that the cyberattack directly shutdown the pipeline, when the pipeline company proactively shut it down after to contain the attack. The gas impact is specifically to the Southeast. Par for the course, any U.S.-related nomination riles up "global impact" debates and "single country" opposes about a country of 300+M people. The pulls were mostly procedural and not outright opposes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a first world inconvenience, which we really do not post. No one's lives are at stack (as the case would be if it were a winter storm or wildfires). --M asem (t) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But you also opposed a winter storm outage in the US, which consensus ended up to post. (In_the_news/Candidates/February_2021). Perhaps you meant "United States inconvenience", not "first world".—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would in fact be even more careful about posting stories about "inconveniences" in the U.S., because the US media tends to have a way of blowing these stories up beyond unnecessary coverage, when there are people that live in condition far worse year-round. In contrast, this story is also comparable to the Suez Canal blockage, and while that was an "inconvenience" it has far more direct financial and international impact to make it appropriate to post. --M asem (t) 13:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All the deaths we post are an "inconvenience". Life goes on, right?  But use the term at your convenience.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Nominator seem to ask several people to vote here, anyway I am also with Rambling Man's comment. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose. from what i can tell, this story has three parts: the hack, the shutdown, and the panic.  my nonexpert opinion leads me to believe that the hack itself does not seem notable enough, being apparently a routine cybersecurity attack that had neither the sophistication of stuxnet, nor the widespread nature of the bear attack, nor the informational repercussions of equifax.  the shutdown does not appear to be notable enough, with the pipeline being restarted in under a week, and the supply chain likely to be fully restored within a few days.  the panic may be unusual, but, like the toilet paper panic, it has caused no deaths, injuries, or major incidents that i am currently aware of.  however, if the shortage caused by the panic continues long after the supply chain has been fully restored, i think this might be worth a blurb.  in addition, i fear that poor storage of hoarded gasoline may lead to a future tragedy that may be notable enough to post on itn, in which case, this hack could be referenced in the subsequent disaster blurb.  dying (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i fear that poor storage of hoarded gasoline may lead to a future tragedy that may be notable enough to post: Sigh. ITN always circles back to deaths.—Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the problem here – that there's no bodycount. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it's not just the lack of a body count. it's just that it seems that no major incidents have actually happened yet as a result of the shortage.  in addition, consumption of gasoline is presumably lower than normal due to the pandemic, and it has become more socially acceptable to replace many things that would have previously required the consumption of gasoline with something virtual instead.  as a result, even if such a shortage would have usually had a big impact, i suspect that the pandemic has mitigated the shortage's effect.  gasoline shortages can be notable, and panics can be notable without being associated with deaths.  however, i don't personally think this is currently notable enough to post on itn, but have previously noted that if the shortage does become prolonged, it may become notable enough.sure, there's a lot of people that are worried, but a lot of people were also worried about where the uncontrolled chinese rocket would crash, even though that incident did not seem worthy of nomination.  dying (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update There are more developments as a trend is established: Ransomware attack disrupts Irish health services; How the Colonial Pipeline hack is part of a growing ransomware trend in the US. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The attack on Irish health services is honestly more notable, because that directly impacts a country's healthcare system. WaltCip- (talk)  12:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i agree that the irish health service hack is more notable due to its direct effect on a national health system, especially during a pandemic. i also felt that the dc police hack is more notable due to the massive amount of sensitive data exfiltrated.  in fact, the latter has been described as "possibly the most significant ransomware incident to date".  dying (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Disclaimer: I pulled this above, with my neutral uninvolved admin hat on, because it was clear to me that a consensus to post didn't exist. And still doesn't exist now really. But looking at it again, this time from an editor point of view and on the merits of the case, I will put my hat in the ring as saying we should (re-)post this. It's a major enough and interesting enough story to post, with high impact depite the lack of deaths, and even notwithstanding that Western news outlets routinely tend to give more importance to US topics than others. And actually, if an event of a similar magnitude happened in some other country we'd probably have far fewer qualms about posting it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment if there's some kind of ongoing issue/trend, then the best thing would be to make an Ongoing nomination. I personally fail to see why this is really any more significant than most other hacking outings, and those linked by Andrew aren't directly related to this.  Interestingly, there's a far more impactful story going on in Lebanon now relating to a quarter of the country's electricity supply being withdrawn for unpaid bills.  That would seem to be much more relevant than this humdrum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the significance: Colonial Pipeline Paid Hackers Nearly $5 Million in Ransom - STSC (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted; ongoing updates) Jerusalem clashes

 * Tentative support but the article is a bit short. The intro could be expanded as well. --Tone 08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have expanded the lead beyond a sentence. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support because the article is too short for read. I think if i strongly support, i would prefer Altblurb instead. 36.77.95.215 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub. There are no details about the storming of the mosque (number of officers, time of day, what was going on inside, what prompted them to take that building in the first place, what damage was done to it, did they occupy it or just leave afterwards, was there a specific target in mind and was that target achieved), the rest of the article has nonspecific comments about clashes but no basic where, when, who types of details. 136 people across all of Jerusalem? Was there city wide rioting or were the police picking up random Palestinians? "Further clashes followed at the Al-Aqsa mosque" clashes with who? Were random Israelis just loitering at an important Islamic holy site looking for a fight? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As the person who has added most of what you're referring to, very little information of the sort you're asking for currently exists. If you can find sourced information that would benefit the reader, please, add it to the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If very little of that information exists, then maybe there ought not be an article for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is not AllegedlyHuman's fault but is a common problem with breaking event articles like this: international reaction sections should not be including simple quotes from countries that express sympathy or similar types of language. Every reasonable country is going to issue a statement about these disasters, and they stick out (particularly when MOS:FLAGS are used) like sore thumbs. If countries are actually helping (for example, in the KRI Nanggala (402) search and recovery, several countries outside Indonesia are stated to helped, this should clearly be documented. Or if a country does simply give a statement and that prompts some significant reaction, that can be documented as well. But it can be expected that generally, no country is going to be an ass and is going to offer sympathy for losses of human live and tradegy and these sections do not really help our articles. --M asem (t) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Widely covered but complicated and difficult to comprehend. Wider significance may be doubted. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced, and while short does hit all of the important parts. Some expansion of the narrative is welcome, but it's good enough for posting.  Would prefer the original blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, neutral on quality this is a major story that is garnering significant reactions from world leaders. The article quality is fine in terms of citing sources, but I find the article's explanation of why the clashes are happening lacking.  If it's not fixed before I'm off of work, I'll see if I can do something about that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Too much flag salad for my taste. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - major escalation of this conflict.BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A significant event and the article is about what 2021 Baghdad hospital fire was at when it was put into ITN. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support Significant development, article quality is decent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is an extremely significant escalation drawing international attention. The article does need a lot more background on the events though.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 19:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Events in the last 12 hours clearly are pushing this to importance. (Still have my reservations on the international reactions section but there's enough in the rest of the article to support). --M asem (t) 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality The background and reaction sections are both individually longer, more detailed, better written, than the part which should be the substance: what is happening. And a lot is happening, but the article doesn't reflect that. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, its true that this has happened before. But the ITN is because there has been a significant increase in clashes after a period of relative stability. Albertaont (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – AP and BBC on Monday quote Gaza "health officials" saying at least 20 people, including nine children, were killed in Israeli airstrikes. – Sca (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment update to alt blurb 2 212.74.201.233 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * * Post-posting comment The current blurb is misleading. It seems to suggest that 20 people were killed at Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, but the deaths happened in subsequent clashes in Gaza. The blurb should be clarified. 142.117.9.52 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Change the blurb, it is absurdly misleading. Something like "20 Palestinians are killed in Israeli air strikes after clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque" would be fine. Mlb96 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment The blurb as currently phrased is offensively misleading fake news - it implies that the Palestinians who were killed were killed in the clashes in Jerusalem (there are various reputable sources that can attest to the local police's - both Jewish and Arab - restraint regarding the protests, and the efforts to avoid casualties). The Palestinians who were killed were killed in Israeli air strikes in Gaza after Hamas fired rockets on Israel, including on Jerusalem. 87.68.252.89 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom comment Yes, the blurb on MP is incorrect – 20 were not killed at the mosque. I do not know who added altblurb 2 or why that one was selected but it is inaccurate. Given the nature of the topic a fix ASAP is advised. Pinging WP:ERRORS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is FAKE news. FAKE, WRONG, news. Rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza, people in Israel were injured. Israel responded with airstrikes in Gaza. People in Gaza were killed. Nobody was killed in Jerusalem.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Two comments - (1) notwithstanding the embarrassing error that we posted to the main page as highlighted above, I think the blurb should still be amended to make mention of the subsequent development of Hamas firing at Israel and Israel firing at Gaza with loss of life; and (2) the blurb is still misleading, because it implies that all the clashes were at the Al-Aqsa mosque, when in fact the injuries happened "across Jerusalem" (in the words of the article). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've now added "and elsewhere in" before Jerusalem, to correct the second point. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with adding "elsewhere" is that the existing "more than 20 Israeli police officers" part was specifically from sources for the mosque. Sure, it's still "more than", but I doubt we'll ever get an accurate cumulative count for "elsewhere".  This blurb is fast becoming unwieldy without identifying the scope of what news we are blurbing about for this wide-ranging article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the "at the mosque and elsewhere" clause does also include the state of affairs where one facet of the incident was exclusively at the mosque. I certainly see it as an improvement on the outright erroneous text that I amended. To be honest, it's almost getting to the point where we might consider pulling this and rethinking what it should say from scratch, because it's fast becoming a comedy of errors. (And to some extent this was the worry that was trying to convey above - the article itself doesn't seem to entirely make clear what the scope was and what the most noteworthy aspects were).  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb started "​Clashes in Jerusalem at the Al-Aqsa Mosque leave ..." It's OK if the blurb limits mention to a fact that occured at Al-Aqsa Mosque. That's an editorial decision on what is blurb-worthy.  The blurb did notsay that clashes were exclusively at the mosque. We could widen the blurb's scope, as the actual article covers more than just the mosque (no comment on what the actual article should cover).  However, that really should be driven by consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reworded I have boldly changed the wording on this to reflect the aftermath of the Israeli airstrikes as a result of the clashes. That's clearly what the media has focused on. I will profess my wording is likely not best but felt it needed to be changed as clearly the import of the story has drastically shifted from what was originally posted. --M asem (t) 13:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Israeli air-strikes following clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque ... omits Hamas firing rockets into Israel. Looking rather unbalanced.—Bagumba (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Added to account for that (+2 deaths from NYTimes), also dealt with a wording order from errors. --M asem (t) 13:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * information Clashes on the Israel-Gaza border: Two women were killed in Ashkelon and several people were injured after Hamas opened heavy rocket fire on southern Israel. Hundreds of rockets have been fired at Israel since May 10, including a barrage of 7 rockets into the Jerusalem area, in parallel with the riots in Jerusalem. In response to the shooting, the IAF attacked a number of targets in the Gaza Strip, as part of a military operation called the "Wall Guard" (The Times of Israel) ידידיה צ&#39; צבאן (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As it's posted on the main page, please, add links there to Operation Guardian of the Walls and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, like this:


 * Israeli air-strikes and Hamas militant missile launches kill at least 26 people and injure hundreds more following clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (pictured) and elsewhere in Jerusalem.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere is the Damascus Gate. Euro know (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone already added (though it seems like an overlinked blurb to me).—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we put this in the ongoing section? BBC states that it may escalate to a full-scale war Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably, although dropping into "ongoing" usually occurs after the initial blurb drops off the bottom of ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * update Clashes with terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip: Six killed in Israel after the terrorist organization Hamas opened heavy rocket fire on southern Israel and the Dan Bloc. Hundreds of rockets have been fired at Israel since May 10, in parallel with the riots in Israel during Ramadan, including the riots in Jerusalem. In response to the shooting, the IAF attacked many targets in the Gaza Strip, as part of a military operation called "The Guardian of the Walls" (Haaretz) (The Times of Israel) ידידיה צ&#39; צבאן (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * update Seven people have been killed in Israel. Also, riots broke out in Lod, Acre and other cities in Israel. (The times of Israel) ידידיה צ&#39; צבאן (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * update Operation Guardian of the Walls: Ten Israeli civilians have so far been killed by rockets fired by the Hamas terrorist organization at the State of Israel. ידידיה צ&#39; צבאן (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull and put in Ongoing per updates above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but blurbs are usually for one-time events, and there have been multiple attacks. There is no sign of the attacks stopping so it's worth putting in ongoing. Jbvann05  18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to stuff it in ongoing while it's still an item; if the article is still being updated when it's time for the item to roll off, then ongoing can be considered.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, change the link for "missile launches" on the Main Page from Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2021. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? That's a paltry list in its current state.—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * POV issues First, this is just a POV failure. Why are we doing bold edits to ITN? Second, and most subtly, why is Israeli air strikes listed first? Chronologically, Hamas fired air weaponry first. And alphabetically, H appears before I. So could someone explain the criteria used for the ordering here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You'd have to notify those editors directly about their edits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's who added both skimming the history of Template:In the news, but I haven't looked more closely. In any case, could Masem either swap the order or justify the current one? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In RSes reporting on this, the Israeli strikes are given more weight because they're the most deadly (when I updated, it was 24 dead from those, vs 2 from Hamas rocket strikes). Since they have continued, it is still the Israeli strikes that are causing the largest loss of life and this seems to be the way it is presented in RSes. Its the "POV" as media reports which, for as brief as we can do in a blurb, we should follow. --M asem (t) 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Talking about weight here, you could swap the order chronologically but then make it like this "...kill more than a hundred people (mostly Palestinians)..." to indicate who suffered the greater loss of life. As tragic as it is, that creates a win-win scenario. --Depressed Desi (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Footnote: FYI, Israeli airstrike May 15 destroyed Gaza building housing the AP, other media offices. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dhiru Parikh

 * Support - this nomination seems to have been neglected a bit, but the article looks decent enough for a start-class article. Marking as ready, assuming nobody else spots anything wrong. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - please can someone look at this? As the sole support, I'm reluctant to post it myself, but I think it's probably ready to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl-Günther von Hase

 * Support Looks good and well-cited. Good job Gerda.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article definitely good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Would like to see more info about his 7-year role as ambassador to the UK and a little more depth as mentioned by the nominator, but what's there meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 World Women's Curling Championship

 * Support article is quality (in terms of citations), and this is a top-level championship for an international sport. Prefer original blurb, then alt blurb I if we're not going with the original. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  on quality, undecided how much to factor the subject's significance. Very liitle write-up on the final, aside from a couple of sentences in the lead. Be good to have some background on Russia's path to the final. Zero prose on bronze medal. —Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Article has since been expanded. It'd be better to move the final and bronze medal game details to their respective sections, leaving only brief mention in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there have been improvements on quality I think the subject's significance is not enough for an IAR given that ITN posts are currently not stagnant.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the blurbs seems good. The championship is won by the team, not by the skip, so blurb and Alt are not good. Alt2 is better, but "only the fifthe time something happens" is not really that remarkable after 42 or so editions. In fact, a "team" (meaning Switzerland or Canada" has won back-to-back titles more often than 5 times (Canada even won 4 in a row), I suppose it is only the fifth time with the same skip? I would use a variation of Alt1: "The Swiss team lead by Silvana Tirinzoni wins the World Women's Curling Championship, defeating Russia in the final" (with a link to the Russian team added probably). Fram (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i also agree with not mentioning the back-to-back victories, as doing so could be considered sensationalism. the russian team should probably be mentioned, but please note that, in this tournament, the russian athletes were representing the russian curling federation, and not russia, in accordance with a ruling associated with the russian doping scandal.  as a result, the phrase "defeating Russia" may be technically incorrect, while i am assuming that "defeating the Russian team" may avoid the issue.  dying (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose don't see why World Curling Championships are important enough to be on ITN. We didn't post the men's championships last month- where article quality is similar- so not sure why people think the women's ones are more important and ITN-worthy? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ....or maybe it just wasn't nominated and there is nothing nefarious going on here. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why a World Curling Championship regardless of gender) is important enough for ITN. And nobody has yet demonstrated why that would be the case. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * nominator A202985 has mentioned that it is the "[h]ighest level curling tournament beside the Olympics", while NorthernFalcon notes that it is "a top-level championship for an international sport". dying (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are tons of sports with World Cups/World Championships which are the highest level of their sport- see Template:World championships in 2021. My concern is that if we start posting some sports World Championships, we may get overrun with nominations for other sports World Championships that are as equally important to their sports. I don't think the level of coverage of Curling World Championships makes it important enough for ITN, which is a view I'd hold for most sports World Championships on the template I listed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to argue against your viewpoint on this nomination, but one of the most common criticisms of ITN I see is that we don't post enough, not that we post too much. Being flooded with nominations and postings is a problem I would want to have. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302, i think your concern is valid, and was also something i was considering when trying to determine my support for this nomination. i have watched curling before, but do not know enough about whether the sport is considered important enough to merit posting on itn.i've since perused the discussions on the talk page and noticed that: (1)in order to increase the variety of competitions featured on itn, there is interest to add an esport tournament to itn/r if a worthy one can be identified; (b)all the blurbs currently featured are disaster blurbs; and (iii)itn/c could possibly benefit from more feminine input.  seeing that this nomination adds more variety to what i understand has been posted before, is not considered a disaster (except maybe for the russian team), and deals with a women's championship, i think the topic is currently worthy of posting.for now, i would hesitate to add the championship (or its male counterpart) to itn/r, echoing the concern that you mentioned.  however, i think posting this year's championship can address some concerns currently being voiced on the talk page.  dying (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * support, as noted in my lengthy time-wasting comment above, and because the quality exceeds minimum requirements. dying (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * question: what is the standard for mentioning runners-up in blurbs? is there one?  dying (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, where the post is about a championship game, where one team or player defeats another in head-to-head competition, we often describe the event "In Super Bowl LXXXVIII the Cleveland Browns defeated the Carolina Panthers by a score of 53 to 32" or something like that. In the case of things like races, season champions determined by round robins, judged events like gymnastics, etc. etc.  where there is not a clear 'head to head' game that determines the champion, we don't usually list the "also rans" who came in lower places.  I'm not sure how curling is contested, I know that there are head-to-head matches, but I don't know if the champion is awarded to the team that wins the most matches in a round robin, or to the winner of a single championship match.  It would matter which as to what typical convention we use.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the thorough explanation, Jayron32. i had noticed that  seemed to violate this standard, but i wasn't sure if this was because there were only two schools participating.  in this curling tournament, i believe the championship has a final match that determines both first and second places, so i am assuming that mentioning the runner-up here is appropriate.  dying (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is not bad for a sports article. While it is very table heavy, the prose in the article does cover the event sufficiently, with a large paragraph adequately describing the championship, refs look good.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs lede cleaned up with the prose about the championship moved to the section further down the page and other info moved to appropriate sections. At present, article is top heavy with all the prose at the top and dozens of tables following. If fixed, willing to Weak support.  Spencer T• C 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment fixed lede length concerns. Opted against making the round-robin table section collapsible, but if people think that's a good idea it can be pursued. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. A good example of a story that is not "in the news." Personally, I like curling and I watched the gold medal match live on TV. But curling is still very much a niche sport, especially geographically. At the 2021 World Women's Curling Championship the total number of teams represented was pretty small, and outside of Europe and North America only three countries were represented, China, Japan and South Korea. It's very hard to find anything in GoogleNews covering the event's final, and none of the major news sites have covered it, even in their back sections. Even Swissinfo doesn't appear to have covered it, although Switzerland won. It's fine to want to post more sports stories and especially women's sports stories but they have to be more widely covered than this one. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nsk92, you made some really good points that i was previously unaware of, so i did some digging around to try to get some idea of what, roughly, the viewership numbers actually were. apparently, sportcal, a sports market intelligence company, published a global sports impact event study on the 2018 world men's curling championship here.  page 68 of their report states that the total cumulative audience was about 83.54 million television viewers.  it also notes that 18.4% of the audience watched it live, so that means it had a live audience of about 15.37 million people.  in comparison, the last sporting event featured on itn, the kentucky derby, had a live u.s. audience of about 14.4 million, according to deadline.  i don't know if the women's and men's championships have similar viewership numbers, but i think this is at least a decent argument that the world men's curling championship is notable enough for itn, and possibly also for itn/r.  dying (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)  [added "live u.s." qualification. dying (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)]
 * The Deadline story you quote re Kentucky Derby concerns the Nielsen ratings, which measure the live TV viewership in the U.S. only. Even in the U.S. the actual numbers of people who saw the Derby live were certainly much higher since many people watch horse racing in sports bars and racing halls, etc. If you factor in the global viewership (at some point those numbers would become available), the numbers would look much different. Your 15.37 million extrapolated live viewership figure for the 2018 mens world championship shows the dangers of trying to perform the kind of WP:OR that you tried to do here. The bulk of the total viewership shown on p. 68 there, 58.23 million, were from China where I doubt very much that live broadcasting of NBC Sports or of the Olympic Channel is available. Much more likely all of those 58.23 million people watched some reruns later on. In fact, pages 65-66 in the same document list the TV broadcast hours for the event by 10 top markets and China is not even listed there. In any case this is Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia the main and deciding factor for considering notability is the coverage of a given event by WP:RS. The Derby received massive news coverage worldwide. The curling world championship final game received rather little. Nsk92 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you're right, this is original research, and i had no intention of adding these sorts of statistics to the article space without asking around for further input since i know i'm missing a deeper understanding of these numbers. this original research was presented only to get a rough idea for a sanity check, since my current knowledge of the area is pretty much nonexistent.i recognize the deadline statistic was based on live u.s. viewership, which is why i did not think the 83.54 million and 14.4 million numbers were comparable.  i don't know if calculating the 15.37 million number using the 18.4% statistic is valid, but i think it's a reasonable assumption to make, and at least gives a better number to use for comparison.  i couldn't find any global viewership numbers for the kentucky derby for any year, but reasoned that, since it was a u.s. event, the 14.4 million value would likely make up the plurality, if not the majority, of the global audience.  (i realize now that i should have explicitly qualified my statement about the deadline statistic and note that it was based on live u.s. viewership in order to avoid people misintepreting it as cumulative global viewership.  for some reason, when i wrote it, i had thought it was implied.  thank you for making it explicit for the benefit of anyone else reading this.)admittedly, i don't think total broadcast hours is a reliable indicator of viewership.  page 65 notes that russia is the market with the most broadcast hours, and that the russian channel match arena is the channel with the most broadcast hours, even though page 68 notes that the cumulative television audience in russia is roughly 0.80 million.  also, page 65 lists the chinese channels cctv5 and cctv5+ amongst the top ten channels with respect to broadcast hours, even if china itself is not amongst the top ten markets with respect to broadcast hours.i don't know how to quantify the viewership in sports bars and racing halls, or the viewership in the equivalent venues for curling events, but i had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the methods used in determining viewership as reported by sportcal is roughly equivalent to those used in determining viewership as reported by deadline, largely because i couldn't figure out how to make any meaningful comparisons otherwise.i agree that it's very likely that the chinese audience did not watch nbc sports or the olympic channel.  however, i also doubt that those are the only two channels through which the chinese audience can watch the event broadcasted live.  page 62 lists a number of different broadcasters that appear to have rights to broadcast the event live, including cctv5 and cctv5+, and pages 63 and 64 appear to list the total number of live broadcast hours for each territory, including a value of 15:51:00 for china.  also, this 2019 source states that there are plans to launch a cctv olympic channel, which makes sense considering the location of the 2022 winter olympics, but i don't know if it has been launched yet, and even if it has, i doubt it would be noted in a report from 2018.  in any case, even if no one in china watched it live, i had assumed that inclusion on itn was not based on live viewership, and had only compared live viewership numbers because it was the only meaningful comparison i could make from the data i could find.also, is the deciding factor based on the coverage of an event, as noted by reliable sources, or the coverage, by reliable sources, of an event?  if it's the former, that's what i'm trying to determine.  if it's the latter, i'm wondering if there may be an inadvertent bias by relying on anglophone or european sources, but i don't have a working knowledge of enough languages to determine if that is true.in any case, i'm not trying to state that the 2018 world men's curling championship had a higher viewership than the 2021 kentucky derby.  i'm only attempting to determine if the viewership was significant enough that posting the 2021 world women's curling championship would not be considered unreasonable.  after all, it's likely that many sporting events with a higher viewership than the kentucky derby are already on itn/r, so requiring a competition to have more viewers than those of the kentucky derby before the competition is posted may not help with the goal of adding variety to the competitions posted to itn.  furthermore, i doubt that the kentucky derby is the least watched sporting event on itn/r.  i only used it for comparison because it was the last one posted to itn.  dying (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i was still trying to figure out why you had difficulty finding information about the final in swiss news sources, so i decided to try it myself, and i think you're right about the final not being reported on swissinfo. however, they have covered the swiss team before, and it turns out that their coverage of sports appears rather minimal, since it does not appear to be one of the topics they focus on (or at least the wikipedia article on swissinfo is telling me so).  that being said, it took me perhaps a few seconds to find this article, as it's the top result (for me, at least) for the search "curling site:.ch", and i would probably consider radio télévision suisse a reliable major news site.  also, i noticed that your query for swissinfo was in english, which further reinforces my worry that we may be inadvertently biased if we are relying on anglophone sources.  dying (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Chadian victory over FACT

 * Comment If this hasn't been independently confirmed yet, we run the risk of it being a Mission Accomplished moment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article for a rebel organization with zero history and a few short paragraphs isn't at all adequate. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: source appears to mention that the military has had a mission accomplished moment regarding the rebels before. dying (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in it's sparse yet WP:PROSELINE state.—Bagumba (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bold links an org which has been active since 2016, whose article was created less than a month ago. I question how impactful they really were/are. Sources for this event are: a state-controlled source previously and openly engaged in propaganda (VoA), and a state-controlled source that one could say is INVOLVED (AJ - not cited in the article). This has to be a wait at the very least.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * fact has been associated with the death of president déby, and the article on fact was, so personally, i think they have been impactful enough. (i'm not sure if you're conflating the article on fact with the article on the northern chad offensive, which was created less than a month ago.)  also, although i generally appreciate a healthy skepticism of sources, in this case, both sources provide virtually the same text, taken from reuters.  (finding the differences between them is interesting, though.)  reuters has since updated their article to report the fact that fact "said it was not aware of an end to the fighting", implying that this may be another mission accomplished moment.  dying (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Medina Spirit drug positive

 * Wait until the definitive outcome, but otherwise this is a rather curious story. We did post high-level doping incidents so I'd support it. --Tone 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be just an update to the current blurb if it is still up there if this is confirmed. --M asem (t) 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added. JRHorse (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would the win go to the second-placed horse? In which case that might need to go on the ITNR listing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 16:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I assume we're waiting on for the officiating body to decide if they will nullify the win, and reaward it to #2, or simply not award it, or call for a new race. --M asem (t) 16:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From the racetrack: "To be clear, if the findings are upheld, Medina Spirit's results in the Kentucky Derby will be invalidated and Mandaloun will be declared the winner."—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait until test results are upheld.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until the horse is disqualified. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until horse is DQ'ed, then add to current blurb (with new winner) and bump. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it comes to be, a new blurb would need to be posted as the old one is off the MP now.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Medina Spirit's split sample has come back positive, according to the trainer's lawyers. No decision on DQ, pending official hearing. Ref added to sources. JRHorse (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 London mayoral election

 * I believe we never post mayoral election, regardless of the city. --Tone 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose. even if we did, and this election was to be judged on its own merits, the mayor remains unchanged, and khan's reëlection does not appear to have been under serious question.  article is of decent quality, though.  dying (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local politics for the 37th-largest city in the world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That list stopped making sense when China juked their stats by folding the whole metropolitan area into the "city". Chongqing has a larger population than London, but with an "area" of 22,000 sqkm it's bigger than the entire South East Region of the UK. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We never post local elections. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of local elections. 110.137.161.129 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the OP has not marked this as ITN/R, and "we never post local elections" is not codified anywhere at WP:ITN. Lets just judge it on it's own merits, such as Dying did above. I'd say "we never post local elections" opposes should be discounted for the purposes of evaluating consensus or closure. If that camp would like to codify such a clause, head over to WT:ITN --LaserLegs (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed it is codified anywhere(and I would oppose doing so) but it is fair to say as a general practice we don't usually post such a local election. I can't recall when we have, at least. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The nominator will have to point out the significance of this election before we consider it. STSC (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm re-opening this. London is an Alpha++ Global city and while I'm not convinced on the "significance" here there is absolutely no criteria at all anywhere that says mayoral elections are "inadmissible". Let this discussion play out, and if someone wants to ban local elections, head over to WT:ITN and kick off an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Graeme Ferguson

 * Support seems enough referenced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Attention needed) Bayern Munich wins 2020–21 Bundesliga

 * Comment: Outside of a section on COVID, there is minimal prose in the article body. Some kind of prose season summary outside the lede would be needed.  Spencer T• C 18:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment correct European grammar would be Bayern Munich win the 2020-21 Bundesliga. Also, not sure if we need season, and the stats seem superfluous. And the link should avoid redirects probably. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment fixed the dashes and the blurb text. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment prose summary added. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until the season finishes. ITNR explicitly states 'the conclusion of the ... tournament or series'. The article has limited prose but what's there seems good enough. The summary section does meet our minimum criteria. So this can be posted once the final game has been played (and the article updated accordingly). The no need for the year or number of victories in the blurb, and the focus should be the entire competition not just the winner. Adding altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Generally post at end of season, when readers can also see final standings. See past Premier League blurb which mentions "concludes".—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment prose issues have been fixed, and only opposes were about the end of season which was addressed on the ITN talk page, so I hope someone can get this some attention. If there's anything else you'd like me to fix, let me know. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Curtis Fuller

 * Support The article looks well-cited, even the discography sections. rawmustard (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Slim but meets minimum depth standards; marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Theodore Katsanevas

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 17:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Helmut Jahn

 * Comment: Still plenty of citing needed - I am working on some, but everybody is welcome to jump in. KConWiki (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pete du Pont

 * Oppose per quality. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Kabul school bombing

 * Support – in principle, with the usual caveat regarding expansion of article. Reuters at 16:30 said at least 68. – Sca (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: i had suggested a merge and  when there were two articles about the same bombing, but the merge appears to have been performed imperfectly when there was no consensus for the target, and i feel that the article which had been made into a redirect had more detail.  dying (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've merged in some of the content from the Sayed Ul-Shuhada school bombing article (before it was redirected). --M asem (t) 17:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - easily important enough & the article is now good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Afghanistan has had several terrorist bombings this year, but this is the biggest one so far. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support High death toll even for ill-fated Afghanistan. Brandmeistertalk  19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose quintessential disaster stub. The only detail about the attack is that it happened. No idea on the size of the explosive, the type of vehicle, structural damage, emergency response, law enforcement response, nothing. This should be a paragraph in 2021 Afghanistan attacks not a standalone article. I'm surprised it's not already been posted. I'll add a map. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  on quality of content with sparse "Background" section. At a minimum, resurgence of the Taliban, relationship of Taliban with Hazaras and their views on education for girls is missing. The topic at least seems in the news as it's the first story on NYTimes.com right now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Section now expanded.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altburb Sufficient quality and breadth in new, dedicated article on event that is in the world news.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bo

 * Support – seems to well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support while some citations may be missing, it is well sourced. 110.137.161.129 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Added refs to tagged paragraphs and Section on kidnap plot so concerns all look to be addressed now JW 1961 Talk 20:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've been working my way up the ITN/C page, and it seems the dog is the first RD entry that's been improved enough to post. Man's best friend indeed... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - well done on the improvements. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Bo-wow. ZZZzzzz. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Courtenay Bartholomew

 * Comment - thanks for nominating this, . He was quite a notable figure regionally. I probably shouldn't !vote on this, but I do think the article is in good enough shape for the main page. Guettarda (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shamim Hanafi

 * Support looks good. --Gazal world (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It might need some copyediting. -Nizil (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - there's a long gap in the biography section, between 1976 and 2010... personally I did a huge number of things between those two years, and most likely Mr Hanafi did too! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , addressed. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  01:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alright, thanks for the update.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tawny Kitaen

 * Oppose. Lots of uncited statements in the prose, as well as in the filmography unfortunately. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article sourcing looks complete now. Pinging . Joofjoof (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * please look as well. Joofjoof (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been cleaned up and looks fine. KittenKlub (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cruz Reynoso

 * Support. Looks decent to me, well sourced and lots of detail. Marking as ready. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Wirsum

 * Support. Looks good, marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted; blurb disc.) Attempted assassination of Mohamed Nasheed

 * Tentative support, he is currently holding an important political position. Not sure if a separate article is needed, there already is a paragraph in the main one. I'd suggest a fork if there are other significant consequences. --Tone 15:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; an attack against a sitting governmental leader. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * comment: i don't think the draft is necessary, but i don't think it's a bad draft, and it should be easily able to surpass the with a bit of work.  also, the investigation and aftermath will almost certainly expand the new article.  the update in the body of the speaker's article currently appears to be one long paragraph with one source.  dying (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we get some more input here? I'm willing to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone 08:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is surprisingly good though with a few gaps, full paragraph about the attacks is a bit light on details. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  He's an ex-president, somewhat diminishing the significance when this is only a page update. As far as quality, the update covers the blurb, but is missing his improved condition and suspects..—Bagumba (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He is the speaker of the legislative body, that is still a top-3 political position in the country. --Tone 11:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And his presidency ended in a coup. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So? He is still a top-3 politician in the country. Or is this an endorsment from your side? I don't think we are discussing popularity here. --Tone 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Moot now, but yes, an endorsement. The coup establishes some notability for this former president. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking "oppose" after improved quality.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. Not a national leader, and the assassination attempt was unsuccessful. Not seeing the major long-term impact of this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That we cannot see the impact does not mean there won't be one. We posted the storming of the US Capitol which was an attempt to assassinate Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and others, even though it was unsuccessful. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He is a national leader, the leader of his country's legislature. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a national leader, since the country has a presidential system. And it's not really comparable to the storming of the US capitol. If the Maldives legislature were stormed in similar fashion I'd support, but this is currently a "terrorist" incident by unknown attackers, with no deaths. We shouldn't make a special case of it just because someone famous was involved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is systemic bias to post the attempted assassination of the leaders of the US Congress but not the leader of the Maldives legislature. I respectfully but strongly disagree with your assessment. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The storming of the capitol was not primarily an attempted assassination. It was an attempt to seize control of the country's government buildings. Totally different. Considering that we regularly decline to post bombings around the world that kill in some cases 10 or even more people, the real systemic bias would be to singling out this incident which had no fatalities, and the main target making a recovery, just because he's a top bod in the legislature. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking Oppose. I won't hold th is up it there's otherwise will in the community. Consider me a weak support, assuming the quality of the update is sufficient, which I haven't yet checked. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They had a gallows outside the Capitol and chanted "hang Mike Pence",source and were literally only feet from him before being lured away by a clever police officer. Prosecutors are saying the primary goal was to kill elected officials. source. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support if someone is high-profile enough to be considered an assassination attempt rather than attempted murder, then the attempt is probably high-profile enough for a blurb. While the Maldives has seen assassination attempts in the past, I don't think once every six years or so is too frequent to deny this a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for receiving significant news coverage and having an updated article. Einsof (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Still no page updates using latest sources on arrested suspects and him being off life support. Latest source in article is 3 days old.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Your link has been added, and seems to be the latest non-Maldivian source. Nasheed is still in intensive care; the "prime suspect" has been arrested, but the police are still looking for accomplices. Joofjoof (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In the spirit of more fresh content on ITN, the quality of the page—both the update itself and overall—combined with being ex-president, merit a post. Recommend alt blurb II, as most sources refer to him primarlily as being the ex-president. The wording follows Reuters' "Maldives speaker of parliament and former president", which is also in line with our MOS:JOBTITLES; "People's Majlis" is a bit obscure and less accessible.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted by Amakuru.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Copied from WP:ERRORS.) The attempted assassination of Mohamed Nasheed has its own article, that should be linked to instead. Ji11720 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yitzhak Arad

 * Support. I was actually about to nominate this myself. The article seems in fairly good form. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1 CN to address then this is good to go.  Spencer T• C 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. CN addressed.  Spencer T• C 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Johnson (ice hockey, born 1942)

 * Support Short but sufficient, well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Rio de Janeiro shootout

 * A question I would have if the 25 people killed (excluding the officers) were all part of the drug ring or if this included bystanders. As while 25 deaths is rather "big", if they were all members of that drug ring would make this less of a "tragedy", while if those 25 included civilians, that makes it something far more significant. I read there were two civilian injuries on the metro, but that's not as major yet. Perhaps more detail is needed. --M asem (t) 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. If there are reliable sources on how many of them were drug traffickers and civilians, we should adjust blurb accordingly. Brandmeistertalk  21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Going off the Reuters source, "The victims included one police officer, and the remainder were suspected members of the drug-trafficking gang that dominated life in the slum, including some of its leaders, police said." (eg no innocent lives were taken, thankfully). However I think the emphasis on the wreckless nature of this shootout needs to be better reflected in the article and the blurb for this to be posted as this is what is being called out. If the same event happened, but it was all confined to a drug warehouse, likely it would not be as significant a story. It is a story because the police actively chased down and shot at these drug people through favelas and put innocents at risk, which is the story, not so much that 25 drug dealers + connected people were killed. --M asem (t) 04:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose in reality at least until it's expanded beyond a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment you can expand the article without any new information and get it posted by following the User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub template. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added quite a bit of filler to bulk it up. The AP wire story has a few more details if someone has time to fill in the shooting section else I'll try to get to it later. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There I think that'll do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. These are great news that don't happen every moment. But I will only support 100% until the article is no longer a stub. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality For a borderline stub, it looks WP:ORish when the "Background" section is backed exclusively by sources not directly tied to the current event. For breaking news, I expect the current sources to be the initial framers of that perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dog bites man. Police shoot criminals. Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major police operation which resulted in a large death toll. It's historically notable. If this had happened in NYC, London, Paris, Sydney etc. rather than Rio, this discussion & the article would have quickly become much longer. It would be one of the world's biggest news stories. It would have been posted within a couple of hours & it's unlikely that anyone would have opposed it being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality. The "Background" section is not background for this article, it's a random collection of outdated (14+year old) statistics about crime in Brazil that has little relevance to the incident in question.   If we take that out (as we should) then we have a stub with little more information than the blurb would contain.  We need some cleanup and expansion before this is main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of it is relevant. It needs to be improved, not removed. I added the 2010 Rio de Janeiro security crisis to that section. What sort of info do you think should be added to the shootout article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of EXTREMELY marginal relevance, especially given that the text you added says "There was a crisis in 2010". Really?  What was the crisis?  What were the details?  Most importantly: How did it lead to the events in question?  The section is still a bunch of outdated, random, national crime statistics.  That's not background information.  Here's what IS relevant background information:
 * What is the name of the gang or gangs involved. What is some of their history?  How were they organized?  How did they come to work in this part of Rio de Janeiro?  What were some of their prior interactions with law enforcement?  What about the police force in question?  What prior interactions have they had with this gang?  What have they done in the past to deal with this gang?  Other similar gangs?  What has led to the growth of drug use in this neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro?  What caused it to escalate?  This is not an exhaustive list of things I'd expect to see, but a good sampling of some possible avenues to go with expanding the background section.  Not "There was a crisis 11 years ago. Here's some random national crime stats from 14 years ago".  That's not useful information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of that info - which would be useful - hasn't been reported by RS. The crisis is relevant because it was about violence in Rio between drug-dealing gangs and the authorities. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then, maybe we don't have an article worth posting on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How can a controversial shootout, with a death toll of 25, which has been responded to with a protest & criticism by orgs & notable people, not be worthy of ITN? Many readers will be interested, but not yet aware that it happened. The info that you suggest will be added to the article as RS release it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not responding to the thing I said. You're inventing, in your mind, something I didn't say, and then responding to the thing you invented.  What I said was, we don't have an article worth posting on the main page.  Let me say it again, in case you missed the important word.  A R T I C L E.  I didn't say the event wasn't important, or worth informing people about.  I said the article was not good enough to post to the main page.  Make the article good enough and the article will be posted on the main page.  If the article cannot be made better than the article will not be put up in ITN.  I have said nothing about the event.  I have said the article is not good enough.  Comprendez?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comments above: the reason this is getting attention is not that this was another drug raid, but that the police allowed the gun fight to run rampant through civilian homes, and they are being called out by many humanitarian groups for this. That should be a focus, more than two lines in reaction. --M asem (t) 13:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the Reactions section should be the longest part of the article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it should be the longest, but it should be far more than two lines presently. Obviously the details of the shootout are still required, but as I said, if this was the same scale of event but isolated to a warehouse and no innocents were at risk, this would be a yawner of a headline. --M asem (t) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would then have received significantly less media coverage, but it'd still easily be notable enough for an article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right and it wouldn't have been notable for ITN. It's being considered at ITN as widespread media coverage is focused on the fact there was a rampant gunfight through civilian homes that the police seemed to have no regard for in conducting this raid, not that the police killed 25 drug dealers. --M asem (t) 14:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the background section may be dated, but it's sourced and relevant and I explained why in the talk page in response to Jayron32. Either way, I've done as much as I'm going to do to the article. Post it or not. Have a good weekend! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've said the words "it's relevant". Saying those words does not make it so.  It's just not.  I want this article to be posted to, but I'm not willing to compromise on quality standards to do so.  We're not just putting any shit article on the main page just to make sure the topic makes ITN because some people find it important.  You even called your own additions "filler" which were just added to "bulk" up the article.  If it's just there to increase the word count, it's not relevant.  I've explained in some detail why the inclusion of outdated, random national crime statistics is not relevant to an article about a specific police shootout in 2021.  I've even told you how to add actual good information to the article.  I don't know why you refuse to do so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * comment:
 * about six years ago, a shootout in the u.s., in which nine died and police were involved, was not posted.
 * about a week later, a shootout in mexico, in which forty-three died and police were involved, was posted.
 * also, i agree that the background information currently presented does not seem very pertinent. perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the police killing of a 14-year-old boy last may, which led to public condemnation during the george floyd protests in brazil and a subsequent ruling by the supreme federal court curtailing such raids in favelas during the pandemic, a ruling that apparently has been flouted since october.  dying (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends? Was the 14 year old being recruited to sell drugs? I added two sentences one about the rise in drug crime and one about the recruitment of children by gangs. The raid was conducted because police believed such recruiting was taking place. Waste our time with more off topic irrelevant garbage if you feel the need; I've done no such thing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i had suggested adding the information above to the article because i had seen reliable sources providing these facts as relevant background information, and had thought they would be appropriate for the article. if you do not feel the same, then i apologize for having wasted your time.in the interest of full disclosure, i feel that i should mention that i have had personal experience with such raids in brazil when military police boarded a bus i was on with guns drawn in order to apprehend a suspected drug runner.  i apologize for not having mentioned this earlier, as it had not occurred to me to mention it until i was trying to understand why i had felt that the background information currently provided in the article was not very pertinent, while you did.  i do not know if the experience has given me a viewpoint that is not as neutral as i would have hoped to adopt.however, regardless of whether the currently provided statistics are relevant to the article, i currently echo Bagumba's concern regarding the possible wp:or violation as a result of providing such statistics.  many of the reliable sources appear to be skeptical of the claims made by the police and the government, and the reason for the raid that the police had provided, that children were being recruited by a drug trafficking gang, is suspected to be a pretext.  perhaps this source and this source are more forthcoming about this skepticism.i believe the 14-year-old boy that was killed last may had nothing to do with drugs, and that was one of the reasons why there was such an outcry over the killing.  similarly, it is suspected that not all of those killed in this raid were suspects, and the circumstances of this incident have led the un's human rights office to call for an independent investigation.ultimately, i think there's a story here, but i'm worried that the article is currently not telling it properly.  dying (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, oppose on quality at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance and on quality. While shootouts are common in Brazil, what is uncommon is the death toll and the nature of this shootout.  I support on quality because I think the orange tag is not valid. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality As of writing, page still has an orange tag. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Isn't it quite normal in Rio de Janeiro? STSC (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. Horrific event and way beyond even the usual level of violence in Brazil's major cities. However the article is short, orange tagged, and has almost nothing on the reaction and aftermath. Also, the blurb isn't NPOV: none of the victims had been convicted of drug trafficking, they were killed without trial. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Jersey fishing dispute

 * Oppose ongoing, would support blurb. According to the infobox, and the lead, it has been going on for 1 day, since 5 May.  The article was created on 21:03, May 5, 2021‎.  Given the relatively short lifespan of the article, and the short duration of the dispute, it does not qualify as an "ongoing" story in either sense (a long-term story and an article that receives frequent, quality updates).  The article on its own is in good enough shape, and the story is being covered by the news, so I don't see why we couldn't put this into blurb form, but this is not what ongoing is for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb and oppose ongoing for now per Jayron. This is a notable dispute and the article is in good shape. Once a blurb is posted, we can move it to ongoing when it rolls off if it's still ongoing or update the blurb if the involved parties reach an agreement to solve the dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose while this Monty Python sketch is well documented, we should probably wait for...well, something to happen before we consider posting.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. Not enough of an event for ITN. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, will support a blurb if the story develops further, but so far this is very minor news and nothing of note has happened. --Jbvann05 (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seriously small-time sabre rattling given the onus of other problems in the world. Could develop into something more but far too soon for ITN. --M asem (t) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait if the French blockade or cut the power then sure. It's certainly in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not notable right now. If this were playing out elsewhere, like India and Pakistan, would we post it? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - for a few reasons. First, it's an international protest. Second, it doesn't look like it will be resolved soon. Finally, ships have been deployed by both governments, escalating the incident even further (as an international protest it's already unusual). If this had happened between India & Pakistan, I'd hope we would post it because there'd be a fourth reason: both countries are nuclear-armed with a history of strong mutual distrust. The question is whether this should be a blurb or ongoing. It seems difficult to construct a blurb, especially since the situation is fluid, hence ongoing seems more appropriate. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand this is probably a joke, but if you legitimately think this is worth posting, you are not helping your case with such absurd hyperbole.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and oppose ongoing for now more the unexpected nature of this dispute. If it becomes a protracted conflict, re-nom for ongoing. Albertaont (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Comparatively minor, and predictable, squabble. Lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - far too minor. Jim Michael (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The dispute could last for some time. STSC (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially if the residents of nearby Guernsey get involved. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are certainly potentially notable fishing disputes. However, this is far less notable than the 2018 blockades of Calais and Boulogne and a dozen similar instances in the last 20 years. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted in the article this got a lot more attention in Britain than it did in France (perhaps because the French weren't having local elections). That should tell us something about whether we should put in on ITN. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flash in the pan, was over very quickly. The French surrendered the protest when they saw the Royal Navy. This was never going to be another Trafalgar.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ajit Singh (politician)

 * Oppose A good part of the article is unreferenced. Please ping me if this is fixed, I'll surely change my mind then. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  21:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looks like referencing has improved, but needs copyediting before this is ready for the MP.  Spencer T• C 01:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) COVID-19 vaccination

 * Oppose. I opposed the removal of the special Covid box a few months back, but the decision was made and that's where we are. Vaccination isn't the only aspect of the pandemic that's currently newsworthy, there's the wave in India and Brazil, the variants, changes to lockdown arrangements in different countries too. The pandemic article covers all those topics so it's IMHO sufficient to have that as the primary link into the topic. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary article is not going to be replaced with this one; it's just a proposal to add a link to a secondary article in parentheses (I was also against removing the box with all links to relevant articles a few months ago.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do understand what you're proposing. I just don't think it's correct to single out out the vaccination programmes for an extra line, as they are far from the only aspect of COVID currently in the news. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It already appeared in ongoing section as part of the COVID-19 pandemic article. I don't see any reasons to nominated it as ongoing. 110.137.163.125 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No reason to link the same article from two different parts of the Front Page, let alone two different parts of just Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. No need further to complicate the MP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Thanks for the comments so far. It seems like consensus in support of my proposal is not going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Del Crandall

 * Support Good depth, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 17:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucinda Franks

 * Support. In good shape now I think! Entirely referenced with good depth. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashraf Sehrai

 * Support Well referenced. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced. Looks fine. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Miller (baseball manager)

 * Comment: Playing career should list the position he played (pitcher I assume?), and if available, some basic playing statistics would be useful. Otherwise looks good to go, and Conditional support once that info is added.  Spencer T• C 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ref 1 is a bare URL. Looks good otherwise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Removed it since the info it verifies (i.e. date of death) is sourced in the main part of the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Looks like all objections are dealt with. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulo Gustavo

 * Comment: A couple of the awards need refs but after then, should be ready to go.  Spencer T• C 17:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fixed it. All awards are now with refs. I think it's ready to go. SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 21:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Traffic Ramaswamy

 * Comment: CN and other tags still remain.  Spencer T• C 18:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, I am not in good personal-space to fix this before it drops off in the next few hours. The last week has been harsh. This might unfortunately have to slide. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just wanted all noms to have at least one comment assessment so that it didn't appear that they were completely ignored. Sometimes improvements happen but people miss them since they are so far down the page.  Spencer T• C 19:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Simon Achidi Achu

 * Comment. Looks fine to me, apart from the single CN tag ? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OPpose - citations still needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manas Bihari Verma

 * Weak support Looks fine to me but if two citations are fixed. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for such a short article, we should at least have everything cited. For such a long career, I feel like there should be a bit more detail on his achievements too, if at all possible. If not, I could be a weak supporter once the cites are fixed! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * fixed the tags. Thanks for your patience. Ktin (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is on the shorter side, but fully sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have dates added though, especially for the science awards. Joofjoof (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alan McLoughlin

 * Oppose – most of the article is unreferenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 12 references?? Skippy2520 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both statements are true.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quantity of refs does not matter. Every paragraph needs to be verified with at least one ref.  Only three paragraphs are fully cited right now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
Looks fine aside from the "Electoral History" section.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has an orange tag ("article needs to be updated") and I'm not clear from the talk page what, if anything, needs updating. Can anyone clarify? (Or remove the tag if not needed?)  Spencer T• C 16:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it appears that it was yourself who added an "update tag" to the article on Frazier Glenn Miller, on 4 May. Is there anything in particular that you think needs updating, or can that tag be removed? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You may remove the tag. Kori das 📣 21:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the quick reply . All looks good now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

 * Support - Easily important enough & the article is being rapidly improved. Jim Michael (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - first item on BBC site this morning. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article is not in a fit state to post at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support now that the article has been expanded. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OPpose on quality. Currently barely more than a stub. Seems notable enough when ready though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll continue updating it in a few hours, it's 3 am here and it misses a lot of information about how corruption was involved since Day 0. It's sad, but these are the consequences. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - With 12 sources I think the quality is high enough to post. Ljgua124 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It has sources, but it's still too short. Hopefully with Tbhotch's work or some other updates, it will be ready before too long. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment bridge collapse nomination in 2018 --LaserLegs (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That was 6 dead, 10 injured while this is (currently) 23 dead and 65 injured. Perhaps it's not as important because it's not in the US?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, could you please tell me what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS are for a bridge collapse? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Though there's no fixed minimum number of deaths for an article to be important enough for ITN, a higher death toll makes an event significantly more notable. Do you think this one should be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hmm, on tilt again. Only you bring up "minimum deaths".  I was simply offering a comparison that five times more casualties have occurred in this event than the one you helpfully linked.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want this posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's your standard boiler plate disaster stub with barely a paragraph of relevant information and will never improve so of course it will be posted. I'm just trying to understand the bridge collapse posting criteria since it's not documented at WP:ITN. In the example I cited above there was a consensus that "if it had happened anywhere else we wouldn't post it" and here we are ready to post a bridge collapse from anywhere else. I'm kind of new here, just trying to understand the ins and outs is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know, there's no "bridge collapse criteria". Nominations are judged on their merits.  Some have little or no merit, some have some or much merit.  It depends.  Cheers now!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This has far more casualties than the one you mentioned. That's the main reason that this one has been posted & that one wasn't. This article has been improving rapidly all day. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not quite correct. The only reason why this one has been posted, while the other one wasn't, is that this nomination got enough support from people who happened to stop by the ITNC page while the nomination was up, while the other one did not.  There are no other reasons why anything gets posted.  There is no other rule, there are no precedents, there is nothing except "people who cared said something".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is why this was posted & previous one wasn't, but this one's higher death toll is clearly a major reason for at least some of us here to say that it should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but people keep looking for ways to circumvent discussion and disqualify the opinions of others by (falsely) claiming that the reason why things are posted is because we have some sort of minimum limits, or because previous articles that were (or were not) posted in the past established a precedent, and that precedent or rule somehow invalidates the opinions of people who think differently. That is just not how we work.  You may have your own private criteria as to why something will be posted, but that criteria is not based on any rule or precedent we have here at Wikipedia, and the fact that someone else uses a different criteria is NOT a reason to invalidate their opinion, despite the repeated efforts of some long-time contributors here to get their way.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with someone, and giving reasons why you disagree - which could include citing informal standards and precedents - is not "invalidating their opinion". Discussion and debate are a healthy part of the consensus-building process. And if it happens that I disagree with someone *and* several of what you call the "long-time contributors", or indeed anyone else, happen to agree with me, then that might be enough to form a consensus contrary to the one I disagreed with. Or perhaps it isn't. That's up to the assessing admin to determine. I'm quite sure everyone who contributes to this page is used to sometimes getting the result they favour and sometimes not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should be disagreeing with people. We should not be doing it in a way that makes it seem like we're saying their comments are invalid because they violate some rule or that precedent has already been established.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support articles in good shape, long enough and sufficiently sourced. I wonder if certain discussions would be taking place if the same event had taken place on the NYS or London Underground...no, I thought not. ——  Serial  11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that event, the article & this discussion would have become much longer, much quicker. It would have been posted sooner. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you mean SNOW closed as "Consensus will not develop to post" in less than 3 hours? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support As per consensus. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Deadliest inccident for the city's metro system, says the BBC article -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 17:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pierce Fulton

 * Oppose CV, near-stub. Of the 1,5kb of prose, only a single sentence (Death - a single sentence section) relates biographical information. On the plus side, the dates of birth and death are both listed, referencing is very thorough and the 'ographies are complete and referenced.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helen Murray Free
Support Nice article - good references, notable, and a good article in general. RIP Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Cameron (Nova Scotia premier)

 * Support: Article seems to be very well sourced. As the former Premier of Nova Scotia, it would be hard to see any other reason besides poor sourcing to not see him on ITN. – Jmanlucas (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All people with a Wikipedia article are eligible to be on RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that. Was merely adding to the point that this article would be good for RD. – Jmanlucas (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Unser

 * Oppose practically all of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's been tagged that way since February 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The 1981 Indianapolis controversy section is entirely unsourced, and several other citation needed tags are in place. There is still plenty of work to be done before this is eligible to be on In The News.Jmanlucas (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough references, mainly in the Indianapolis 500 controversy section.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a ref for the 2nd paragraph in that section, the 3rd will be a little harder to find, but I will keep looking as time permits. I haven't edited this article before. If you want to reject the ITN, that's fine by me.  I will try to improve the article anyways.  --rogerd (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * rogerd, no immediate time pressure, you have 7 days before it is archived. Stephen 06:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added several more refs and deleted a paragraph in the 1981 Indianapolis controversy section, including referencing his book, but fear it will not be enough to meet the standard. --rogerd (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bill and melinda gates divorcing

 * Strong oppose They are nowhere close to British royalty, the only possible case I could see for an ITN divorce posting. --M asem (t) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, an event of subpar notability. BD2412  T 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SNOW chance Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose but I did appreciate the fact this was originally tagged as a "Recent Death" nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because the likelihood of me marrying into Melinda's extreme wealth is tragically slim. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A divorce? Please.BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noor Alam Khalil Amini

 * Comment Was he a religious figure, or an academic? I'm a bit concerned about the weight being given to his personal faith if his focus was more on Arabic literature. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – He was both. A religious figure and an academic. He taught at the famous Indian seminary Darul Uloom Deoband and wrote extensively. I do not see where we have given weight to his personal faith? AFAICS, Article speaks about his early life, education and his writings, with specific mentions towards his focus on Arabic literature like his book being taught in dars-e-nizami or his articles etc. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  08:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note. I've updated the article, and tried to address other related concerns. This should be enough now. Thanks. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not initially clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject that he had studied Islam. Still, he was labeled as a "religious figure" in the infobox and described in the first sentence as "an Indian Sunni Muslim scholar", which I do not believe would be appropriate if he studied something other than religion. The article appears to be clearer now, thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment was really helpful. Thank you. This should be now ready for the ITN. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  Weak oppose  There's a bit too much of substance cited only to a primary source ("About the author" from Pas-e-Marg-e-Zindah). Otherwise, it looks good.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Changed citation at two places. There are just two things now that are cited from here - and those aren't discussed anywhere else. Primary sources are fine to be relied for such primary facts imo. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed. The usage now is acceptable.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just seeing some newer nominations of RD being posted on ITN/RD. This nomination is 4 days old.. Should be posted imo now.. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) ITNR: 2021 World Snooker Championship

 * Comment article is in a great condition, but the final summary stops quite a way short now. But I'm desperate to see two snooker articles (with images) on the main page so PLEASE hurry and get it up there!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on it, but I got a bit behind earlier this week, so I'm not as up to date as usual. I've added a placeholder to confirm he won, and the score and such, just there is some missing detail I'll add ASAP. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Good article, and it's ITNR so notability doesn't matter.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Stunningly in-depth, update on the final looks to now be at sufficient length. Another FA in the making. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. No need to hang around on this one I think. The article is ITN/R, so need to wait for consensus on notability, two supports, final has been updated (and will no doubt be expanded even more very soon), and the quality looks excellent otherwise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernest E. West

 * Support Brief, but has adequate coverage of what he was notable for (Medal of Honor).  Spencer T• C 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencers comments, looks ready JW 1961 Talk 10:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacques d'Amboise (dancer)

 * Support. Nice work. Article seems to meet hygiene expectations for homepage / RD on a quick glance. Ktin (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. G. Neginhal

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Dee Holeman

 * Comment Long quote from the National Endowment for the Arts copypasted in the article. It does appear to be public domain, so copyright would not be an issue, but currently it's in there with pretty much no context and doesn't seem to add much; would suggest breaking up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Could I please trouble you to have another look? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine now. Good work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Colombian protests

 * Support Significant coverage and arguably the most notable protests in Latin America at the moment. Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As the creator of the article (that was originally a stub) and as a colombian; I can confirm this is a series of protests that wasn't seen since 2019 (sorry for my rough english). Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 23:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose quality  I don't see this as being at the top of the global news, but can balance it with higher page quality per WP:ITNCRIT. One such area is expanding the lead for a better overview per MOS:INTRO.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of coverage, well-referenced, nice article. Could be expanded a little, but it's no big problem. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The protests are important enough to be posted & the article's quality is easily good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article could use a little expansion, especially in the lead, but on the whole is not bad. I think it's good enough for the main page, the sourcing is good and it is relatively comprehensive in the body.  The story is being covered by major news sources.  Meets all requirements for ITN.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support nice little artcle. —— Serial  12:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unsee much coverage in RS-land. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article mainly focuses on the "Ingreso Solidario" part of the reform. Other important aspects of the reform and causes of the protest should be mentioned. -pasunjacques 15:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - has an orange level maintenance tag. The lead should be expanded before this is posted. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk &#8226;  work ) 14:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't care if it's posted or not, but the proposed change was withdrawn and the blurb should reflect the same. Alt2 added --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording "opposition riots" is not suitable or NPOV, though we should mention that the plan was cancelled.--WMrapids (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When protests kill 6 people, they're called riots. Papering over riots is a WP:RGW but I don't care that much --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The protests didn't kill the people, the crackdown did. Unless you want to say "Police riot and kill 6 protestors".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the police cracked down on rioters, and a few were killed resisting law enforcement. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on one's perception of "law and order".—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Changed blurb as another main reason for protest is health care reform. Not sure if this is permitted, though just trying to make the blurb as accurate as possible. Also, which blurb do you prefer, , . , , ?--WMrapids (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't care about the blurb. Article is in good shape.  Y'all figure out the wording amongst yourselves.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have understood that this protests began due to a tax plan proposed by the government, what seems is happening is that the sense of the protests, now that the government withdraw the proposal for the tax plan, has changed to show general disconformation with the Iván Duque's government. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 23:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad for the delayed comment; I was out eating with my family. Anyways, to answer your question, Alt III looks good to me. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Alt IV Dedicated new article on topical subject with sufficient quality. As for the blurb, the president withdrew the proposal, not the country itself, per se.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Should also add that the withdrawl represents the latest news, and its omission would make the blurb seem dated.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark ready Posting admin might be able to make an editorial decision on the blurb, or it might be obvious with more comments.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt IV Clearest, least biased, and most complete of the various options. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt-blurb IV, mostly due to the fact of withdrawal being included. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 06:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Bookspan

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage; referenced.  Spencer T• C 01:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) US withdrawal from Afghanistan

 * Comment we did post it, I have to dig up the link --LaserLegs (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here it is. February 2020. The United States surrenders to the Taliban in Afghanistan --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. The posted wording was The United States and the Taliban sign a peace agreement which establishes a framework for ending the War in Afghanistan. Withdrawing (no pun intended), but if someone wants to proceed, feel free to re-open. Brandmeistertalk  11:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming it goes as planned, I think the conclusion of the whole thing on 9/11 is worth posting even more so than the terms last Feb. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with posting when the whole initiative concludes. Who knows what may happen between then and now...--WMrapids (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Let's wait until there is a conclusive finish to troop deployments in Afghanistan.--WMrapids (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Z. Nederlander

 * Support Everything there seems well sourced JW 1961 Talk 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Kentucky Derby

 * Comment Should Bob Baffert's record-setting seventh win as a trainer be mentioned in the blurb? I feel like it would be unusual to mention a trainer in the headline about a race win, but there is an atypical circumstance in this case. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, added ALT1. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 The article looks good, and a record seems worth mentioning.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 per Jackattack1597. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The race itself has no narrative, and is only a table of results. The background section needs a tense change for actual attendance restrictions. Stephen 03:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the tenses have been updated and I will add a narrative of the race in just a bit. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Added Alt II. Need to clarify that it's Baffert's seventh Derby win, as opposed to say his seventh overall, seventh in a Grand Slam, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 No cleanup tags and it's in ITN/R --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support AltII looks to cover everything the better JW 1961 Talk 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olympia Dukakis

 * Comment It's getting there with the heavy editing, filmography almost completly sourced but quite a few CN's still in the prose, will re-visit later JW 1961 Talk 18:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very good article! Nice referencing, although could do with a little cleaning up, and, as usual, RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mohammad Shahabuddin

 * Comment: Pretty close; 1 CN tag remaining. One other consideration is the sentence Shahabuddin is synonymous with criminal-politician in India; his is the standard to which other criminal-politicians are compared, and the ref is an example of the second half of the sentence, but doesn't necessarily support the assertion that "Shahabuddin is synonymous with criminal-politician in India." As a potentially defamatory claim in a BLP, this definitely needs a source (or two) supporting that statement.  Spencer T• C 00:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)