Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2020

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

(Posted) RD: Betty Dodson

 * Oppose Plenty of CNs and Unreffed sections, incl. 'ography. Otherwise a straighforward and well-written BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the content that you flagged as unreferenced. Requiring citations for a bibliography strikes me as massive overkill when authority control is transcluded on this page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Zahradník

 * Support Seems fine, well sourced enough and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, notable scientist. Also, tutor of Angela Merkel! Yakikaki (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage in his career as a chemist; unclear what it means by he "studied the relationship between theoretical and experimental characteristics" (characteristics of...?)  Spencer T• C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Spencer, I've tried to expand a little on this but my chemistry knowledge isn't up to much more - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WO struck. Not a support, but there is consensus for this to be posted.  Spencer T• C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , The lede requires to be trimmed down. Good amount of content from here should go into the body. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * -- have taken a pass at streamlining the lede. Please have a look and reintroduce content if needed. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I find the professional coverage satisfactory. E.g. "He studied the relationship between chemical structure and biological activity as well as chemical reactivity and molecular spectroscopy" in the lede and others like it throughout. I find the coverage of his personal life a little lacking, but not so much that it stops being a BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Acceptable quality. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iba Der Thiam

 * Support Small, but well referenced article.KittenKlub (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article seems quite good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Opening sentence states that the subject was a "writer, politician and historian", yet the article devotes 1 sentence to his work as a historian and none to his work as a writer.  Spencer T• C 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Editing from my phone so can’t do too much at the moment but I’ve tried to add a bit more on his history work - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * SupportReference coverage is good. The "Select academic work" looks like it covers his publications as a historian. Joofjoof (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Joofjoof. Ҥ (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arturo Lona Reyes

 * Comment. I do not think this is far from being ITN-ready, but it certainly does need a cleanup first. The prose currently reads in a slightly unencyclopedic tone and does not fit well around the current section structure. There are a couple of areas where more citations might be helpful too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Brigade Piron, I've hacked it around a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now. Let me know - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Many thanks for this, ! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is there a citation for Lona Reyes' quote in the middle? It's unclear if it is from citation 1. Otherwise it's basically ready and give me a ping once that's worked out.  Spencer T• C 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The quote was already there, I presumed it came from the book. I’ve found a source online and added it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Six Nations Championship

 * Going to need some prose on the matches and a tournament summary. Stephen 22:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just regional sports and I haven't seen this at all in the newspapers. Is it really significant enough to be on the main page? Blah 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is a WP:ITN/R article so the significance is already established for each years event, we then judge this on the quality of the article, which as of now I would oppose per Stephens comment above JW 1961   Talk  22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be removed from the list. There are more important events than this that we can post..Blah 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you'll need to start a discussion at WT:ITN if you want it removed. Stephen 03:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – article is just tables/lists ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Needs referenced prose describing the course of the tournament. See the 2016 article for an example. This seems to be a perennial problem with the Six Nations - every year since then has failed to be posted in ITN because no-one wrote a prose summary. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs prose. A lot more prose. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose & Maybe Stale Now Just a bunch of tables. SoloGaming (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marius Žaliūkas

 * Support Looks good, more about his personal life would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready. RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Typhoon Goni

 * Wait Making landfall is not sufficient for posting, we'd want to know what type of damage it has done, which is expected to be known by Sunday (local time). --M asem  (t) 20:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now with confirmed significant impact on landfall. --M asem (t) 17:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Almost certain that hundreds will die, unfortunately. At least given what Haiyan did to a populated area in 2013. Let's wait and post the impact. Noah Talk 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support Made landfall only yesterday and major impacts are already being reported, as well as ten deaths confirmed. It also set the record for highest winds at landfall, which you could include in the blurb. Gex4pls (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment why are we using 1-minute sustained winds in the blurb? Most reliable sources (e.g. AP, BBC, Reuters) use 10-minute winds from JMA/PAGASA. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it made the record for fastest one minute sustained winds at landfall, so that could be the reasoning Gex4pls (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait Per above, simply having record landfall is not ITN worthy. Gotitbro (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now that the impact has been added to the blurb and article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * death toll now up to 10. Should be enough impact to post. Death toll will steadily rise throughout the day, which should be fixed by WP:ERRORS. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting now. What are we waiting for? 41 died and a million evacuated. We've been tripping ourselves to get this posted if this was two boats rowing on the Thames. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * where's the 41 deaths coming from? Noah Talk 17:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 170 kt landfaller and extremely catastrophic storm. Impacts are still coming out, but this is doubtless disastrous, at least comparable to Haiyan. Also, the name of the typhoon is just "Typhoon Goni" officially (the "super" moniker was attached by non-RSMCs like JTWC and PAGASA) so that may have to be fixed.  Java Hurricane  01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Destructive storm with widespread impact. Category 5 landfalls are generally posted from what I can remember. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The typhoon had already caused significant damage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support notable typhoon, among the strongest typhoons since 2013 Haiyan.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, notable typhoon with strong impact and a few deaths. Latest reports show 16 dead, so blurb should be changed. Also, lowercase "T" should be used in "The Philippines", since "The" is not a part of the name. Chlod (say hi!) 09:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready but please don't post it with a redirect to super typhoon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the ITN after this posting has two typhoons, this one and Molave. Is this too many typhoons? Molave was several days ago...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I'd say this shouldn't matter. Each item rolls off the bottom in turn. However, since the World Series and the Typhoon are both labelled as October 27, I've used a bit of licence and flipped back to the sports event at the expense of Molave. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better and more well-rounded ITN now.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Sean Connery

 * Support The article is good shape already. I think that Sean Connery deserves a blurb as well ... KittenKlub (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Decent, well referenced article for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * also Support blurb in this case JW 1961   Talk  14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks in good shape. Count me as support for a blurb too if one is proposed. P-K3 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well referenced in general. RD for sure, not familiar enough with the industry to comment on blurb. Juxlos (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once his filmography is restored, since I'm sure it was blanked in error in editing. rawmustard (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I think it's fine for an actor with a prolific career to have the filmography spun off to a separate article. P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time I posted, the section had an empty filmography tag which would need to be resolved before the article could be posted to front page. Everything else appeared to have no issues. rawmustard (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what would go in such a filmography section? It can't include all of his films, because that would bloat the article and it's all covered in the sub-article. His most important films are already discussed in the Career section prose, so I don't think any separate Filmography is needed in the main article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per all the above. First Bobby, then Nobby, now Sean. Pretty shit week.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, per KittenKlub Yakikaki (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Academy Award winner and acting icon. Death reported globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We'd not include mention of the award in a typical death blurb. Lots of people are Academy Award winners, that is not what makes this death blurbable. --M asem (t) 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is class B already. Blurb would be approparite given the less notable current list, maybe a picture as well. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Tone 14:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb.Global icon. RIP. Ktin (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb probably the most iconic/legendary/etc Scottish actor ever. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. If anyone thinks I've applied false standards compared with others such as Kirk Douglas then holler, but for now I do think Connery is probably one of the few Thatchers/Mandelas in the acting world. Please just blurb as Sean Connery though (Alt 2). Per MOS:HONORIFIC the "Sir" isn't normally included in titles or other mentions except for the first mention in the lead. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Our standard should be a Thatcher/Mandela/Connery standard, if anything. BD2412  T 14:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. A Scottish legend. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I could name several entertainers of similar stature who have died this year and did not get a blurb, so I don't see why Connery should get one. We didn't give Chadwick Boseman a blurb despite him being half Connery's age and dying suddenly in the middle of his career. Kirk Douglas, who won three Oscars and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, didn't get a blurb. Olivia de Havilland, a two-time Oscar winner, didn't get a blurb. Regis Philbin, no blurb. Ditto for Little Richard and Helen Reddy. -- Calidum  15:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If people keep on saying that people should not have blurbs because of what has happened in the past, then nothing is going to change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this starts a new trend of actually posting blurbs, I'd be happy. But I doubt it. -- Calidum  15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent trend has been towards far fewer blurbs, which is a good thing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those should have been blurbed, especially Boseman, and we shouldn't be bound by past mistakes. Davey2116 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was ridiculous Douglas and Little Richard not being blurbed, and probably DeHavilland as well. I had (until 30 seconds ago) no clue who Regis Philbin was, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fully in agreement... I would have supported a blurb for many of these if I had known they were nominated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. You can make a case for Douglas, but Little Richard and DeHavilland are not even remotely of the calibre required. Blurbing is rare, and Connery is one of very few people in entertainment whose career and fame is so huge that they merit inclusion. In general you should assume only a handful of names in any given industry or profession would make the grade. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But why? -- Calidum  03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb I've given this a lot of thought. The one other actor who comes to mind that we posted as a blurb is Christopher Lee. Both him and Connery have highly prolific careers that stretched on well into their advanced age. It seems appropriate to post this.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Though arguably Connery formally retired in 2006 (give or take a few minor roles), whereas Lee was still working in acting up until his death. Lee's death was "surprising" (beyond his age) where this death was a matter of time. --M asem (t) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a no-brainer. He was a world-class actor, global icon and influence on many future generations of actors.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb How could we not post the star of such screen classics as Zardoz and Highlander? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A legend. RIP. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see enough support to post as a blurb. --Tone 17:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Can we please bring back Cecilia Chiang on the WP:ITNRD carousel? Alternately, if there is an RD ready for publishing, we could publish that. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in retrospect as reliable sources such as the BBC are calling him one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb I can read, Trebek! Davey2116 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not egregious, but most of the "opposes" at wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020%23(Posted_to_RD)_RD:_Kirk_Douglas apply. Doesn't have the sentimental impact of a Carrie Fisher death. Being James Bond and non-American probably pushed this over.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying what I didn't want to say. -- Calidum  03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Bagumba. I can't help but feel that we don't really have a coherent standard for recent death blurbs. -- Veggies (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Per the above. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nobby Stiles

 * Oppose on quality as the article is poorly referenced and outright oppose for a blurb as he was clearly not a top figure in the sport of the same stature as Puskás, Pele, Cruyff or Maradona.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on referencing - the section on his playing career, which is what makes him notable, is entirely unreferenced. Oppose blurb - not a major figure in the game. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nobby Stiles was one of the best English football players ever, but I don't think would be high enough on a list of the best international football players ever to merit a blurb. I suspect such a list would be limited to players on par with Pele and Maradona. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not even close; not in the FIFA 100. B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on quality of article, agree with all of the problems noted above. Oppose blurb when the article is improved because neither "the cause of death itself is a major story" nor do "the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation".  RD is sufficient as nothing needs to be explained in a blurb. -- Jayron 32 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Converted to RD . Consensus will not emerge to post with blurb. Changed nomination to RD alone. Conversations from below can focus on RD readiness. PS: Feel free to undo my change if there is a desire to drive to consensus. Also feel free to WP:TROUT Ktin (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call, no need for a trout. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know I'm piling on, but the lack of inline citations means this will need a lot of work to get ready. (And though Nobby was a beloved figure, he's not blurb material.)-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly Oppose RD until references are improved. RIP Nobby JW 1961   Talk  18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , , , , , and : I have addressed your quality concerns and the article is now sourced. If you could look over it again that'd be appreciated. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's reading way better, but since you pinged there have been 9 cn's added, I will look in on this again in nthe afternoon JW 1961   Talk  08:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , -- Hey folks. Agree, definitely getting there. I was the one who added the  tags. Once these are filled the article should be good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD oppose for blurb RD blurbs should only be for people who the average reader (i.e. not a follower of the field) would know - e.g. Sean Connery. Also, can someone find a better picture? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. I've fixed up the remaining cites needed, and tweaked a few things here and there, so I think this is now good to be posted. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good job with the sourcing. P-K3 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies for the intrusion, but as it has become fashionable to ping admins these days, I'll join the party! Any chance someone could see if this is ready and post it if so? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly RD but don't see blurb relevance per above. Gotitbro (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake
Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Eight deaths seems like a pretty small number. Is there precedent for posting natural disasters with so few deaths? If there is, then Support. If not, then Oppose. (And yes, I am aware that we don't make posting decisions based purely on precedent, but it would definitely inform my vote in this case.) Mlb96 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eight deaths is generally enough for large disasters, such as strong earthquakes or volcano eruptions. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Although AP has put the toll up to 14, other RS sites say six or eight. Details seem likely to develop further. – Sca (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment death count reached 14, with 427 injuries. Most of which were reported in Turkey. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - For now, the article is good. Maybe we should wait until midnight local time and announce the number of victims at that time.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support High death toll and many details, though we should wait for an official death toll. Gex4pls (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support fixed template. Enough death toll and is headline news. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support An 7.0 earthquake near a big city, Izmir (the earthquake has crushed especially Bayraklı and Bornova according to Turkish Wikipedia sources - I will add it -, where consist at least 1/5 of the city per population). I think the article is deserving a location in "In the news" section.--Ahmetlii (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: October 2020 Polish protests

 * Support, would nominate by myself. Still develops, new events planned for 10/30 and later --Andrei (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, hmm... got pushed off. Still ongoing and active. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support That got pushed off fast. I guess it's a busy week, but this is perfect for ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Still going on and likely to continue for some time. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There were 410,000 protesters recently. Albertaont (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Big news and still on-going. Almost textbook ITN/O material This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We did push it off really fast, I agree with above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Overwhelming support, also removed SARS item above, per consensus. It was also getting a bit crowded.  -- Jayron 32</b> 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amfilohije Radović

 * Weak Support Article looks mostly OK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SupportJust from a quick skim, everything is sourced and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The article looks good. A very notable person in the Balkans. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  20:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A notable figure in the Balkans and Orthodoxy.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bibliography still seems unsourced. Also one additional skim for sourcing might be needed. Ktin (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the source now, a general one. Posting. --Tone 14:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mesut Yılmaz

 * Oppose On quality. Many unsourced statements and claims, even a paragraph that goes without sources. Gex4pls (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many paragraphs uncited. I tagged the article for sourcing issues. Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basic referencing issues. Gotitbro (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But ping me asap if the improvements are made.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale SoloGaming (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sindika Dokolo

 * Support looks to be all sourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on quality. A comprehensive well sourced article. BTW: His claim to fame is the art collection, but indeed it is based on a father who owned part of the economy of Zaire before Mobutu took it, and then married a woman who owns part of the economy of Angola.KittenKlub (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexander Vedernikov

 * Support. Article looks in good order. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Suitable for RD, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  20:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough to me - Dumelow (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Nice stabbing

 * Weak support I know these are rare in France and the situation around it, that's its being labeled as international terrorism, but at the same time, it was only 4 people involved (the 3 victims and the attacker). This is nowhere close to past attacks like the Charlie Hebdo shooting in terms of scale or rationale for the attack, hence why I only weakly support it. --M asem (t) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 3 people died. Big deal. This is not international news. COVID-19 killed more people in Nice that day, then this minor attack. We didn’t post Paty, so I don’t see any real reason to post this. The Image Editor (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems insignificant. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose A large loss of life, but not exactly ITN large. Gex4pls (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Important, if nothing else then simply by the virtue of being another sign of islamic terrorism overwhelming Europe. Remember, that all of this sh*tshow happened because a French politician dared to suggest that Islam was in crisis. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per all the above comments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. Also an article titled "2020 Nice stabbing" is not a good idea. How about "2020 Stabbing in Nice"? KittenKlub (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose death toll thankfully low. If a mass terrorism outbreak occurs in France, then yes. The article title is also very awkward. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article title is fine, if we're going with our usual "  " template. I mean, it's just the same with how  2020 Peshawar school bombing is named. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice stabbing? What's nice about stabbing? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not as Nice as a truck attack, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Second such attack in France in short time span. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we can post the article "Attacks in France in short time span (2020)" to ITN. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This gruesomely brutal deed of 'Islamo-fascism' is not worth Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Zeta

 * Note Everything is a record if you make the criteria convoluted enough. That being said, I think the more notable thing is it is the 27th named storm, tying the record for a single year.  If this were to be posted, the blurb should mention that.  However however, I think a better target would be if we ever get a 28th named storm, for the actual absolute record.  That would be a much more universal and well-defined record than simply "tying an old record" or "breaking the record for one U.S. state".  Zeta itself is rather unremarkable excepting that it's the fifth in Louisiana in one year. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not interesting contrived "record", not particularly notable hurricane. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty damaging, but we've seen bigger this year. However, I do support posting the 28th named storm, as that would be a major record broken. Gex4pls (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is really not a good place for superlative records like this. I know the storm is disrupting normal activities in the area, but its not as destructive as other hurricanes this seasons that made landfall, so this really isn't as much ITN appropriate. --M asem (t) 15:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that it was the 27th named storm of the 2020 AHS is not that notable when you look at the bigger picture. Firstly: The Pacific Typhoon Season each year has a rough average of about 26 named storms. Secondly, tropical cyclones are not the only weather system named in the Atlantic. For starters we have the US Weather Channel naming winter storms, we then have the UKMO, Meteo France, Met Eirrean and various other european warning centers naming significant weather systems over the Atlantic, Finally we have FU Berlin naming most areas of high and low pressure over Europe which shock horror includes the Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the typhoon part, but the weather channel naming winter storms is not accepted by the NWS, and significant weather systems and lows never do as much damage as named tropical cyclones. Gex4pls (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the most named storms in an Atlantic hurricane season is actually 28, as 2005 had an unnamed system. This year's still at 27. Getting to the 29th (if we do, and that's a big "if") may be worth posting, but that's a discussion for another time. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, the system is unnamed, so I don't see why it should count towards named storms. Gex4pls (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per The Rambling Man. ITN is really about events, not records, and the event here does not seem particularly significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not news that matters.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: JJ Wiliams

 * Support short but decently referenced, OK for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A bit stubby, yet just about every statement is sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keshubhai Patel

 * Support Seems well sourced enough, a very important figure. Gex4pls (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Gave the article a quick read. Well referenced and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Wells (Canadian politician)

 * Comment: Would like to see a little more depth of coverage in legal career and/or political provincial career. Otherwise, well-referenced.  Spencer T• C 22:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leanza Cornett

 * Support Small, well sourced article. KittenKlub (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per KittenKlub JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bobby Ball

 * Oppose Many uncited paragraphs, numerous citation-needed tags. Filmography is completely unreferenced. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article's been more or less cleaned up. Thanks to  for cleaning this mess up! Gex4pls (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and, I have sourced much of the prose in the article, and I will work on sourcing the filmography shortly.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the record, and I have already been given credit for this RD having been posted by an IP editor who describes himself as a "newbie" and has left some unflattering messages along with them. I am assuming the credit having been given was done in error.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like the editor who uploaded the TV entries and sourced them to BFI was actually looking at the BFI web page. I updated all the entries and left "citation-needed" tags for the entries that do not appear on that web page. The Film section, meanwhile, is unsourced. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Entire filmography section is unreferenced otherwise fine. Gotitbro (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cecilia Chiang

 * Support: looks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Well-referenced & updated article and a notable person. — MarkH21talk 07:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well-referenced and ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Checked and posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Polish protests
*Comment Instead of ongoing this should be placed in ITN. SoloGaming (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as of this moment. The protests are related in the article have been going on for only 3 days, are sporadic and thus far have only significantly disrupted a few roads and churches. The article is updated, in relatively good condition and the event has some level of RS coverage, but I would like to see a significant increase in both coverage and impact before Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its been a week already, since the 22nd. It is nationwide, with a general strike announced on Wednesday - https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cywd23g0q1mt/poland --Andrei (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – A nationwide women's strike, with the right-wing Kaczyński-led govt. calling up the military police, shows the significant divisions in politically polarized Poland. (A blurb would be possible as the strike is current and developments seem likely.) – Sca (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this article should be place a blurb first to have evidence the significance of the protests. If the blurb rolls down, it can be posted as ongoing. 36.76.229.22 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected --Andrei (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to Support Ok this is much better, thank you. If these protests continue to happen at a large scale then sure we can put it in Ongoing, but as for now this is good. SoloGaming (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important enough for ITN, major political decision and protests in Poland that could have ramifications on the rest of the world. Gex4pls (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Article shaping up. Prefer Alt2, offered above. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Offer up alt3 as an option.  Short, concise, and neutral.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good, important event. Alt2 sums it up best. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alt3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Rather shy on information. – Sca (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PP comment - I think the blurb should go on top of the other blurbs on the ITN box. It's currently at the bottom. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't order based on the nomination date. Protests began on 22nd and has been in the news for days.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should change our ways. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on the talk page. See if consensus is with you.  If it is, we can change our ways.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Mazankowski

 * Support Solid article, everything cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) HS Kalisto collision

 * Oppose – This is nothing more than a traffic collision. No lasting significance shown. Greece–United Kingdom relations remain steadfast.--- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any major casualties from the crash? Don't see the significance otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HS Kallisto certainly a hull loss. Two crew injured. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose thankfully, no one died. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Dramatic maritime accident but only two injuries reported. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose But would make a good did you know Gex4pls (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The HMS Berkeley article is basically a stub. SoloGaming (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly unusual, but a sinking of a small ship with two injuries will not have major impacts. The article is a stub, and the few news reports say little more about the event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry for the repetitiveness, suggest closure for this one based on WP:SNOW. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 World Series

 * Support: article quality looks good to me. Kevin Cash should be ashamed for pulling Snell.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Article in good shape. Best day for Los Angeles after 32 years.CoatCheck (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: But add that it's their first title in 32 years. That's quite a long time. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are 30 MLB teams, so ~30 years between championships is to be expected. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 06:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Molave

 * Support. Large death toll already and the storm seems set to get worse. The Image Editor (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support just made 2nd landfall in Vietnam, 2 deaths already confirmed, seems perfect for ITN Gex4pls (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Gex4pls (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Articles looks fine, major natural disaster in the area. Gotitbro (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Storm has likely killed dozens. <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 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I added an "At least to the blurb to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral, and per standard practice in reporting these things.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Peshawar school attack

 * Comment I believe the death toll has been upped to 7 or 8 Gex4pls (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support In principle. Oppose right now on size and sources. When expanded consider this a support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it has only 50 words of prose - Stub JW 1961   Talk  12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a stub, if there is more context, could re-consider. Albertaont (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only a stub. SoloGaming (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very stubby stub. I add my vote because it's not a stub where another paragraph and a few more sources will make it post-able, it's so bare it probably shouldn't be an article. It's also been, what, 24 hours? And there doesn't appear to be any information on the bombing except that it happened? Nowhere near a state to post. Kingsif (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment suggest closure. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that a close is appropriate at this time, as the opposes are on quality, which can in theory be fixed within the time for consideration, and there is currently not much discussion one way or the other about significance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Cardew

 * Support fully sourced. Ready? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Kesler

 * 130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found an archived version and replaced the ref - Dumelow (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Slight support some unsourced statements, but looks good enough. Gex4pls (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pedro Cervantes

 * Support All but 1 source is in Spanish, so I cannot check most things. Fixed some link rot. Assuming that the references are properly deployed, looks good. Established notability and gives a basic personal biography.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reuses 6 sources constantly and the entire opening statement is unsourced. Add some more references and this is RD worthy Gex4pls (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gex4pls, which statement is uncited? I think six main sources is a fairly good mix for a non-major celebrity - Dumelow (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly it was just the opener that was unsourced, but the sources 1 2 3 5 6 and 7 are used way to many times, and should be replaced with others. Gex4pls (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD does not need to be sourced provided everything is mentioned in the main text and sourced later on. There is no limit on the number of times a source can be used; the article has nine sources and not one parapgraph is drawn solely from one source - Dumelow (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but reusing the same six sources many times makes an article look bad, and over reliance on certain sources could hinder the article. Gex4pls (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine; article is adequately sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lindy Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava

 * Oppose for now. There seems to be WP:OR wrt her husband: article unequivocally states that he was gay with two references, one of which says nothing on the subject; and the other calls him "basically homosexual". By virtue of his living his entire adult life in a heterosexual marriage, I would like a definitive statement to this. His relationship with the subject is definitely fourth cousin, per the article, but sources simply call him "distant cousin". I see no reason these two contentious statements could be omitted. They have only tangential relevance to the subject, but I'll leave it to someone else to do it.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I've quoted the Independent's "basically homosexual" in the article.  Personally, I think both this and the distant cousin relationship are relevant to the article but happy to hear more opinions on this - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The structure is a bit rambling but is well sourced. Seems adequate for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - We seriously going to post the whole title up there? Are we just bumping off 2 or 3 other RDs to fit it in there for the sake of balance?--WaltCip- (talk)  16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the news reports go with "Lady Dufferin" - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joey Moss

 * Support Well-written and -referenced article, including awards and such.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support plenty of references, interesting story, perfect for ITN Gex4pls (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

 * Oppose Douri is subject of no less than 5 false-death announcements, and the current declaration lacks any specificity or corroboration. Guardian is simply relaying press releases from WP:INVOLVED and partisan sources. At the very least, we should make certain that RD is for subjects who are certainly dead on a certain date.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for more major and reputable media outlets to publish on this, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment is he really dead? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The comments above are speculation and potentially WP:OR; what matters is that his death is attested in reliable sources not whether he is actually dead. Worst case scenario is that we end up posting it twice. The article itself seems adequate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 23:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan R. Torruella

 * Support decent article, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight Support Pretty good, but still has some pretty bad problems. Mainly, the career as a lawyer section mainly relies on a single source. Gex4pls (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article certainly adequate for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Amy Coney Barrett

 * Weak support we didn't post the rest of the confirmations Trump made, but this one seems extraordinary, being so close to the election. However, I'm sure this will get at least a handfull of opposes saying it's Americanism local politics.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support having said A (i.e. posting Brett Kavanaugh), we ought to say B. Banedon (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given we pulled Kavanaugh, I'm switching to Oppose. Banedon (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose High level court nominations are not regularly posted at ITN, even if taking account of the implications here (creating a 6-3 balance just before the election). Let's not let partisan politics cloud judgement of potential US bias here. --M asem (t) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Outrageously US-centric. We don't post the appointments of supreme court justices (not even heads of the supreme courts) of any other countries. Not Russia, not China (a much larger country than the U.S.), not France, not Germany and not the U.K. We should treat the U.S. in the way we treat all other countries. Appointments in the U.S. should be limited to their head of state or government like it is for all other countries on the planet. The only time a Chinese appointment gets posted is when China gets a new president. While it is true that the politicization of the US supreme court is seen as troubling, the same could be said for many other countries, but we still don't post the individual appointments to the Polish supreme court either, despite the controversy over partisan attempts to politicize it. --Tataral (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * we still don't post the individual appointments to the Polish supreme court either Perhaps we should. But that has no real bearing on this entry. PackMecEng (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there were a major development relating to the Polish supreme court as an institution it could potentially be ITN-worthy. For example, if the EU said it was illegitimate or something like that. Similarly, a major development relating to the US supreme court as an institution, for example if Congress declared it illegitimate due to Trump's politicization of it, it could potentially be ITN-worthy. But not the routine appointment of a judge. No judge appointments are regarded as ITN-worthy, the bar is usually election or appointment as head of state or government. We have, as far as I can tell, never ever posted the appointment of a judge from any other country on the entire planet. --Tataral (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This nom is going to be highly controversial. Please be civil and on-topic, and not accuse each other of being partisan or supporting one party/side. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We did not post Kagan or Gorsuch, and we pulled Kavanaugh. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kagan was posted for a short time then pulled. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was prevented from running (discussion) on DYK ostensibly because we cannot run US election related material on the main page with a US election approaching. What makes ITN different? I mean, won't it just get pulled? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no such rule at ITN as far as I know, although I can see the logic in it. P-K3 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is actually less significant than the Kavanagh nom, as it just makes a 5-4 conservative/liberal split into a 6-3 one. And I'm not comfortable promoting something as partisan as this so close to the election. P-K3 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and frankly, I'd be in favor of putting up other high court confirmations. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 01:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No exceptional reason to overturn established precedent against posting SCOTUS confirmations to ITN. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support I would say that given the extraordinary circumstances that surround her nomination, namely the first Supreme Court justice being elected with no cross-party support, and the extremely late nature of her nomination (a week prior to the national election) in national history I would vouch for its inclusion on the page. If I am incorrect in my statements please feel free to correct me and if they are irrelevant in the discussion that is acceptable as well, but I would find it important given the circumstances surrounding her nomination. --Ornithoptera (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – very U.S.-centric and partisan, especially just over a week before a major election. Goes against precedent that I see no reason to overturn. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: not exactly a 'routine' confirmation, but this doesn't have any irregularities other than 'Trump may try some shady stuff next week', and crystal-ing shouldn't be used to establish notability for a nom. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  02:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too U.S.-centric. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. If individual laws are enacted or struck down by legislatures or judiciaries, they can be considered on a case by case basis Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine court appointment that would not be posted if it related to any other country in the world. Chrisclear (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Braley

 * Support Neat little article, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Above average in quality, plenty of sources and fit for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lunar water

 * Support was about to nominate this myself. Interesting and potentially helpful to humans. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important discovery. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Article has orange tags for "updates needed" (because the results of several old missions are not reported) and also lots of cites missing. I'd also like to see an update and blurb which concisely describe what today's breakthrough is, because it's not the first ever water seen as far as I can gather? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The orange update tag was removed. A section just about the new discovery was added and is about equal in length to the other sections.  Also to the point you made, it was the first water molecules (aka direct liquid water) discovered on the moon.  Before today, scientists thought liquid water couldn't exist on the moon.  Ice if different story...this was just about the liquid water found. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Meh I tried to actually add a meaningful update, and the discovery is more like "there is 10-20% more surface where water can get trapped, and this new stuff is not at the poles, and sometimes it melts to be a liquid". As much as I like scientific news, this is a bit on the incremental side for ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:B1A9:7B41:8037:7B2F (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support New discovery, very mentionable. Also, @2601:602:9200:1310:B1A9:7B41:8037:7B2F, please put oppose or support, Wikipedia discourages using meh. SoloGaming (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was pretty well established that lunar water exists prior to the announcement. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the "sunlit surface"? Isn't the whole place sunlit? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The moon has two sides, one is permanently facing the sun and is as such sunlit, the other is permanently dark. CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why, seen from Earth, the moon has phases. Today's is a waxing gibbous moon. The full moon will appear on Oct. 31 – if the world lasts that long. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Umm no, there is one side which is permanently facing the Earth, but that side is sometimes in sunlight (at full moon) and sometimes not (new moon). For an observer on the Moon, there would be day and night over a 28 day period as the Moon spins on its axis (plus or minus some correction due to the Earth going around the Sun). So every location is part of the "sunlit surface" at one time or another. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See . Banedon (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Similar items previously nominated: In_the_news/Candidates/August_2018, In_the_news/Candidates/September_2009, In_the_news/Candidates/November_2009.  Spencer T• C 02:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incremental step. We'd known for years, ever since the first soviet moon lander sent the data back to Earth, that there is water on the moon. This changes nothing. CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a new or major announcement, also please link the article you nominated in the blurb and bold it. Gotitbro (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Btw, while this nomination might not go too far, the blurb should also include SOFIA that detected water molecules on the sunlit lunar surface. Too bad that the article was not recently created, else, there could have been a real interesting DYK. DYK ... that the SOFIA telescope that detected water molecules on the sunlit lunar surface is housed in a modified Boeing 747? Video: Ktin (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like scientific nominations but this is not really a discovery. As noted above, the presence of water on the Moon has been known for more than 40 years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, as pointed out in this Nature publication this is a new result (and obviously a very significant scientific breakthrough, or else it would not merit publication in Nature) as it distinguishes molecular H2O from OH ions. In this accompanying Nature article, it is pointed out that the water resides in micro cold traps and is then present in a far wider region than large cold traps where it was already known that ice resides in. Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * a moot point at this stage, but neither of those papers are in Nature. They're in Nature Astronomy, a different journal that happens to be owned by the same publisher (Springer Nature) so has a similar name. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is an important discovery for establishing a colony on the moon but needs more fleshing out before it can be realized, but itself is not really that new of a discovery (water on the dark side was known, this is water on the lit side). --M asem (t) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this literally isn't news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Chilean constitutional referendum

 * Oppose Would be news when the constitution is actually implemented, simply voting for a new constituent assembly does not seem significant enough at this point for ITN to me. Gotitbro (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We do routinely post referendums per accepted practice and the mere fact that people approved the need for a new constitution is quite historical. The completion of a new constituion should take some time and can be posted separately. Brandmeistertalk  08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A follow up on the protests (it's pretty unusual seeing uprisings being effective) in a major power, definitely ITN worthy. Gex4pls (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This can be seen as the culmination of a year of protests and chaos in Chile; the referrendum itself is frontpage news across major international news groups like the BBC. --Droodkin (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support First referendum in Chile during democracy and since 1989, when it saw Pinochet step down from power. Definitely newsworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per NoonIcarus. SoloGaming (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Needs prose on the "Results" section. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a historic event with generational implications. Would be nice to get a bit more context in the article though; any other articles we can CC-BY-SA from in a pinch? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, although more context should be included in the blurb (2019–20 Chilean protests?). Ironically, this is probably more significant news that the future constitution's actual adoption. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Both this and the adoption of a new constitution would be worthy of ITN. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This was tagged as "Ready" but is obviously isn't, so I removed the tag. Prose still needed on "Results" section, to explain what the results of the vote mean. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. This is basically a stub - there's barely any prose. There needs to be more than one line saying it's in response to the protests - a background section is a must.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose for now on quality - I don't question the notability at all, this is a historic event and the culmination of the protests. My only criticism is that the article has little text at the moment. As soon as this is addressed and the article is no longer a stub, consider this a support !vote. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I still have no idea what a "mixed constitutional convention" is as opposed to a constitutional convention. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. The article is just a massive data table, with most of the prose in the lead! There needs to be some actual encyclopaedic content for us to feature, not just tables of numbers. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Diane di Prima

 * Stale Stephen 22:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) NRL Grand Final

 * Support Maybe change the source to an Australian one, like nrl.com. WDM10 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. There are multiple unreferenced sections, and a section on a completely separate match which belongs elsewhere. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a lot more citations. As for the NRLW GF, that was a curtain raiser so is still relevant to the overall article. Also, the logo states "Grand Finals" implying that match as well. Could you please take another look at the article? WDM10 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Seychellois general election

 * Comment The biography of Wavel Ramkalawan is in a pretty bad shape, so that has to be fixed first. KittenKlub (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Support. The articles are short, but sufficiently sourced. Also it's a neglected and forgotten country which has finally elected a new President after all these years. KittenKlub (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks KittenKlub for your help! Joofjoof (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb because I think the first blurb is somewhat misleading. There have been peaceful transfers of power within the same political party before, just not to a different political party. Mlb96 (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really a "transfer" of power if the same guys (for the most part) are in charge. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged as ready. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt. Short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosanna Carteri

 * Support Short career. Well referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Taut but well referenced. Gotitbro (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Oppermann

 * Support The article is of adequate size, and well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks goot to me, and I'm happy I didn't have to do the work (on top of the above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert E. Murray

 * I've reffed everything that was obviously missing- Dumelow (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks fine to me. Rest in pieces, Bob, you will not be missed. 2606:A000:1120:EA9:7D09:7910:380:F969 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (Eat s***, Bob.) Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Frank Bough

 * Support Some minor referencing required otherwise generally OK. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As per above needs some improvement - Legendary presenter throughout the 70s and 80s until his rather eventful fall from grace which is also very notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If referencing is needed, don't vote support. That means it's good now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sourced well enough, good enough for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not quite there, I see a few unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 22:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Lewis Hamilton

 * Support prominent record and article of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - new record. And article looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article, suitable for ITN JW 1961   Talk  20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Despacito. I'm sure I can find some sports records upon scorn was heaped as well (but not soccer or cricket those are "important") but not before this is expressed to the main page. We should re-nominate this every time Hamilton wins a race going forward... --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely it's just breaking someone else's long-standing record, and if each race win is nommed here the comments will SNOW say that. Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Winning some kind of YouTube contest for clicks is a little different from being the "winningest" F1 driver in history. I'll take the chance here and suggest that this story is more notable that the clickbait and go on to add we don't need to re-nominate it as the story is him becoming the best ever driver.  But (appropriately) YMMV !!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Shouldn't the list article for the achievement - the news item - be the bold link? Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Major achievement breaking the great Michael Schumacher's record. P-K3 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support long-standing record in a top-tier global sport broken and unlikely to be broken again for quite some time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we at least have a different picture of him? He's becoming the Lula of sports blurbs.... --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, do we? Can you propose a better one? Stephen 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are a few to choose from -- commons. PS: Shared this only because asked above. I have no preference on a picture. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current image is fine. To whine about it seems pointed and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support New world record and unlikely to be beaten again - though we said that about Schumachers!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unilkely to be unlikely, Hamilton himself can probably do it. Gotitbro (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Kun-hee

 * Conditional oppose on quality issues alone, specifically copyvio. Earwig identifies a few substantial chunks that could be reverse copyvios but they're from reputable publications so I imagine it's just regular copyvio. My suspicions were aroused when I went searching for a source for the cn–tagged statement Foreign employees were brought in and local employees were shipped out as Lee tried to foster a more international attitude to doing business and found, which is exactly the same. Will remove that bit for now, but quite a lot of other potential copyvio remains. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Have cut a fair amount of it, but I think this deserves a good looking-over by others and potentially some revdels. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the edits. Gave it a quick look here. Seems like the first one is a Wiki mirror of some form. The other ones seem reasonably alright. Ktin (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now. May still be worth deleting some old revisions but the live version looks good from a copyvio and citation perspective now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Made a few additional edits. Seems to meet hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. If there are any additional edits that need to be done including notes from above, and someone can tag them - I can have that checked. Ktin (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ran Earwig's Copyvio again, the largest highlights left in the article are from the BBC and are two direct quotes in quotation marks (15%) so that should be ok JW 1961   Talk  10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per JW 1961s rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Tagging our newest Admin to check on this one and promote this to homepage / RD, and in the process be the first article that they promote to WP:ITNRD in their new role. :) PS: Only if they are convinced that this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats ! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All checks out, duly posted. Thanks, everyone! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , wonderful. Thanks much and congrats again. Looking forward to your work here in your new role :) PS: When convenient, please feel free to click on 'give credit' to both AleatoryPonderings and me, I believe that will send that ITN box-thingie to users' talk page. :D Ktin (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support should be all sourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Well sourced article about someone who surprisingly isn't well known. Gotitbro (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prince Azim of Brunei

 * Support. Although the article isn't brilliant, it is probably adequate. It would be nice to have a citation for his education. I also think "the prince's meddling with the Hollywood crowd" should be rephrased to something less colloquial. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brigade Piron, think I have sorted both parts you mention - Dumelow (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good for RD, well sourced article JW 1961   Talk  13:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article meets hygiene requirements for RD. However, reads like WP:PROSELINE. E.g. In 19xx, the subject did this. In 19xy, the subject did this. In 200x, the subject did this. Please can we make an attempt to fix this? One clean pass with pen to paper will get this article good, and ready for homepage / RD, imo. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rafique Ul Huq

 * Support. A fairly stubby article, but probably adequate for RD. More about his professional career would be good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support  Comment. Agree with the above comment. Should expand the article (professional career section) before we move this to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Ktin, I've now added more detail - Dumelow (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Can be expanded further (including social work), but, meets homepage / RD requirements in its current state. I am aware that the ITNRD carousel is moving quite rapidly and we might miss the window of opportunity. So, I would say, lets go with this and send this article to homepage. Ktin (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joel Molina Ramírez

 * Support. Article could use a cleanup to improve the prose and structure but is otherwise fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well referenced article. Falls short of the 'Spencer test' -- Article lists all his positions, but, not much depth into what he did in each of those positions. Please can we expand on that bit? Seems like we should be able to do that before getting the article to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Israel–Sudan normalization agreement

 * Comment The source given is behind a paywall. Not much use. Surely there's a non-paywalled one available. In addition, the little bit of it I am allowed begins with the words "Trump announces..." Sorry, but at this stage of the Presidential election campaign, that's of no value at all. So, a better, more independent source please. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment Since I posted the above comment, the nominator has added seven more sources. So thank you. However, every single one of them place massive emphasis on the fact that this announcement came from Trump. The worst is the headline from the WaPo, saying "Trump asked Israel’s leader if ‘Sleepy Joe’ could have made Israel-Sudan deal." This is very problematic. It makes the announcement more about Trump and the US election than about the Middle East. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The same rationale was presented when Bahrein came in after UAE, and when the Abraham Accords were fully signed in front of cameras, it was rejected on ITN as "old news" and as part of political moves, even though this stuff is the basics of geopolitics, rarely allowed through by regular ITN activists outside of progressivist causes. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "The same rationale was presented when Bahrein came in after UAE..." Really? Was that announcement made by a poorly polling US Presidential candidate a week and a half out from the election? You will have to work very hard to convince me this ISN'T "part of (US) political moves". And please have a read of Assume good faith before you write more negative comments about other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your rationale implies that had he been polling better, these accords would have been signed at a later point. But since he is running out of time, ITN should take a political stance and remove political developments and pretend these developments don't happen.  Last current item on ITN is 7+ days old. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Your rationale implies..." You have no idea what my rationale implies apart from the words I have written. I choose them carefully. You are NOT assuming good faith on my part. You began this nomination with a pre-emptive attack on other editors. Not a good look for a new editor. I submit that the one person displaying a bias in this matter is yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The last item to be added to ITN is from October 21. It is 3 or 4 days old. But in any case, ITN works only on how important any given event is. And in any case, we do not aim to remove events from the table in just one week. 45.251.33.147 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Last edited at 03:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support Impressive, given that just a little over a year ago Sudan (under Omar Bashir) was one of the most rabidly anti-Semitic states in the world CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the UAE one, but the subsequent one with Bahrain was not posted. The precedent ought to hold This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Boiling frog with everything we dislike in our progressive ITN corner. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is an example of a boiling frog. This just isn't that significant, as these countries haven't had any direct conflict with Israel (It's kind of like if Myanmar suddenly announced support for Taiwan. Would it be significant? Yes. Would it be important enough for ITN? No. Gex4pls (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * About as significant as the eye of newt or the toe of a frog, IMO – Sca (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on only one reason - this is the third Arab country to normalize relations with Israel in the past 4 months. We can't have blurbs for each country that normalises relations at this pace. But if the KSA or Iraq does so then it will probably be blurb-worthy. 45.251.33.147 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose important, but we've had quite a few countries open relations with Israel as of late, If a more vocal country (Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.) were to do so, would definitely get my support. Gex4pls (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning support, given the novelty of this particular pairing. For the record, however, as I have noted before, Saudi Arabia and Israel have already tacitly been allied since at least as early as 2014; a publicity event for this longstanding arrangement would not be newsworthy. A peace accord between Israel and Iran would certainly be. BD2412  T 03:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support while Sudan is third Arabian country that normalize relations with Israel, this is major events, as Israel seeks to have normalizing relations with Arab country that has been enemy since 1948. 36.65.38.17 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We cannot post one of these for every single Muslim country. Oman is almost certainly going to normalize relations with Israel very soon, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kuwait does as well. Unless it's Iran, I oppose posting any more of these. Also, you very blatantly have a political agenda here. Yes, I am assuming bad faith, but your rhetoric makes your bad faith readily apparent. Mlb96 (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The agreement is no less important than the UAE agreement two months ago, because the two countries have fought military conflicts, and Israel bombed it several times because of its alliance with Iran and Hamas.--Sakiv (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There were actually in war. So its a big step toward peace in region --Shrike (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Important news, but the possibility was already announced during the Abraham Accords. It is actually part of a broader trend and this should not be seen as a single independent event.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Mlb96. Smacks of the political bandwagon syndrome. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no agreement to establish embassies, which is what "normalization" is usually being taken to mean and it is in the future, whatever it is; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/head-of-sudans-largest-party-slams-recognizing-israel/2020/10/24/ec7735e6-15f5-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html does not bode well. We should wait for concrete developments.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is neither a Trump nor Israel ticker. There is no actual conflict. Albertaont (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Suspiciously timed October surprise that is essentially meaningless. WaltCip- (talk)  16:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not unmeaningless. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMO, the removal of Sudan from the US's State Sponsors of Terrorism list (Sudan–United_States_relations) is arguably the bigger story here.  Spencer T• C 16:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn’t post the last two, this is no difference. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sudan is barely a state, shares no border with Israel and is no threat to them. This is a typically cynical attempt by Trumpists to make a meal out of a nothingburger. Let me know when Syria gets the Golan Heights back or Israel returns to the pre-1967 borders. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's less remarkable when it's part of a streak of members of the Arab world recognizing Israel. Quite a lot of countries have done so recently, and as others have pointed out, this trend isn't ending any time soon as Oman is reportedly about to join the list. <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> 💙 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can't post every country that normalizes relations. P-K3 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kabul suicide bombing

 * Oppose sorry, but it's a stub. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a stub... SoloGaming (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Jeff Walker

 * Oppose Entire biography section mostly relies on only 2 sources, and other sections need more and better sources. Gex4pls (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * entire article sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Michael Lane

 * Support Small, well referenced article built like grease lightning. Also important in this day and age. KittenKlub (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, all the ISBN's there, looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Nice and interesting nom. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joel Daly

 * Support - Article is well sourced. The career section is in-depth. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Suitable for RD, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  14:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lebanon PM

 * Wait It seems that he is not officially PM again yet, as he has only been appointed by parliament to try and form a new coalition. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed, and I'm not enough of an expert in Lebanese politics to know how likely that is. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for your consideration. It will happen, I just don't know when.195.250.80.226 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not confirmed as of now though probably likely. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Thai protests

 * Comment – See also: AP, BBC, Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, and I can see significant updates regarding events that occurred on 20, 21, and 22 October. Meets all of the criteria for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to do this, so apperciate the work by 🌀 to keep on top of this! Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support protesters have given the prime minister until 24 Oct to step down, so figures to be in the news for at least a bit more.—Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Protests aren't over, so i don't see why they shouldn't go to ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - oingoing is correct.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the number of participants has been steadily declining and according to the article "The following day, Prayuth revoked the severe emergency declaration on Bangkok that was declared a week earlier, citing that the violent situation had ended". ... "situation had ended". Seems the exact opposite of ongoing to me? Unless we just want to use the box as a coatrack to complain about the Thai royal family in which case post away. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment do make a good point, depending on direction, we could do a vote on removal soon. It is clear that its more "analysis" than event at this point. Albertaont (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support While not in the news as much now, the protests and their updates are still ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lekki massacre

 * Comment This and the recently added Ongoing entry need to be dovetailed somehow. I would prefer this blurb and the removal of the Ongoing entry, because I believe our article on this subject colors the situation. But it has to be either blurb or Ongoing.130.233.213.55 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is already covered by (and is just part of) the protests article, which is already in `ongoing` section. The article itself should have been a section in the main protests article as it's not distinct from that root cause. I am also leery of titling such fork article "...massacre", of course no credible international media call it a such. Not even the local ones, except in scare quotes or in opinion pieces. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When created, it was at Lekki shooting, which is supported by sources like Nigeria Sars protests: Horror over shootings in Lagos, BBC. It was moved to massacre. Amnesty Intentional did give a double-digit death toll, so it's not without reason. It could be moved back to shooting or shootings, or we could wait to see where the media stabilizes.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose new blurb. We just posted this to Ongoing, and these sorts of situations where multiple important events tied to a single topic (end SARS) is the reason we have "ongoing".  There are likely to be events daily similar to this one, and instead of posting each one, we have the Ongoing link for a reason.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No need for Wiki to jump on the bandwagon again. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - already on ongoing. Nothing more than the missile strike, which wasn't posted. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We just put SARS in ongoing, which means that the ongoing includes everything that is related to SARS, so there is no need to add this at all. SoloGaming (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose SARS tickingThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pope endorses same-sex civil unions

 * Comment. This seems to be his personal view and not official Church policy, unless I am missing something. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to this being a personal view, this was before he was Pope, the news coming from found footage cut from a previous work and not a Papal declaration. --M asem (t) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Until we get an idea of what the Catholic church as a whole thinks about homosexuality. While certainly a win for LGBT, we can't be certain if the rest of the church will back this opinion Gex4pls (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. This is actually not new, and was his position when he was a Cardinal, basically in order to preserve marriage as a heterosexual institution. The wording may seem out of step with doctrine, but the intent is the same. BD2412  T 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Video footage of his personal comments for a documentary.  Spencer T• C 02:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – a documentary interview ≠ papal teaching. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Misleading nom, clearly not an official position. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Horvat

 * Comment: This is close but needs a little bit of work: still very much like WP:PROSELINE; lede mentions information that does not appear later in the article or duplicates finer details that should just appear in the body; would like to see body a little more fleshed out.  Spencer T• C 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , streamlined the lede. Will give the rest of the article a scrub and this should be ready soon. Ktin (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , these edits are done. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. per above edits and comment. A short clip if someone wants to see Ktin (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Viola Smith

 * Support Well referenced and a small, but comprehensive article. KittenKlub (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marge Champion

 * Support. Looks good. Well referenced and good structure too. I am not a fan of bullet list being used in the 'legacy and honors' section, but, then prose being written there rather than a list. Should be an easy fix. Good to go post that. PS: Nice job on the filmography! Ktin (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New pair of salivary glands

 * Unsure I had read about this a few days ago. The reason I didn't think of this for ITN, the sources were giving the sense that it was just a claim from one group of researchers, and is yet to be confirmed independently, for one, and for another, there was uncertainty as to how it should be categorised (a new organ, a new part of a previously known organ, ..., ...). I would like clarification on what exactly the finding is that we would be hailing as a significant leap and what the confidence is with which we can claim it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment is this verified? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After scans the researchers reportedly dissected two cadavers, one male and one female. They all had a set. But, per CNN, "the study concentrated on a small number of patients who were mostly male and used specific rather than standard tests [...] examination of more women and healthier patients would allow for better data". Still, I don't think it would be disproven. Brandmeistertalk  20:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't how notable Radiotherapy & Oncology is within it's field, but I find it an odd venue for reporting new findings in anatomy. Target article has been orange tagged for expansion since 2018, which is unsuitable for a non-event article. This seems a little too close to primary sources for the Front Page.130.233.2.222 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently knowing about a new organ(?) that should be missed during radiotherapy is likely to increase the patient's quality of life significantly. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Until more accurate results come out; and see how the medical community responds. Gex4pls (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vijayalakshmi Ramanan

 * Support Well sourced and a interesting story. KittenKlub (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Gex4pls (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted with a 21 October date, as that appears to be when the death was publicised. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) ORISIS-Rex makes touchdown with asteroid

 * Support Interesting, notable and on TV This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we not wait until it returns as that would be clearly more significant/relevant than just its touchdown. Its return is going to be posted and I don't see the point of posting this twice. Gotitbro (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of the article is in the future tense as well, clearly marking it out that the return is the important part. Gotitbro (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, we have posted its launch and when it achieved orbit around the asteroid before. Yes, bringing back the sample will be important too, but that's probably the less unknown part at this point. --M asem (t) 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Interesting and quite significant. I'd suggest the wikilink be changed to "Bennu" instead of "the asteroid Bennu". Ovinus (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --M asem (t) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support very interesting and in the news. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable even without ITN/R and very interesting; article is well-sourced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. New that goes beyond any one country or culture. BD2412  T 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Article is pretty impressive. I added a few missing citations, but there are a few sections that need more intext citations. TJMSmith (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I don't have time at the moment to work on adding the image, and I felt the current image could use a little more time, but I have no objection to its being changed. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed this one and am happy that was posted. However 's nomination comment is incorrect: both Hayabusa and Hayabusa2 have collected samples from asteroids before. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, glad I didn't push that into the blurb. --M asem  (t) 16:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues- I don't know what happened but there are currently 11 cn tags on the article. The sample acquisition procedure (isn't that having happened the news that's been posted?) is in the future tense, some other things too (like #Instruments). And I don't understand what the "Mission duration" parameter of the infobox is saying. I have seen articles on more high profile news held up from the main page for a lot less. Pull? Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Randi

 * Comment – No article linked. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article linked. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Meta-comment: The template says "do not wikilink" the article. I didn't understand why, but I complied. (A moment later.) Oh, I see, it means to only state the title and not put double square brackets around it. I didn't think of that. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A very thorough article. BD2412  T 22:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support: I support this in principle, but I would like to wait a little bit for some reliable, secondary news sources to report on this. KConWiki (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Randi Foundation isn't reliable enough? P-K3 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's his official website, most news sources will probably get their info from here, unless his family gives a separate statement to the media. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but I wanted to wait for news articles to start coming in so that we wouldn't have people worrying about the Randi Foundation not being secondary. The Washington Post has this now, so I say let's post this as a recent death. KConWiki (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good, well known in the skeptical community along with his organization CSICOP. Gotitbro (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well referenced, I don't see any significant gaps. P-K3 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks great. No errors that I can see. SoloGaming (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable person and good article. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose some places still need citations. There is a cn tag in Personal life. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, the number of tags on the article has increased. Currently at 8. If someone can fix those, this article is all set to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Decent article, and a very significant death - father of the modern scientific skeptical movement. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A father of modern scientific skepticism and highly important figure in the skeptical movement. JanderVK (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks Ready. There were two cn tags. I commented out both. Doc James has referenced and uncommented one already (good tidings!). I don't see any reason why this should be kept out of the main page any longer. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lea Vergine

 * Weak oppose At 160 words, it is technically still a stub. It needs at least one more paragraph and *cough* publications are unsourced (as usual). KittenKlub (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – All the sources on Lea Vergine herself (as opposed to her husband Enzo Mari) are in Italian. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is allowed, per WP:NONENG. P-K3 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Realistically, I doubt the article could be much expanded. Seems adequate for RD, if not yet stale. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 22:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derryl Cousins

 * Support well sourced, looks fine for RD JW 1961   Talk  13:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and well sourced throughout. Ready for RD. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: End SARS

 * Support In the news, definitely an ongoing situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support so it got pushed off. We’ll definitely still ongoing and as Muboshgu said, in the news. People were just shot at today ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Been in the news a lot lately. I also agree with Muboshgu. SoloGaming (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support following the standard pattern for protests, still ITN to one degree or another. Gex4pls (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if orange tags are resolved. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article is not currently of sufficient quality for the main page. Stephen 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was before This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not anymore. Stephen 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral Most of the article is reasonably neutral reporting the occurrences of protests. The voluntary donations section needs to be scrapped though, that definitely has poor standing to be in the article. Juxlos (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Question' - the article is tagged for external links, but there is no external links section. Is this appropriate? Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It uses direct links rather than embedding the URLs in references. Stephen 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Four out of 162 references affected. I think that tag can go. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support A few minor issues with small sections and proseline writing, but those are easily overcome and I don't see any major issues that should keep it off the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sad that it was there for such a short time, deserved longer attention (anyway it can be re-blurbed?). Gotitbro (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I personally think it would be better to have a blurb on the shooting rather than go to ongoing. At the moment, the shooting itself is arguably more important than the protesters' actual cause. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, but given the premeditation and reaction (the governor has indicated no one was killed), I'd expect more to follow. Also, the government had previously sent in thugs to attack the crowd, then complained that the protests were getting violent. One wonders where they found the inspiration for this strategy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Enzo Mari

 * Weak oppose Aside from sourcing concerns, the article at present has limited depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Consider this a neutral, well sourced, but needs a tonal shift (I don't believe a quotes section is standard wikipedia fare) Gex4pls (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 22:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Spencer Davis
Support - I have cleaned the article up; it is a bit sparse but at least in suitable shape for the main page. For those who aren't aware, the Spencer Davis Group is more famous for launching Steve Winwood's career. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I was just about to nominate this until I saw this. Well-referenced, notable, and updated. — MarkH21talk 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nicley cleaned up by, now suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looks good. Marking ready. Given the namesake, I am tagging for next steps. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Spencer to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Lewis (musician)
*Comment a couple of cn's added, it should be fine if those are fixed and I will then add support JW 1961   Talk  19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as concerns have been fixed JW 1961   Talk  13:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support There are some open points left. Overall the article appears to be in good order. (And luckily there are no large discographies and chart tables...) KittenKlub (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support some tonal issues, but overall seems fine. Gex4pls (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article now looks referenced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroh Kikai

 * Support, Well-developed article, GA status implicates ITN pass. Added sources from the Tokyo Shimbun and Chunichi Shimbun to nomination. Morgan695 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's an English-language source. https://cphmag.com/hiroh-kikai-1945-2020/. Personally, I hate modern black-and-white photography (it was fine when it was more economical than color, but now it's a purely aesthetic decision), but with the English source I'll weak support. 1779Days (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of paragraphs that haven’t a single reference. GA is no fast track to posting, a lot can degrade an article since it’s assessment. Stephen 08:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose some place still need sourced. I'm honestly surprised this is a GA. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. Seems like it was last assessed in 2009, and might have deteriorated in the time since then. That said, seems like the references can be fixed if someone can go in with a few tags. Unfortunately, I am a tad buried today. But, can take a look later in the night. Ktin (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , went in and added a few references, seems like all references have been handled. Do you mind giving it a look? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support most of the article seems fine. A few more english language sources couldn't hurt though. Gex4pls (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Numerous uncited paragraphs. Someone should send this back for a GA reassessment. Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Some of the article is fine, but there is not really a lot of description. You could improve on it and renominate again. OptXSolo (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Went in and gave the references a shot. Seems like the article is fully referenced now. If I have missed out any, let me know and I will try filling.
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Belarus Protests

 * Support The situation has recently re-escalated and the article is up to date. <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> 💙 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrible article is still terrible. "Symbols" section is still orange tagged and still the subject of a low grade edit war. Protests are still a weekend outing with dwindling participation and insignificant mid-week events (like some driller complaining) elevated to undue status to fluff out the article. It had it's time in the box. Move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that the Symbols section is orange tagged, but I can't say that I understand why. I don't see the edit war you talk about anywhere in the revision history. This section was last edited on October 1 (which appears to be a minor expansion of existing content), before that last edited on September 24 (which seemed to just be the removal of a typo), and before that just a minor grammar fix on September 22. If there's an edit war going on in the article, it must be in a different section. I think it would be perfectly fine to remove that orange tag because it's very unclear why it's there. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Coment – Is this supposed to be a blurb nom.? If so, where's the blurb? Not to mention sources.... Here's two  from Sunday, but it appears not much is happening today. – Sca (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this was supposed to be ongoing, and i do have the associated press source in my comment, but thanks for the extra sources. Sorry if I messed something up, as this is my first time nominating something. Gex4pls (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sensationalistic. We also don't re-nominate George Floyd protests every time an African-American is shot. More NPOV would have helped nom. Albertaont (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange !vote. It was renominated for ongoing because the protests are ongoing and the article is up to date. This is the criteria for an item to be in ongoing. 50,000+ protesters and several hundred arrests isn't nothing. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are many marches of similar size every year that we don't post. I don't see any notability beyond the fact that 50,000 people went out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ongoing for this was just removed, this is getting tiring now, people asking for removal/addition again and again. There should be something in place to stop these noms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO that would be avoided if we didn't remove items from ongoing so hastily, necessitating renominations shortly after. Please comment on whether or not this nomination meets the guidelines. An item should go in ongoing if it is being continuously updated with new news. I feel like I'm replying to every comment here, which I don't intend to do, but I think it's important to remind editors that these sorts of !votes that don't mention whether or not an item meets the criteria should be avoided. <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> 💙 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We made a lot of concessions and kept these protests on the main page for two months — more time than for any other developing story in the last couple of years — but we had to stop somewhere as it has become clear that they won't lead to any major changes. And frankly, the story will hardly be re-posted because of a march with no immediate effect like this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we simply follow the guidelines rather than make crystal ball predictions about what the protests will lead to. It's a currently up-to-date article about a currently in-the-news ongoing event. That's a pretty open-and-shut explanation of how it checks all the boxes that it's supposed to. Not every update needs to be notable enough for a blurb, it simply needs to be a substantial update; the criteria makes that clear. ITN/C isn't the place to discuss proposed changes to the guidelines, but if you and the rest of the oppose voters think this shouldn't be posted over non-guideline-based reasons, then Wikipedia talk:In the news would be the place to go. <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, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your point but that's not how ITN works. Notability is the principal criterion for inclusion no matter how good the updates and the key articles are. People are usually biased by quality only in cases of borderline notability and that's when we typically err on the side of inclusion. However, notice that people here also complain about article's quality, so I think you should easily get where the opposition comes from. And when the majority doesn't agree with you, so be it and move on from the discussion. Your replies to every single opposer and argumentation with rules-lawyering won't make your opinion more valuable and may only invite a new wave of opposers who initially didn't intend to vote on this nomination. That's something from my personal experience.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The merits of inclusion/exclusion have already been discussed in a discussion that was just a few days ago, so we needn't debate that again and again. My point was that this is a WP:SNOW close considering the just concluded discussion on its removal. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine by me, it appears that the general consensus is that this should not return to ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Bolivian general election

 * Oppose for now – I guess the Bolivian people still want socialism of the 21st century. Hmm... For ITN, we need a results section with at least some prose description of preliminary results. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all, he's looking to lose in the second tour of voting --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? 70.166.106.46 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd ignore those two previous posts. Both pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose  Only concludes the first round of voting, and this guy will almost certainly lose in the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a landslide. The second round is cancelled in such cases. Either of the possible conditions for victory has been met: a candidate is declared the winner if they receive more than 50% of the vote, or over 40% of the vote and are 10 percentage points ahead of their closest rival. Exit polls show 52% to 31%. Even if they slide below 50% on the final count that is still a more than 10% lead from the next opposition party. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for official results then. If they officially call it with more than 50% of votes in favour of that guy then I 'support' posting this, otherwise I believe we should wait for the results of the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait It seems all done but I don't truly trust the Bolivian exit polls. ETA: the Áñez "concession" means nothing since she dropped out ages ago, it's just her properly stepping down since there was no cessation of government from what I've seen. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – for clarity, RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and/or Wait I'm fine with waiting a little while longer for more reporting on this, but available sources (including the incumbent interim president) already confirmed that Luis Arce won it outright with a simple majority of the vote, meaning that he will be the president and there is not going to be a second round. <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> 💙 17:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and okay with Wait  This is a clearcut victory, baseless to suggest otherwise. Although considering who won not surprising there are those who would rather "hold off" the news. Albertaont (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like most countries that aren't the United States, votes aren't declared before they're counted and counting doesn't take weeks/months. Exit polls are treated as unofficial, not like accurate predictions. And since a 5 point shift - well within margin of error for some pollsters - would have taken it to a run-off, it would have been jumping the gun far too much to have posted earlier. That's why people wanted to wait while none of the candidates were conceding, and the only reason, it's disingenuous for you to insinuate otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait for official results. Candido (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when the official results come out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting now Not sure about Bolivia, but in my country official results can come out several weeks after clear results are known and already being acted on by newly elected governments. We should not wait that long. It will no longer be news then. 22:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Bolivian election last year, the results took less than 2 days. Sure, that didn't end well, but it's not a ballache of a system like in the US. Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait Despite the fact that Mesa conceded defeat we should wait until the official results come out. Also, this blurb is not appropriate. Bolivia is a presidential regime and not a parlamentarism one.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * U|SirEdimon - Do you have any idea how long it will take for official results to come out? I don't. Without knowing, there is really no point in waiting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * U|HiLo48 The results are expected for the end of this week. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * U|Alsoriano97 - So you say. Even if they are available then, this item will be stale by then. Delaying posting is insanity. Would this happen with a US election? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good, in the news and all but confirmed. Gotitbro (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Gotitbro. OptXSolo (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Results still not returned completely, but with only real opposition conceding, Arce has it. Added alt blurb that is more accurate to the situation. Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready We appear to be waiting for something whose timing we cannot predict with any certainty. This is in the news globally right now. The chances of any posting being incorrect are minuscule. Let's not wait until it's NOT in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Results are out. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Official results isn't out yet, but it seems that reasonably reliable counts have called a single round landslide and the loser have conceded. No reason to hold. Juxlos (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment as of now, with 54.41% for MAS (Arce), 29.34% for CC (Mesa) and 87.96% of votes counted (according to the official website), the mathematical possibility for a second round no longer exists because even if CC gets all the remaining votes, the difference will be more than 10% and MAS will have more than 40% of votes. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now around 20 hours this has been marked ready for... PotentPotables (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Juxlos and many others. Consensus is clear. No good reason not to post this now. Jusdafax (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting alt blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems inconsistent that we have two election-related news items where one specifies the candidate's party while the other does not. Added a potential alt blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold - Don't use alt blurb. This election will mark an end to the political crisis, so I assumed the crisis should be one of the main topic. Also, one major candidate still threatened not accepting the result, so I assume it should be posted after peace is back and one whole year of turmoil ends in Bolivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you revise the blurb to reflect the current reconciliation process in Bolivia? Thanks! --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Stephenson Boyd

 * Comment. Article looks clean and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above Gex4pls (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine, all paragraphs cited and image is pd. Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 03:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Needs attention) Northern Cyprus presidential election

 * P.S. I had started this as a non-ITNR, regular nomination, but the template above was changed to ITNR by GreatCaesarsGhost later. --GGT (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Reluctant to open the door to reporting the politics of entities that are not recognized, de jure, states. That would be a dubious precedent, as there are countless regionalisms around the world. Yes, I know we posted items on Catalonia a couple years ago, but that situation was dynamic and posed broader ramifications for Europe. – Sca (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This would not be opening the door,, as we have precedents, having previously posted 2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election and 2018 Northern Cypriot parliamentary election (not to mention elections in Taiwan or Kosovo), and we are yet to witness a deluge of regionalist politics on ITN. It is not true that there are countless regionalisms around the world comparable to this. Per the list of states with limited recognition, there are nine other states in a similar situation. Out of these partially recognised states, Northern Cyprus is the only one, besides Taiwan, to have been classified as "free" by Freedom House. And we still judge each election based on the circumstances, this one clearly has international ramifications - I don't know of many election campaigns recently that have sparked UN Security Council statements! --GGT (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because it was posted earlier does not mean it 'should' be now. Taiwan is not really comparable and is not dependent on another major country (Kosovo also has wider recognition and is not substantially dependent on other states, though I would've opposed that nom). This is more akin to posting about elections in Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh (which we haven't ever done AFAIK). I just don't see this being notable enough, there isn't a major leadership change and if anything the election only highlights Turkey's dominance over Northern Cyprus. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't, but the fact that it was posted earlier means that the precedent is already there and that we aren't setting it now. The initial argument that I was countering was that we'd be setting a precedent by posting this. This is a major change of leadership re. the longest-running diplomatic dispute in the west as well as the recent Eastern Mediterranean dispute. That Turkey has been able to reassert its dominance with the failure of the pro-reunification leader to be re-elected is newsworthy IMO. At this point, however, I will redirect users to the the Guardian article. That basically puts this into good perspective, and one can of course make differing conclusions about the significance based on that. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ITNR nor am I convinced by the nom of its "ramifications" per Sca's arguments out above. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not ITNR" is not a reason to oppose a nomination. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant was this is not usual election stuff (being an unrecognized state et all and hence different from the generally accepted election results on ITN), perhaps should've worded better. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support Turns out it was a sovereign state after all. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Actually this is ITN/R, because the criteria for elections covers "all states on the List of sovereign states". That list is divided into UN member states and other states, but the Northern Cyprus is certainly on the list in the latter section, so the above Opposes are not permissible. Also, as noted we posted it before and that precedent should be followed in any case, for a story which is featured in the mainstream western press too. There are a couple of cites needed, but after that it's good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Northern Cyprus is not a sovereign state and is only recognized as such by the country with troops there. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's on the list mentioned in the criteria, so either fight to get it removed from that, or change the rule here at ITN/R. But as of now, this is unambiguously covered, an opposes based on notability are not permitted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At one point disputed states were given their own section of the page IIRC. The list states that only a single country recognizes them as a state and the TRNC is not recognized by any international body. It's not me that needs to fight, it's you, providing sources that refer to this entity as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR states "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." That's what we are doing here. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided a link to the rules of ITN/R. It says in black and white that any state on the list is covered. Not only UN states, or states in the top half of the list. We defer to that list and the careful consideration that goes into it for validity,so we don't have to have pointless arguments like this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be disregarding the sentence from what you cite above. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "disputed states" link also includes Israel and China. Should we start discussing those "on their merits" too? Presumably the purpose of that clause is to cover cases like Crimea or the Donbass, which aren't on the sovereign States list. The fact is that Northern Cyprus functions as a sovereign state in all practical ways, and satisfies the "declarative theory of statehood", which is why it's included on our list of sovereign states. Sure, it lacks recognition but its election is just as impactful for people living there as those elsewhere. So even if you're right about it not being ITN/R, it's a notable story in its own right. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

By that sense, Sealand and Conch Republic (if they even do have elections) elections are also ITN-worthy and ITN/R because they declare themselves a sovereign state. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the determining factor would be whether they are on the said list, which they are not, but Northern Cyprus is. —GGT (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Israel and China are UN members and each recognized by more than one state. The TRNC is only recognized by the country that has troops there to protect it(or occupy it depending on your point of view). The disputed states listing does not say it only covers entities not on the sovereign states list.  The fact remains that no one except Turkey recognizes the TRNC as a state, unless you can produce reliable sources saying otherwise. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (re: Destroyeraa) The list of entities with limited recognition (currently 10, including entities such as Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Taiwan, Artsakh, Palestine, etc) excludes micronations and is decided through rigorous discussion, much like the List of sovereign states that Amakuru has linked to. I can assure you that you won't have to worry about us posting about the Principality of Sealand if we change the ITN/R rules to explicitly include entities at the list of states with limited recognition, or set a precedent that such entities can be included. <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> 💙 00:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - I believe we can discuss it on its own merits and ignore the conversation about whether or not Northern Cyprus is truly sovereign enough to be ITN/R; what we know is that it is a state that de facto does exist and has limited international recognition. Whether or not this nom is ITN/R seems to be debatable, so I won't focus on that, but - as 331dot said - just because the nom may not be ITN/R doesn't automatically mean it's not notable, either. Going off of precedent, this election seems to be no less notable than the last couple of Northern Cypriot elections we posted. The article's quality appears to be fine, as it's lengthy enough and well-sourced. <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> 💙 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A state that is recognized by only one other sets the bar far too low. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru. The TRNC is listed on the list of sovereign states and qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The line between a self-governing region and a separate country is blurred at best, but I think it needs to be recognized by more than just a single other country to count. And given that I don't think Northern Cyprus qualifies as a country, I also don't think its elections are notable enough for ITN. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have considered it a sovereign state for decades now, but you set your own standard as to what does and doesn't qualify as a country? There's a reason why there's a harsh criteria for inclusion over at List of sovereign states, and Northern Cyprus passes it. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please offer the reliable sources that you state consider an entity recognized by one state(with troops there) and not a member of any international body as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop canvassing, realize that the TRNC does participate in international organizations, and there are plenty of results but I figure this will spiral into a conversation about every source's legitimacy rather than how obvious it is that this currently qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC); Edited 05:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not canvassed anyone to this discussion for any purpose, either on or off Wiki. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Many of the comments here are general statements about the suitability of Northern Cyprus election for ITN. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for an oppose !vote, since the ITN rules clearly state that even for disputed states, each election should be considered on its own merits, which by implication allows posting elections in disputed states. It is certainly not the case that no political developments in unrecognised entities can be posted, and generalised statements miss the nuance here. We have clearly posted Northern Cyprus elections before, so any oppose !votes should be explaining why this election lacks significance on its own merits (an example is Gotitbro’s comment), and not just stating the obvious that the election took place in a disputed state. —GGT (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru. This is technically an ITN/R item or the description for disputed states is ambiguous at the very least, although mentioning Israel and China as examples makes a very strong argument in support. But even if it's not, this is sufficiently newsworthy (not to mention the precedent of posting).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing ambiguous about an entity recognized only by a country with troops there and not a member of any international body not being considered a sovereign state while Israel and the PRC, both recognized by a majority of states and members of international bodies, as sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FFS 331dot, you have been shown to be incorrect and yet you're still arguing about troops and international bodies and other irrelevances like that. This is verging on WP:IDHT territory now. The criteria for inclusion are crystal clear, they do not mention anything about troops, they simply say to follow the List of sovereign states. Which our list considers TRNC to be. If you want to change that, then you know what to do. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn, this looks a bit too harsh on further reading, although it is still frustrating that so many people are still ignoring the rules of ITN/R based on their own opinions, that's all I'll say for now.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting because I feel the same frustration as "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits" being disregarded, as clearly an entity recognized only by the country with troops there is a disputed state, which does not apply to entities recognized by a majority of sovereign states(Israel and the PRC). 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I said technically, not absolutely, and it's clear that those two bullets that you're re-iterating in the discussion above are not completely disjoint (the first should be re-worded to "All universally recognised states on the List of sovereign states" to make them disjoint but that's off-topic here). Vastly more important is that the black-and-white discussion on the ITN/R status has impact on other people's votes so that they come and oppose simply on the grounds that it's not an ITN/R item or it's a state recognised by only one other without paying attention that this state is de jure part of the European Union but de facto out of it and the election loss of the incumbent president supporting unionism to a person who supports a two-state solution is a major backstep in the process of solving the problem. The latter is not only an internal political matter but of the European Union as a whole because the division practically tailors the borders of the Schengen area.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose With all respect for Turkey. Our own article cites Council of Europe "that despite the fact that it has not been recognised de iure by any other State than Turkey, the TRNC exist de facto as an independent State exercising all branches of State power on its territory". The same can be said about many unrecognized breakaway states, like Republic of Artsakh (which is also on the List of sovereign states) or Republic of Donetsk that also exist as de facto independent states exercising all branches of state power. With that in mind, this is ultimately a WP:NPOV issue and I don't recall posting Northern Cyprus before. Brandmeistertalk  08:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We did post their last presidential election and parlimentary election. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was a mistake. Perhaps some amendment should be made to ITNR for cases like this or the Republic of Artsakh (the latter, I'm sure, will never be posted despite being currently on the List of sovereign states). Brandmeistertalk  08:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose If we are setting the bar as low as a country that is recognised by only one other, that is such a low bar that you are going to end up with all sorts of edge cases such as those mentioned above. Personal opinion, regardless of ITNR or previous postings. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This really is quite frustrating. ITNR clearly states, even with disputed states: “The results of general elections in [...] Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.” Note how the discussion should be about the merits of the results of the elections, NOT the state itself. That means that elections in partially recognised states like Northern Cyprus can be featured IF the community agrees on the election’s significance, so it’s the election’s significance that we should be debating, not some fuzzy sense of whether we’re “setting the bar too low” (whatever that slippery slope argument is meant to mean). The bar is already set. That is the playbook we have had up until now, and we have already posted two of these. That is what the guideline for this says and that is what I had in mind when I was working towards the nomination and arguing for the significance in my nominating statement. If the result of this discussion is no consensus due to arguments opposing it by the virtue of the election being in Northern Cyprus, rather than arguments relating to the election’s significance per se, then I suggest we edit ITNR per this precedent so that people in the future won’t actually be misled into bothering. I for one certainly won’t bother. —GGT (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I raised a suggestion recently on the talk page that if ITNR qualification was in doubt, we should treat the item as not qualifying. This was rejected, with the basic logic of ITNR: we're trying to avoid those discussions. This item is unquestionably ITNR, but clearly some wish that it would not be. It is on the list of sovereign states and not on the list of disputed states. I personally hate ITNR because it mandates that we cannot discuss the (plainly questionable) merits of something because of a prior (often VERY specious) consensus. But we can't toss it out whenever it doesn't suit our purposes.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a disputed state? I don't think you could get one more disputed than a state which the entire international community, bar one, considers to be part of another country but currently under illegal occupation ... Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no such assertion. My point is only that 1) this state is explicitly as on that qualifies under ITNR, and 2) consensus is we do not re-arbitrate ITNR consensus here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. The whole point of ITNR is to avoid these arguments. The "disputed states" clause at WP:ITN/R does actually cause confusion, because it links to List of states with limited recognition, which as well as Northern Cyprus also includes states which are almost universally recognised, such as China, South Korea and Israel. I think it would be useful to just remove the "disputed states" qualification altogether, because it doesn't add anything new. We are always free to discuss things on their merits anyway. And the third bullet point does not say that it supersedes the first bullet point, which says "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states". This is unambiguous, it doesn't qualify it as only the UN states, or only those with more than X% of countries recognising. Anyway, I've said my piece on this. It probably needs to be clarified with a discussion and clearer wording, once the dust settles on this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Beyond the fact that Northern Cyprus is not a widely recognized sovereign state, and is in effect occupied by the only country that does recognize it, I don't see where the election result portends a particularly significant change. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The president-elect is supportive of a two-state solution and he won the election in a race with the incumbent president who has unionist ideology. So, the result is a major backstep in the peace process to resolve the dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Despite the fact that Northern Cyprus isn't well recognized, a new president could affect the status of the area. Gex4pls (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Northern Cyprus isn't really a recognized country, so why even put it in there? OptXSolo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't envy whoever ends up sifting through the comments here to determine the consensus, but I would like to respectfully ask that the oppose !voters above mention more than just the fact that Northern Cyprus has limited recognition. That alone does not mean that it's not notable. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At least some (like me) are responding to the assertion this should be an ITNR nomination, and not a regular nomination, only. I take the latter view that ITNR makes it clear that the TRNC is not a sovereign state and should be discussed on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you are one of only a handful of editors to mention that not being ITN/R does not automatically mean it's not notable, though I also believe that this thread has been derailed by the debate over if it's sovereign or not, and determining the consensus would likely require the closer to manually discount several !votes based on their own judgment of whether or not they are congruent with ITN's notability guidelines. <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> 💙 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to give this an automatic ITN/R pass, but it seems a newsworthy enough story and the article quality is fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the main point that should be considered here really. Leaving aside the ITN/R dispute, the story has enough legs on its own merits anyway. It's in the news, the elected individual is the de facto leader of the territory in question, whatever the international legality of the situation, and it also has potential knock-on geopolitical effects in the region. It's worthy of posting on those grounds. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why has this been changed to ITNR? That is contentious at best and I don't see any consensus here of this being an ITNR nom, most people are considering it on its own merits and not its article quality. Gotitbro (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose with all respect to the Turkish Cypriots, but Northern Cyprus is a partially recognized non-UN country. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  09:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - It's ITNR, article quality is good to go.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FALSEHOOD, n. A truth to which the facts are loosely adjusted to an imperfect conformity. – Ambrose Bierce — Sca (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That this is ITNR is in dispute. ITNR states that "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". An entity recognized only by one country and supported militarily by that same country is clearly a "Disputed state and dependent territory". 331dot (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a sovereign state, so it qualifies. This is not the place to litigate the wording of ITN/R. That should be done on the talk page.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a sovereign state, it is clearly disputed. I am not litigating the wording of ITNR, it is very clear about this and it concerns me that this is being disregarded. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are exactly litigating the wording of ITN/R. The criteria give a list of states to follow, and we're following it. There seems to be consensus that the article has sufficient quality, so agree that this is ready and hopefully this can be posted soon. Then we can consider and discuss whether the ITN/R rules are fit for purpose, or need some amendment, at our leisure. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if whoever wrote the wording didn't realize that disputed states are included on List of sovereign states. This has to be cleared up, although the ITN talk page would be the proper place.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree it needs sorting out. We should lay out the various alternatives and !vote on them, then amend the wording so it's watertight either way. In the mean time, this one is stuck in limbo though. Many people think it's ITN/R, while many others don't. I also think the Oppose !votes are rather weak, even disregarding the ITN/R question, as they mostly just say "NC is not a state", without offering a rationale as to why its election is therefore unimportant. But then I'm biased, of course as I support the story's promotion. How do you resolve all that? smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per Pawnkingthree. Given the above discussion, I don't think this should be a quick "ITN/R + post", but at the same time, it shouldn't be a quick "not a sovreign state + oppose" either IMO. The article is better fleshed out than many that appear here at ITN/C; we have posted elections for this state previously; there are worthwhile geopolitical implications and these are described in the article.  Spencer T• C 18:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I do think this merits posting(just not as ITNR), as this man's election would seem to forestall the possibility of a settlement of the Cyprus issue. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been marked as ready for two days now. It would be nice to have a final decision before it goes stale. —GGT (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm involved and cannot post. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per reasons that explained by other editors. It's definitely significant.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ITN/R criteria are clearly spelled out, and elections in North Cyprus cannot meet them. Explicitly, "Disputed states [...] should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.." North Cyprus is on that list, and "discussed on their own merits" means exactly NOT ITN/R. There is precious little arguments in these votes on the notability or impact of this new election as such; rather we are supposed to believe that simply-worded guidelines are somehow mistaken, or to engage in whataboutism wrt other disputed states.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging - apologies for disturbing you, but as admins who have posted ITNs recently but haven't commented here, please could one of you assess this discussion and either post the story or close this thread? With recent supports I think it may have enough consensus to post on its own merits, ignoring the ITN/R issue, but obviously needs an uninvolved admin to assess. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did look earlier at posting this, but I honestly can't see a firm consensus at this point. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see one either. And this is not ITN/R: Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That bullet-point seemingly contradicts an earlier one that gives an explicit list of states to use, on which TRNC is included. Anyway, water under the bridge now. I'll probably initiate a request to clarify the wording in the next couple of days, but thanks Ritchie and Muboshgu for the assessment here, even though it's not the outcome I wanted to see! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the final statements. Obviously I do think that !votes that opposed this purely because the election took place in an unrecognised state should have been discounted as explained above. This comes just in time for me to be able to get this one on DYK, so I've just started a nom there. For future reference, ITNR definitely needs to be modified - I thought the election would have been assessed on its own merits and thus I argued for its significance, so people just going "oh we can't set the bar so low" has definitely been frustrating, so we might as well set the bar more definitively, or else advise against such !votes in the future. --GGT (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James A. Johnson (businessman)

 * Support Also a well referenced and complete article, and he is major power broker. (better put it on watchlist now) KittenKlub (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sid Hartman

 * Support The article is well referenced and comprehensive enough. KittenKlub (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Royal pardon for London Bridge civilian

 * Oppose Pardons are WP:MILL, The Ministry of Justice said the Queen was advised to grant this pardon (per the Guardian source above) means that this is the standard situation where the Queen acts on the advice of the government. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardons may be common as air for Trump's friends, but even if the government told the Queen to do it, she still did, the first invocation of such (controversial) authority since 1996. Not run of the mill by any stretch of the imagination. Kingsif (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Royal prerogative of mercy links to, giving an example of a pardon from 2001 (well, not for MURDER), and claiming that about six on average are granted special remission in a year. power~enwiki ( π , ν ) 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Oh, do you think that helps an oppose vote? Not in my eyes... Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. This isn't run of the mill, the first one since 1996(even if the Queen is only doing what she's told). It's also unusual for a murderer anywhere to be pardoned(in the US we would say the sentence was commuted) for actions in apprehending or stopping another murderer, or where the family of the victim does not object. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Duterte of the Philippines pardoned a murderer in September . Trump did in May . power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 07:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And were they a figurehead who is not supposed to intervene or actually elected to that theoretical mandate? Can you see the difference? This needs to be looked at within British judiciary context; if every nom relating to legal precedents were considered globally it is likely none would ever get posted as "not unique enough when compared to this thing that happened in some place with a completely different system and history". Kingsif (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a figurehead issue, it's the queen acting on the advice of the government like she does all the f***ing time!!! power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you can keep a level head about this... Kingsif (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to disagree with my claim this is on the advice of government, or not? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Were the examples you cite of murderers who help stop other murders or terrorists? The Queen does not pardon people all the time. A US president typically pardons a few dozen or maybe more in a term.(and can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes) 331dot (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I meant "give a reason that's not you apparently disliking the Queen to the point of expletives after three comments and we might be able to talk". It is on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who ranks above the government, and is an advisor to the Queen. And, as said, she still actually did it. The Queen doesn't intervene, especially to pardon murder, unless she chooses to. It's actually exercising her powers rather than just nodding at every elected PM to go ahead. Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. I gave two examples (from other countries) of murderers being pardoned this year.  I don't know or care if the details match up with this case; I suppose none of them were juggling while they did it either, but that detail wouldn't make a case ITN worthy.  And as I linked above, there were royal pardons in 2001, and that article claims they occur regularly for some cases (also presumably not murder). And if you fucking think that my use or non-use of fucking makes a fucking difference I will fucking say the word fucking as fucking much as I fucking want. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 07:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will block you from editing this page if you cannot be more civil. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean you'll let an uninvolved admin make that decision.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lord Chancellor is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. and The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet, hence, part of the government. This isn't Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II going rogue to grant mercy.  This is standard behavior of the UK government.  Any claims otherwise are foolish, and any claims of notability based on a claim of the royal prerogative being unusually invoked are factually incorrect.  This is my final reply on the topic; certain editors seem to have a strong opinion on this matter that isn't backed up by the reliable sources they cite, I will let other editors discuss this. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, in fact, your claims that are foolish. In your quotations from the Lord Chancellor article you seem to have artfully skipped that he is the highest-ranking among the Great Officers of State who are appointed regularly in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor is outranked only by the Lord High Steward, another Great Officer of State, who is appointed only for the day of coronations. He is not an elected member of the Cabinet, nor does he sit in either of the Houses of Parliament, hence, not part of the government. Not that it really matters because even if it was Boris who made the suggestion, and for the last time, the Queen does not regularly pardon murder - even the one in 1996 was for murder as part of foreign militia group actions during a time of pseudo-war by a man who acted as an informant then handed himself in after living free in the UK for years, someone you might say seems much more "pardonable". Kingsif (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: No stake in this argument, but I do want to point out that the current Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, is in fact a member of the House of Commons, and is the Secretary of State for Justice in the cabinet. He is decidedly part of the government, and the role of Lord Chancellor is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. 209.196.99.182 (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear I was pointing out that Power was misguided in claiming the position confers a role in government, and that it's moot anyway because why would that matter. Kingsif (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Certainly not significant and notable enough for the ITN. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you think that? Kingsif (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's not an event that has attracted the enough attention of international media and Wikipedia editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It just happened (3 hours), wait for other users and countries to notice before saying nobody's interested. Which isn't the only metric, by the way. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, limited significance even in the UK. Most European countries have some form of process of pardoning by the head of state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, limited press coverage. Even the Guardian did not put the story on their youtube channel, A normal pardon which as said above was on the advice of the government and not a unilateral decision. KittenKlub (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While of interest for law enforcement in the UK, don't see its wider significance even domestically. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just don't feel that it's that newsworthy for ITN. WaltCip- (talk)  12:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Parochial, lacking broad significance. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, but this is just a sidenote in an article which did not even make it into ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I reading this correctly: he's getting 10 months off a 17 year sentence? If so, this seems quite symbolic.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hyderabad floods

 * Support - Article looks good. Copy edit would be required Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb looks a bit weird, maybe remove the local currency or the damage costs altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone else supporting/opposing. C'mon people, look down here or else things'll get stale! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A major loss of life in one of the largest cities in the world, what more needs to be said? Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready? Don't want this to get stale. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Opposing on article length - would like some more information about the disaster (the article is definitely shorter than usual). The floods also don't seem to be covered by foreign press as much as the 2020 Visakhapatnam gas leak. The article also has a few grammar issues. Will Support if foreign coverage can be shown and if grammar issues are solved. 45.251.33.12 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Al jazeera has reported on it, but thats about it. It seems that many media outlets dont really care about a disaster far from home. However, that is no reason for not including it. The article should definetly be cleaned up though. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A reference for a key paragraph did not support the detail. Stephen 05:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I also expanded and added international sources, such as one from BBC. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , please can we add the picture as well? Ktin (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , was this missed out? Too late now. Ktin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I had to add the pic to the protection page, but wasn't able to check back before subsequent items were posted. My apologies,  Spencer T• C 03:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post Comment Whoops sorry I thought you posted it already SoloGaming (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Bush

 * Yup, all the albums are cited by AllMusic. Two are under the "Compilations" filter (i.e. Undo the Right and The Absolute Johnny Bush). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And the singles that weren't covered by AllMusic have now all been sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Perfect thanks. Can you give the article one end-to-end read for copy-edits, including perhaps removing the last line of the current lede and replacing it with some of his works or honors? I think this looks very close to being ready for homepage / RD. PS: I would selfishly hope that John Reid stays on the carousel for some more time before falling off. :) But, if this article is ready, I support it going onto homepage / RD. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I was coming over here to nominate this, the article looks good and well sourced, ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

European Rugby Champions Cup

 * Comment should the blurb point to the final article rather than the whole competition? JW 1961   Talk  21:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , good point. I wasn't quite sure, alt1 added. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the final would be better so I Support with alt blurb JW 1961   Talk  12:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs prose summary of final match.  Spencer T• C 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging, to see if this can be fixed before nomination goes stale  JW 1961   Talk  15:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , rugby is not my sport of expertise but I will add a prose summary later today. Hopefully someone that is more familiar with the sport (like Mikey) can give it a once-over and perhaps some copy-edits. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment needs more prose in the bottom half of the article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , and , a prose summary of the match has been added. I'm hoping that this is good to go so we can get it up before it is stale. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , and I have made adjustments to the summary mainly in cleaning up and mentioning of events other than scoring. However, I believe it should be further finalised before it should go up. User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk &#124; contribs) 09:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Ganja bombings

 * Weak support the article isn't stubby and is updated. Not ITN/R. Though the war itself if already posted in the ongoing section, attacks in the past week have killed 23 civilians. It is sad how many civilians get killed in these wars. Due to the high casualty count, I'm supporting. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You think Armenia'll legalize weed now? CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * complete nonsense. Why was the Shusha church attack or civilian hospital not posted? This is partisan nonsense 195.250.80.226 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose updates in an ongoing conflict is why this conflict is in ongoing. No need for a blurb unless you're gonna pull the OG item --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - We already have the NK conflict in 'Ongoing'. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We have the conflict in ongoing. We should not bump up into a blurb unless some other major escalation, such as open war being declared. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The two sides are technically at open war, though no side wants to declare it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The start of hostilities was already posted on ITN and the conflict is already there on ongoing. ITN is not news ticker, unless something major happens (as suggested by C&C above), this is not going to be posted. Gotitbro (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is no reason to list every single incident, the conflict is already in the ongoing events. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another of many brutal episodes in this ongoing conflict, which indeed belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons cited above. The "ongoing" listing already creates a high bar to inclusion and this appears to have had little strategic or political significance. Tragic, naturally. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose considering the conflict is some 20 days old with casualties in what appears to be the low to mid thousands, this is unfortunately just another day. Juxlos (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) New Zealand general election

 * Wait Support ALT blurb 2 until the result is confirmed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Update: Per discussion below, I'm happy to post now if it's unlikely we'll get much more news soon, as the "result" is fairly clear, but we should avoid saying she definitively has a majority if that's not actually certain yet. ALT blurb 2 looks good and is uncontroversial. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , 64 to 56 is a pretty clear majority of seats. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources say that's just a "projection" though. I'm not entirely sure of the system there, because in UK elections, once all votes are tallied there's no doubt remaining about majorities. We could qualify it with "a likely majority" or similar, if people want to run with that line. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if the result is confirmed. The current count is 81% and still counted. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Judith Collins has [conceded defeat]. I agree with Jayron that the altblurb is better. Chrisclear (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb is better as it reflects the electoral system in New Zealand better. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb. New Zealanders do not elect their PM. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - as of 11:32 UTC, it is still not certain whether Labour will have a majority or not. So in principle, ALTblurb is fine, but we should still wait until it is confirmed exactly what has happened. "Conceding defeat" does not constitute that. CHeers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Genuine question - what do you mean by "confirmed"? The votes will take several weeks to count, as they do for elections in many countries around the world. Precedent and common sense would suggest that the appropriate time to post this item would be now, when the item is in the news, and not when 100% of the votes have been counted. Chrisclear (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the main point is that the question of whether or not they'd secured a majority seemed to be unanswered. Even now, the news is saying "Labour was expected to win 64 of the 120 seats in parliament, and National, 35". Is that question really not going to be answered for several weeks? If so, then I'd be happy to post now, but we need to nuance the blurb with words to the effect that it's not certain if a majority has been obtained or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Special votes only change the seat counts by, maybe, one seat, so this majority will definitely remain intact. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's entirely possible it could take weeks to count the votes. In which case something like altblurb2 might be a safer choice. Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant results for political trends. The difference in votes is clear enough, even if the results have not been officially confirmed.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – All major Eng.-lang. RS sites report Labour (Adern) as "landslide"  winner. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Landslide" is a journalese term, which doesn't really mean that much. We are an encyclopedia, and we must be precise. As noted above, I'm not in principle averse to posting this now, but we need to get the wording right. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a commonly used metaphorical term in the English language. But I wasn't trying to get it inserted into a blurb, just noting that all the sites use it as a descriptive term. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * fair enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're "not in principle adverse to posting this now", then would you be able to change your earlier "wait" comment to "support"? Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Although as I said, let's not say she has a majority if that's not certain yet. Cheers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support And it was a substantial win. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it is pretty much confirmed they have won at this point. However, as said above I'd go with the Altblurb as New-Zealanders were voting for the Labour Party not her directly. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To veer off-topic, I do wonder just how many of the votes cast for Labour were really just to keep Ardern as PM, given NZ's relative lack of divisional party politics. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It should probably be mentioned it's the biggest landslide in NZ, and the first time under their current system a party will lead without a coalition. Kingsif (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now – The #Results section prose is written in future tense and does not indicate anything being basically a done deal. It does not indicate that Ardern is the accepted winner and that the opposition has given a concession speech. It can be updated later with final results, but should indicate some highlights from the preliminary results. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph and updated the tense. The separate results article needs work, but the election article is the one to be blurbed. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 1. At least this time we don't need discussions about whether 'plurality' is a word in NZ English (spoiler: it is). <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt 1. Unbolded Ardern's article, as there is just a 1-sentence update under the 2020 elections section.  Spencer T• C 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Maschler

 * Support. Looks good, although it would be nice to have more on the Booker Prize itself. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. The article needs to be fleshed out further. Will give it a good scrub around lunchtime. Edits are done. Article looks good. Ktin (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Big improvement! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edits are done per above comments. Before . Current . Article looks good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was quick. Thanks ! RIP Mr Maschler. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support well-sourced article. I made a few minor improvements mostly to the categorization and infobox. TJMSmith (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Benguiat

 * Support Fine and interesting nom. Good work. Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edits are done! Good to go to homepage / RD. If someone has a Friday night to kill, start here. RIP Mr. Benguiat. Ktin (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, and it's nice to see something completely different. KittenKlub (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ana Paula Scheffer

 * Oppose Tragic young death and would like to see this on RD but the article is too short. Needs expansions and a few English sources about the death would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way too short; a sketch of her life with no details. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment stale. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Thai protests

 * Support Seems fine enough, though this seems more fitting for ongoing. Also, maybe change the blurb for something like "protests escalate in thailand, leading officials to declare a state of emergency". Just a suggestion, the water cannon thing seems horrible, but a bit tame for itn standards. Gex4pls (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The prevailing view seems to be that government declared the state of emergency in order to escalate use of force against the protesters, so that doesn't quite work, but maybe others will have better suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified the original blurb to say use of force instead of escalation, which should be clearer. ---Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest the protest should be identified as "unarmed" or "peaceful." And maybe include the fact that the disperse came only after two hour of protest. This will show how unusual the event is. --Horus (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and in news but a better blurb is needed here. The significance stems from the protests not the use of water canons and explain what the protests are about in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The tone and POV of the current blurb needs adjustment. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs a copyedit for grammar, the whole thing, it cannot be featured like this. The update is buried in "Severe State of emergency" and it looks like the main event was 4 days ago. Usual POV garbage like "received as a tyrannical death threat". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's paraphrased from the source. Feel free to correct that. --Horus (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 Article is in very good shape, a few minor wording changes here and there not withstanding, it is well referenced and generally well written. The blurb was a bit problematic, but the article looked good, so I updated it with a more neutrally worded blurb.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Large-scale protests continue. (No blurb pref.) – Sca (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 the first blurb is just plain silly. Support altblurb 2, as that blurb is much more well written. Protests are large-scale and are worthy for ITN. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Explanation for alt2 The state of emergency was enforced in the country since March. To say it was declared a few days ago is factually incorrect. But feel free to edit "severe state of emergency" as it was only found in Thai law. --Horus (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per Horus, but do not wikilink Thai per current standard. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - per Horus, as it gives differentiation vs. existing state of emergency. <font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#6F0000">Jr8825 • <font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#4682B4">Talk  11:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Thai govt. acts to suppress dissemination of information about the continuing protests. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Needs to be added soon, it will become stale in two days. Gex4pls (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2.  Spencer T• C 15:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Antonio Ángel Algora Hernando

 * Comment. Article is currently a stub (with exactly two sentences). Has to be expanded to at-least a start class article before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a stub. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment stale. Still a stub. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Belarusian protests

 * Support UNDUE tag, multiple sourcing issues noted in the infobox, far too granular coverage for an encyclopedia, antagonistic edit history. I wouldn't send it to AfD, but neither would I want to keep it on the Main Page.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal Hardly any media attention, and a 100 women on Wednesday and a handicapped rally yesterday can hardly be qualified as massive protest. KittenKlub (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support about time. The level of the protests has died down, and a few minor protests do not count as a major protest. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Protests are still ongoing, and should stay per the rationale from previous weeks. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Orbitalbuzzsaw. We won't remove the protest on mainpage until they remove Lukashenko. They are stil going currently --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how ongoing works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how ongoing works. They might not even remove Lukashenko, and if they do, it'll take months. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're right.
 * Slight Support Protests have entered a bit of a stalemate, and news coverage has certainly died down (save for talk of the stalemate and Apple Censorship) though i say give it a few days and we'll see what happens. Gex4pls (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal - per nom, who makes a strong case. I did a web search on my own and I'm not seeing any substantial news coverage of major new protests. Time to remove this from Ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Not really in the news any more. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Scant coverage lately, but given the country's politiscape this topic could return anytime. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The protests have been on the main page longer than even the George Floyd protests. The protests have really died down and I don’t see Lukashenko leaving office anytime soon. This has already been nominated twice for deletion, and I think that it’s time has passed. The Image Editor (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal the "protests" became a Sunday afternoon outing months ago, long past time to come down --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Unless this sees a sudden resurgence, it is not ongoing/in the news. The Thai protests are but no one seems to have nominated that. Gotitbro (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed from Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 15:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-removal oppose per the re-escalation of the protests on 18 October. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nguyễn Văn Man

 * Oppose Stub, too short for RD. And are there any English-language sources for his death. Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanded to include his military career. Not well-known in English-speaking countries. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there are English language Vietnamese newspapers/sources as well? Which should uave covered this. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated with English sources. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support seems ok enough, though I'd rather his military career info be moved from the intro to the career section, but thats not too big of a problem. Gex4pls (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone knowledgeable about the topic take a pass at a round of thorough copy-edits on this article? Ktin (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Went through and copyedited. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to be posted. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jole Santelli

 * Oppose Somewhat short for RD, can be expanded from itwiki. English-language sources about her death would be good as well. Gotitbro (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with the above comment. In addition, this needs to be expanded to meet the 'Spencer Test'. What did the subject do as a politician? Any major policies advanced? i.e. over and above just a listing of positions. Ktin (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Article is still a resume-like list of her posts, and also has an outstanding citation-needed tag. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bhanu Athaiya

 * Comment Would support when filmography is sourced, otherwise mostly fine. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Source has been updated. Seems like all the movies are covered by that reference. If you spot any missing -- feel free to add the tag. But, on a cursory glance -- seems sourced. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks well written and well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good and ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - the list of people she's worked with in the lead section isn't cited. I suppose if we click through all the films we might find those names, but better to have it explicit. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that tag. This is done. I also took this chance to make a small expansion on the lede. This should be good now. Ktin (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. With thanks to Ktin for resolving the issues. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) President of Kyrgyzstan resigns
According to the basic law, the speaker is acting prez. Protests are still going on today calling for dissolution of parliament and his resignation though.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Perhaps post it "amidst protests" with the protest link below.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This would be ITNR once we know who the successor will be. Maybe it should be anyway since someone has to take over. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per ITNR. The blurb can amended if successor is confirmed. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per 331dot. Tensa Februari (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The update consists of only one sentence and, given the detailed information in the preceding two paragraphs, it will benefit from adding one or two more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support But maybe include his successor in the blurb, when the details come out. Gex4pls (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We probably won't know the name of his successor until a presidential election takes place and the name of the acting president is not really newsworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case it is noteworthy enough on it's own i guess. Gex4pls (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 *  Wait  – for a bit more info in the update. Thin. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle (ITNR) but wait until a little more information is available and added to the relevant articles before posting. <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> 💙 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the president is a powerless figure head his resignation is meaningless. The Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan has the authority and whose recent replacement is what we should have blurbed if not for the baffling rules around "Head of State" here --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an accurate description of how the government of Kyrgyzstan works. They did place more power into the parliament in 2010, but the President is still above the Prime Minister, just not by as much as he was before the 2010 constitutional referendum. It's totally inaccurate to say that he's a powerless figure. He has most of the same authorities as the US president: he the final say over if legislation gets signed into law, he has the commander in chief power, he controls foreign policy, etc. He even appoints the Prime Minister. <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> 💙 17:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth II has all those same powers, yet everyone acknowledges she's a figurehead in the UK, with the PM having the real power. What's the difference? Of course, there's no doubt that if the Queen were to abdicate it would get posted, but that is because of constitutional monarchy being a rule for life situation. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's quite a large difference: the Queen has de jure but not de facto power, the president has de jure and de facto power. It's widely accepted that the Queen is a seemingly apolitical symbolic figurehead who would never de facto exercise her de jure powers. This is not true of the President of Kyrgyzstan, who is directly elected every six years and actually seeks to fulfill their campaign promises and move the country in a certain direction according to their political party's ideology. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter anyway, the old PM quit too! Gex4pls (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Queen abdicated, that would be news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support While I would gravitate towards LaserLegs if it was a death or change of head of state but the fact that he resigned due to election protests is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The PM has resigned now, a troika of events events along with the protests (thanks ), this is the perfect nom. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but have it be combined with the protests as a double-bold blurb. Move the protest article out of ongoing for now - both are sufficient for MP. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current PM has now declared himself acting president, so I've updated the blurb. Brandmeistertalk  07:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very fluid situation, which will probably require the blurb to be changed regularly. It has already been changed (twice?) since the nomination was made. I think Ongoing is still the right place for this, but if we encounter the ITNR situation then it should go up immediately.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is rare for items to go straight to Ongoing, something you seem to have proposed twice recently. Usually if it's significant enough to merit Ongoing, then we'd blurb it first and then move it into the Ongoing section once it rolls off the main page. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Now that an interim PM, Sadyr Japarov, has grasped the reins. Prefer Alt1.– Sca (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 15:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's Sadyr Japarov. Change the spelling. Other than that, post-posting support. 1779Days (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Akkitham

 * Support Looks good would like to see more about his literary work in the lead than just a list of awards though. Gotitbro (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Lede has been updated. Looks good now. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one? Else, I think this is ready to go. Ktin (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Everything is there, but the article needs a clean-up. I'd suggest: (i) the authography needs to be weeded out to include significant works only and (ii) the italic formatting on the quotations should be removed. In addition, if he really was referred to simply as "Akkitham" the article should probably be moved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I see that fixed the italics formatting. Regarding bibliography, I would suggest that we leave all of it there, since they are all well cited, and any attempts to trim that down would be subjective. Re: Akkitham vs Akkitham Achuthan Namboothri, I was the one who suggested trimming this to Akkhitham if that creates whitespace on the ITNRD carousel (if that opens up space for an additional RD). Looking at the coverage, it does appear that a significant amount of coverage is for his full name i.e. Akkitham Achuthan Namboothiri. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I do share Brigade Piron's concern about the length of the bibliography - having all those entries doesn't really help the reader understand the subject. But it's good enough for ITN I'd say, so posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rhonda Fleming

 * Support. Gave a quick look. Seems well referenced and clean. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. However,, we might have a problem in that the ITNRD carousel has already moved on to October 15, and soon will be on 16. Ktin (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Her death was announced only on Oct. 17. So, I don't know exactly how it works.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagging to help check and for appropriate actions. Ktin (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as article is in decent shape, but the possibility of this being stale could nullify my support. Gex4pls (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment sadly, stale. Two places still need citations. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 22:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Dean

 * Support The article is big enough and well referenced. It's a shame that the only picture is his shirt without the player inside, but images are often hard to get. KittenKlub (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Reid

 * Support Yes everything seems sourced and ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All sourcing in place, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Kretzmer

 * Support, looks good to me, just please move (or copy) the Aznavour ref to the body, to not make that one decisive bit look unsourced ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  support - Everything has been taken care of now. A good article that is ready to be posted. Good job . ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that! In this edit that I tagged as "minor", I somehow removed the refs for that paragraph.  They've now been restored. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: End SARS protests

 * Support for Blurb Interesting and definitely ITN worthy. Don't have time to look over the article but if that's all good I support This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The section heading and article title made me think this was about COVID :/. Not sure about the nom but 10 people getting killed does lend credence to the significance of the protests though the article lead is singularly focused on the online/social media aspect of it, that needs some work. Some references above in the media about the protests/killings would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article (including the lead) also makes it seem that the social media campaign only emerged this October while it has been going for some time as far back as 2018. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend changing the name to "Nigerian Protests" and you could detail about what is being protested in the blurb. Gex4pls (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unsee on major RS sites (except maybe Al Jazeera). Please keep in mind WP:NOR. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has 100 sources, of which majority must be reliable. What WP:NOR are you smoking? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Must" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for Blurb Seen a few articles, though less in US probably because of the elections. Its definitely important.Albertaont (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb not crazy about the proseline, but significance is certainly there. Although I understand the potential for confusion, we should stick with End SARS.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem if a blurb is posted but definitely confusing if directly linking in Ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – This 3,500-word list of protests in Nigeria seems essentially parochial in import, lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Hong Kong protests were "parochial in import, lacking wider significance", and we posted those This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sca knows the rules, he just doesn't care. This constant refrain of his has long since become disruptive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AGF, NPA! – Sca (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's enough all of you. Let's be civil, comment on the article not the user, and not shout. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Explain how "parochial in import" is not opposing "an item because the event is only relating to a single country."  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that sca was trying to point out the large number of protests currently ITN, which is certainly odd, but not a reason for disqualification, especially with the recent deaths. Gex4pls (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. This certainly is ITN-worthy. The article could benefit from being transformed into better prose but is quite well sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . I haven't seen a reliable source for the number of deaths so haven't included this in the blurb yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Straight to Ongoing I have been looking over this nomination and related news for a couple of days. The blurb as written doesn't convey the situation well, and I can't think of a better one that would. Briefly, the blurb implies that SARS is waiting to be disbanded (it already is), that the protests are about SARS (rather than police brutality or socio-economic reason, per the protestors during the last days), and that "protests" are alone are notable (they are not; the deaths were the motivating factor for nom and posting). The blurb as written is misleading, but a simple link to the broader description of events would fix that.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with IP-user's preceding post – more appropriate to Ongoing. Not spot news, overall. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Conchata Ferrell

 * Comment Needs a few refs in the body of the article (tagged) and entire filmography and awards sections are uncited. Ping if fixed and I will support  JW 1961   Talk  20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * changing to Support, good job on turning around this article, looks ready for RD now JW 1961   Talk  19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose For now per above. Gotitbro (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Fixed the citations in the body and the awards section; Fixed half of the filmography section. Might require someone else to give it one more shot. I think this is getting there. DONE! All citations completed. Ktin (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks fine and ready to go. KittenKlub (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Tropical Storm Linfa and Nangka

 * Wait If it's so significant, why isn't there a main article for the storm? Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in the draft stage right now. Here is the draft.  I didn't feel comfortable to nominate a draft in the "Article" section.  Once it is moved to article space, I will change article nominated to the main article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was apparently submitted to Afc. Should a vote happen to bypass the Afc and move it to Article space as the draft currently would probably pass Afc.  More information will also be added as the storm is still on going, so the Afc process will just stall it (And will be weird for the ITN nomination)?  Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The CNN source says that the deaths are caused by monsoonal flooding, not just Nangka or Linfa. 40 deaths is a lot of people dead. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On Tuesday absent from most Eng.-lang RS sites, i.e. not in the news as we know it. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Still a disaster, absent from English news but present in Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, Lao, and possibly Japanese news. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Neighboring countries are affected as well perhaps that too should be mentioned in the blurb (if the damage there is significant as well). Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * changed to Southeast Asia. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Enhanced flooding" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Would an article of the monsoonal floods be better for the target article than having two tropical cyclones articles?  I Need Support  😷 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to only the two TCs, since news say that the TCs are different from the monsoonal flooding. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose literally the same as a normal tropical storm. Same as why Hurricane Delta failed. On 2nd thought, realized this is worse then normal. Still, Hurricane Earl of 2016 didn't make the news and killed 94 people.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many storms, including Cyclone Ianos, Hurricane Leslie, and more made ITN even though it killed less. This now killed 53 people, which is a lot and why this should be posted. Saying Earl wasn't posted so this wasn't posted is WP:POINT. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. However, I don't want to add a currently active storm. However, i will be ok with Linfa. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support large loss of life from a weather event, definitely a support. Though, based on the comments above, the articles may not be up to ITN standards. Gex4pls (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability due to the loss of life, no strong opinions on the article quality. At this time, the biggest quality issue seems to be that the target articles are a little thin, but they're not stubs and they appear to be well-sourced. <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> 💙 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlton Chapman

 * Support. RIP. Article looks clean. Start class biography. I will work on the citations for a bit. Should be ready soon. Didn't require too many updates. Would be nice to add information of his early life outside of his football career. But, with or without that, the article meets expectations for homepage / RD and should be good to go. Ktin (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks ready to go. Everything sourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD passable though info on early/personal life and education would be good as well. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacinda Barclay

 *  Support Cleaned up, definitely RD ready.Gex4pls (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What stuff is where it shouldn't be? Her death is under the personal life section.  Stephen 23:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Has been updated and is well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Gibson

 * Support Nice small article. Well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but what is there is well referenced and page is suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roberta McCain

 * Support This looks a well sourced, suitable article for RD JW 1961   Talk  20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Her notability seems to be almost entirely premised on her being the wife/mother/grandmother of notable figures. BD2412  T 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , a 2014 AfD closed as keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying she's not notable, I just wonder whether she's RD notable. We have tons of state legislature members and one-appearance Olympians who don't rate RD inclusion. BD2412  T 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no difference between "notable" and "RD notable". Any living being with a Wiki article is eligible for RD, including state legislators and one-appearance Olympians. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a factor in RD nominations. To paraphrase what Muboshgu already said, if an individual is notable enough that they have a Wikipedia article at all, they are notable enough for RD — they don't even necessarily need to be a human (e.g. Grumpy cat was posted). The only factor is the quality of the article, unless there's good reason to believe that the article ought to be deleted due to a lack of notability. <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> 💙 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I wish the article focused more on her own actions. I expanded the lead and a section to try to show her role. TJMSmith (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I looked over the article when the news broke and didn't see any barriers for an RD posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with TJMSmith, article doesn't say much about her. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, her longevity and high profile during the 2008 US Presidential election add to her notability, if it matters. Ryan Reeder (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well-sourced, no glaring issues. <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> 💙 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The article is fine and a very interesting life. Gotitbro (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Kyrgyzstan protests

 * Comment – Does seem to have slipped below the radar lately, but might be wise to wait a bit longer. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be the case fore large protests such as Belarus, but with this one - no updates since October 10. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Two days is too short a time frame to consider making changes to Ongoing status. If by Wednesday or so there's still nothing new, then we can reconsider.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The government literally surrendered to the protesters. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm...no, they didn't.Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Removal, add to ITN there appears to be a change of power, as this is looking more like a coup than protests. The new prime minister, as well as the old one being arrested should easily be newsworthy, though we should probably still wait a bit for further development. Gex4pls (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal – Still going on.  – Sca (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per Sca's sources. <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> 💙 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal I don't know why I'm bothering, but quoting directly from the guidelines "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information" and "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". This makes 's links above interesting but worthless for this discussion since the actual article we have featured in the box hasn't been updated in 3 days and the older updates which are present are terrible one-liners. If the guidelines matter at all, if this discussion is anything other than a vote count, then this turd of an article will come down out of the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Said guidelines do not specify how long an article can go without being updated for it to fail the "regularly updated" criteria, but removing an item from ongoing for going 2 days is nonsensical. This proposal to remove it is itself going to last longer than that. We would've been removing and re-adding the Hong Kong protests two or three times a week if that was the line we were using to decide than an article is no longer up to date. We're already aware that no shortage of new news is available (which is itself surprising considering that Kyrgystan isn't exactly a place that English language outlets tend to talk about), so it's more than possible for any editor to add more information to the article right now, in which case this entire discussion would be irrelevant, and every support vote would be moot. Wait a little longer than 2 days next time. I shouldn't need to say this, but if it was a "turd of an article" it wouldn't have been added in the first place due to quality issues, of which there are none. <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> 💙 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want this article to stay, then you may want to update the article with Sca's links. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If no one else will then I'll do it today, but bear in mind that the protests themselves and the article documenting them is only one week old. The subject itself hasn't even existed long enough for it to make any sense to decry how outdated the article supposedly is. The protests started eight days ago, the article was updated a couple of days ago, and we're already discussing the timeliness? After I add new material to the article, please kindly consider self-closing the thread, and please don't start another one two or three days later. These sorts of hasty removal nominations unnecessarily take up people's time and should be considered disruptive; this is why I personally believe that editors shouldn't propose removing content unless they personally have attempted to fix it, and this goes for everything from ongoing removal nominations to deletion nominations. In other words, if you diagnose the problem, please try to solve it before burdening someone else with it. <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> 💙 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing about that. I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix the article. I don't give a damn about Kyrgyzstan. I couldn't even find Kyrgyzstan on a map until I looked it up. I do care about featuring poor quality or outdated content on the "in the news section". You're written more words at this removal nom than have been added to the target article in the last week. If you believe the article should remain then you should update it per the guidelines. Three days without an update, and the previous four days with poor quality one-liner updates do not satisfy the update or quality requirements and the article in it's present state should not be featured at ITN. As for closing, no, that's absurd, this nom will expire off in 6 days when we can try again. If you've a problem with the guidelines, head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, and if you have a problem with my conduct, head on over to WP:ANI where I'd be happy to discuss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTREQUIRED might not be the policy you wanted to link to there, because it reads "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.", which is exactly why I linked to WP:SOFIXIT - because far too often, including right now, editors have demanded that I do what they won't. You don't need to tell me that I should update it after I've already started making changes to the article, but it's editors like you that are quick to use unnecessarily harsh tones in situations like this that really don't need to be heated that have driven me away from this website. <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> 💙 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm focused on improving the project by not featuring poor quality articles, and you're demanding that others fix it. I'm glad we agree, and thanks for contributing nothing else to this discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Economics

 * Support let’s get Nobel week over with This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, per nominator, both articles need work. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Robert Wilson is fixable, however Paul Milgrom needs a lot of trimming from knowledgeable editors. KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, article has several yellow tags. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on concept, oppose on quality, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just left a note at WP:ECONOMICS about these articles. Perhaps someone will have the time to do an overhaul. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment An image of Wilson should definitely be there when this is posted. Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cmt these articles are far more developed that the typical Nobel winners and this seems to be held against them because they don't have citations to all the details that have been added a longer time ago. It's not like the existing information is controversial, and we all know if these two were NOT white males they would get immediate attention. Strange to see this kind of bias in ITN to the point they will likely not end up being posted at all. 2601:602:9200:1310:EC42:9B44:464D:125D (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol bias in ITN didn't get this item posted? We posted 5 other Nobel items with "white males" this past year, and have posted the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winners in previous years (including multiple white males) because those articles were improved to meet the article quality standard at ITN. Referencing biographies is a chronic issue for many nominated items here, including Nobels as well as RD items, and this is definitely not anything new.  Spencer T• C 23:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think Robert B. Wilson article should be ready relatively easily. Edited Wilson's article and seems good. If someone can partner on the Paul Milgrom article, we can give it a shot. Ktin (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted with only the Wilson article bolded.  Spencer T• C 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 NBA Finals

 * Support, looks good. I'm also talking about the game too. Albertaont (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Recap of clinching game has been added.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: article looks like it's in good shape.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Long live the Finals MVP Howard the Duck (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And GOAT.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Change the caption to "MVP and GOAT LeBron James..." Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Thomas Atcitty

 * Looks well sourced and just about detailed enough &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Despite a legislative career that went over a decade, there is only one sentence about what Atcitty did in that role.  Spencer T• C 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I found he was an unimportant member in a safe district that never faced real opposition. His main service was just voting on bills in the Consumer and Public Affairs committee. However, I did add another sentence about his serve as co-chairman of the Democratic caucus. Jon698 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on the article now? Jon698 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from issues with this likely being stale now, the article honestly doesn't have enough depth. This tends to be a frequent issue with many local politician articles nominated to RD. I'll strike my weak oppose but I don't think the article meets minimum standards. Some searching shows that there's more information available about his role at Navajo Community College that was apparently pretty controversial and that there were student protests; he also testified before Congress as president during his role as president there.  Spencer T• C 21:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Morgan

 * Slight Support Probably needs to be trimmed and sourced a bit, but seems ok enough. Gex4pls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A couple of more refs are needed, but it's coming along fine. The article looks fine now KittenKlub (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - significant figure in baseball. Limited referencing re broadcasting career has been improved. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is decent. Marking as Ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work on this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Margaret Nolan

 * Oppose Needs more sources. Isn't it a bit late? The oldest RDs have deaths dated to October 8. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, her death was only reported on the 11th; when there is clear media delay in the death's reporting like this, we go on when the media first covered it. --M asem (t) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the sourcing issues still need to be resolved. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - whatever the reason for the delay in reporting, it is my concern that it is too late now. The filmography is also entirely unsourced. Nevertheless, RIP Ms. Nolan. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the article is ready for posting. Bingo! Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the filmography remains unsourced, it should be ok after that is fixed JW 1961   Talk  20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when article is ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Filmography now referenced; looks ready to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the three citations added to the section generally only cover a small fraction of the credits claimed on the page. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And her website is not the best independent source for her credits. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tom Kennedy (television host)

 * Oppose again, sourcing issues. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, I don't think IMDB is an acceptable source either. Gex4pls (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many citations needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Adil Khan

 * Comment I think the prominent boxed Twitter quote makes this page look awkward, suggest its removal as there are surely some more reliable sources that could be added in the normal fashion. JW 1961   Talk  22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to support, looks good for RD now JW 1961   Talk  06:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Simple article but looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – In the lead, "reportedly seen as an influential scholar" seems a bit iffy for Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage related to scholarly activities/publications; more detail is needed.  Spencer T• C 15:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think this article is good to go despite a lower-than-usual depth of coverage of scholarly activities or publications. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: the sources are calling him Maulana not Muhammad. Is that a middle name or something? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've already added sources where he is named with his complete, full and common name. Maulana Adil Khan would be equivalent to saying Mufti Taqi Usmani, which is actually Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I created the article and am looking for each and every offline source to expand it more. I was myself noticing that the twitter box is looking awkward which has been removed now. Good coverage as of now. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * but I'm going to get in trouble for this, because officially this is now stale &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) French Open

 * Comment. Article is coming along good. Nice job. Should be ready to support once the Sunday event is completed. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Was about to nominate this myself, though an hour too late. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, you can be "conominator" &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagging in advance to be prepared to create a composite image once the winner is known :) Ktin (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I glanced earlier to see the state of the men's finale, but I have no idea if we know who the two finalists are, as if we know that now I can prep both images. --M asem (t) 00:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The finalists are Djokovic and Nadal.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have images ready to go, pending winner of mens. Which order do we usually announced, mens then womens or reverse? --M asem (t) 01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ready for your upload. Nadal just won the finals. Ktin (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to image prot after I finish this edit. --M asem (t) 16:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as with the US Open weeks ago, and the article is overall in good shape. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't the bolded article be the Women's Single one? Also the 2020 article (currently bolded one) reads in present tense which appears incorrect to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The bolded article should be the French Open, since now both Men and Women results are out.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb - the articles are in good shape and listing this meets the ITN purpose of helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news: Iga Świątek is #3 on Topviews and Rafael Nadal is #41 for 10/10 . I'd suggest Iga Świątek/Rafael Nadal be the bolded article(s) because those seem to be the pages most readers are looking for. Lev!vich 00:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Commentaire - marquage comme prêt. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no narrative whatsoever on the men's singles and a sentence on the women's. Stephen 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will be adding prose to all events tomorrow. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Insufficient prose for men's and women's singles sections.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are updated now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very scant prose about the highlighted events in the target articles.  I know there are spinoff articles, but we need a better synopsis in the main article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, , and , prose summaries have been added for men's and women's singles. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And the other events? Stephen 10:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've struck my above oppose. I'm ambivalent if events not in the blurb should have at least a sentence of sourced prose or not.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now. Thanks! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficient prose, looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Women's doubles, wheelchair events and boys/girls sections all lack prose. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added a summary of the men's wheelchair, will try to do more later if nobody else gets the chance! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment –, , , sourced prose has been added to all events. Hopefully this should be good to go. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vijay

 * Support Barebones but RD passable. Though I would like to see more on early life (like education) and his career move (shift to Bangalore) and film industry choice (he was Telugu but mostly made Kannada films). His exact birth date and themes and influences in films would be another point of addition. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article satisfactory for RD JW 1961   Talk  19:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Dwyer

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Article looks close to ready for homepage / RD.Ktin (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This one looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Delta

 * Provisional Support It looks like this is only going to get worse. Let's hold off for a day or two, but definitely ITN material especially as regards Louisiana getting hit twice w/ hurricanes of late This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – extent of impact is unclear. Hundreds of thousands without power doesn't make it notable enough for ITN. fwiw, the alt blurbs are less than ideal or too sensationalistic.~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Both landfalls of the hurricane were sensationalized: Cancún for being a tourist destination and Louisiana for being already hit by Hurricane Laura in August. Relative to expected impacts of borderline major hurricanes, Delta's effects have been tame. That's not to say it hasn't been destructive, but it's less destructive than would otherwise be expected and below ITN notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support thresh Now Although we are focused on Louisiana, I do want to point out that it first hit Mexico, which was also damaged pretty severely damaged. Additionally, we now know that areas are flooded and Lake Charles took another severe hit. That alone makes it worthwhile to add it my opinion.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now, per Cyclonebiskit, and due to apparent absence of news sources. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, but inclined to support - I wouldn't be opposed to posting right now just based on the damage that Delta is already confirmed to have caused, but more information will inevitably become available in the near future which would allow us to make a more informed decision when assessing the notability. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Once body count and damages are tallied, a hurricane hitting the US is always a major event, especially in a season like this, and in an area already battered by Laura.(though this one seemed a bit overhyped; here in New Orleans we only had a gusty day.) Gex4pls (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Events always seem more substantially when they happen to you or near you, but we need to maintain an objective POV here. A hurricane hitting the US is NOT always a major event.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, and I probably should not have included any POV in my original comment, but it's still a major event, not just in the US, but also in the Yucatan, where it made landfall in an area already affected by Gamma a few days prior. Gex4pls (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Not widely covered at this point. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose An insignificant storm in the scheme of things. This storm hasnt had an exceptionally bad impact from what has been portrayed 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 16:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Deaths are still counting and already at 5+, it intensified beyond belief towards the Yucatan, and was a major hurricane even at Louisiana landfall. To say it's "insignificant" disgusts me (ik ik opinions ew). ~ AC5230  talk  02:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Hurricane Delta is this year's Hurricane Wilma. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilma was the most powerful hurricane on record in the Atlantic and caused catastrophic damage in Mexico and Florida...Delta was a Category 4 that weakened before both landfall and has, as of writing this, indirectly killed two people. The rate of intensification is meteorologically interesting, but calling Delta 2020’s Wilma is an incredibly misleading comparison. (Message from Cyclonebiskit on my phone, don’t want to log in when I’m not on my computer. I’ll verify this when I’m home). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its over exaggerated calling this storm Wilma, though, the storm has now killed four. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Thankfully ended up being a nothingburger. WaltCip- (talk)  21:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that much of a nothing burger, though less impact than expected. Also, as expected, deaths get announced after the storm. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support storm done at least a couple hundred million bucks. Category 2. Better then Gamma. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a side note, 4 died. I say we wait 48 hours. Laura's deaths took weeks to pile in. Maria's took months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Deaths now up to 5. More reports should be coming in.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep us posted. – Sca (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Four indirect deaths and one direct does not a notable storm make. I stand by my oppose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Average hurricane killing an average number of people while causing an average amount of damage. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold off, mainly per deaths and damage still need to be counted in the US. But I also do agree with  that its damage in Mexico can be reported on as of yet. ~  AC5230  talk  02:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait For a more clearer and beyond "normal" report of the damage from the hurricane to appear. Gotitbro (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmie Lee Solomon

 * Support Looks good, well sourced article JW 1961   Talk  10:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks clean and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Whitey Ford

 * Strong Support Very famous Baseball player. He still holds MLB records. He is this list of all time career wins. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significant amounts of the article are unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just going to be blunt here. If Monica Roberts is notable enough for the recent death section (See previous days) then a MLB legend must be notable.  IMO, if he doesn't get accepted I will go nuts... Elijahandskip (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Kite hasn't even talked about whether Ford is famous or not, but the article, as is the case, is missing many sources. This isn't about remarkableness, but about the quality of the article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The needed quality improvements are in progress and I will ping when the article is ready to be reviewed in earnest. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Thirty-nine references. Not sure how this is viewed as coming up short. A MLB icon that goes well beyond HoF. CoatCheck (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now. The article is fairly well-sourced, but the "Legacy" section, with the "Career Statistics" and "World Series and All-Star Games" subsections are mostly unsourced.  When that's fixed, the article should be good to go. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think it's fully sourced now. Please re-review. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Good job.NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, good job on the updates JW 1961   Talk  21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Nice work with the improvements.  Spencer T• C 21:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , lol. I was coming here to type 'Ready'. Looks good. Might have to move to October 8. Ktin (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

 * Support as all the other Nobel Prizes were in ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ITNR items do not require support on the merits, just an evaluation of article quality and the blurb. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support just do it. A bit surprised that they gave it to the UN... ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - How does that work? Do they just drape the medal around the logo outside the Rome HQ?--WaltCip- (talk)  13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they need a longer ribbon than if they give it to a person. The ribbon in 2012 was especially long. On a more serious note, the target article should probably be the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, which needs some work first. --Tone 13:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, or in that we still want the recipient to be the target article if not jointly, as with all the other Nobels this week. As Pawnkingthree points out, expanding why the committee gave it the award and adding some additional commentary would help, its not far off. --M asem (t) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose on quality issues only: the "WFP Innovation Accelerator" is not sourced (its all to program links and not third party), and the Criticism section is rather awkwardly structured. Weak as these are easily fixed and not show stoppers but should be fixed before posting. --M asem  (t) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A one-line update is not really sufficient; needs some more detail.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support having a UN organization awarded as Noble prize is unexpected. But maybe all of them nomination (along with Physics) needs to be grouped together in the ITN. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem. Obviously worth including but the quality issues are significant. I'd go further and say that the Criticism section is abysmal at present. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I just took a hatchet to the WP:PROMO/WP:UNDUE content in this article, which hopefully makes it passable enough to get on the main page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get this over with and we can get back to posting actual news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You just said in the Van Halen nom below that this is a "more important" story. So what's your angle? Are you just trying to rile people up?--WaltCip- (talk)  16:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3 of the 4 stories in ITN are Nobel Prize-related. This seems excessive, but the rules are the rules so we can get back to it. Besides, the NPP isn't even in the news, not on the front page of the BBC (and the Whitmer kidnapping is, which we decided not to post). 16:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs)


 * Support in principle, should target to the Programme to be consistent with the other prize blurbs. Keep the current image of Glück, though, a logo doesn't seem appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now targets the program. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was thinking of this as well -- but then, realized that I recall most other UN logos but not the WFP logo, perhaps because I had not seen it much (and hence, had not subconsciously registered it). So, not a bad idea if we want to add the logo as a picture. Perfectly alright to not include as well. Ktin (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I don't believe a logo is entirely unprecedented. I still believe it's suboptimal, but will leave that for the posting admin to decide. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I ended up leaving Louise Glück's photo there. I'm not a fan of either the logo or WFP's headquarters, but if pressed I'd have gone with the logo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Of all the Nobel prizes, this is the one that seems like a no brainer. I’ve been kinda iffy on whether Nobel season is ITN, but this seems like the most important one. The Image Editor (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobel Prizes/"season" is WP:ITN/R, i.e., articles only need to be of main page quality as their notability is already established. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we have the logo back on, the current picture/caption makes it seem as if the director was also a co-recipient. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it's just the same as when we show the captain of a sports team. Stephen 04:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree the building or logo is better than a picture of the ED. It was a team effort; a pic of one man is too much great man-ing. Lev!vich 04:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two are comparable and this all the more relevant since Noble Peace Prizes when given to organizations usually also include its leader. Gotitbro (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that article has some unreferenced content and might not be ready for homepage as of yet. Ktin (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ghazanchetsots Cathedral

 * Comment - I, honestly, don't think this nom will have many supports, because the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is already on the "Ongoing" section.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose fits into the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, which is already in ongoing. Also, you should probably change "severely destroyed" to something eles. Gex4pls (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in the ongoing section. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, main conflict has already been posted and is currently in ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close NPOV concern as we don't see equal coverage giving to destroyed mosques from Armenian shelling as well, as mentioned in main article. Albertaont (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Mohammad-Reza Shajarian

 * Oppose for now. Article is missing several refs and has several cn tags.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --93.117.189.33 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Several paragraphs and sections are, still, unsourced.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, chiefly for . Although the CN tags have been fixed, there is still a fair amount of unsourced content - especially in the "Political career" section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about now? 93.117.189.33 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you find any references for Mohammad-Reza Shajarian? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some sources. 93.117.189.33 (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one more CN tag in the "political career" section. Otherwise, I think it's reasonably ok for posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Monica Roberts

 * Oppose. Article is stubby and we don’t even know her birthdate. The notability is pretty debatable here. The Image Editor (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has been updated with birth date. Page also includes 3827 B of readable prose, far above the standards for "stub". Morgan695 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is sourced and is C class according to ORES. TJMSmith (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is the consensus on these scenarios? Moving the article to October 5 will significantly reduce the window of opportunity to get onto the RD carousel. The last RD currently is October 5. So, this might have to go to RD now / asap. Just a quick look, the article seems clean. Ktin (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I’m still not 100% on board with putting this on the main page, but the article is slightly better than I initially thought, so I won’t oppose the nomination. The Image Editor (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support The work she has done for the Black Transgender community is unparalleled. Before the mainstream media, even before the LGBTQ mainstream media reported on the murders of Black Transgender Women, she covered it. She is extremely notable for the LGBTQ community and is a Civil Rights champion who should not be ignored. Her life's work was that Black Transgender Women not be ignored in death; we at Wikipedia should do the very least and recognize her contributions by mentioning her for RD. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. Should be ready. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot
Elijahandskip (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothingburger --212.74.201.241 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if expanded to a reasonable article, this was stopped before it actually happened. It might be different if it was a federal-level person, but even then, a failed kidnapping or the like is really not notable for ITN. --M asem (t) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a stretch to call this a coup attempt, the FBI stopped it before they could advance the coup. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t know how this didn’t cause an edit conflict with the entree above. (Maybe close this as there is no blurb or anything really with this and do voting on one above? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Or Not...As I typed that comment out, the more detailed one got closed....Guess we are voting on this.....In that case, OPPOSE as there is NO blurb and NO sources.Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Still oppose even though details from first were brought down.Elijahandskip (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing this nomination? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1) it's a tiny stub 2) they failed 3) they failed big time. KittenKlub (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the event itself is noteworthy, based on the sourced content in the stub. Also, the stub can be greatly expanded. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article can be expanded, however the coup cannot be expanded any more. They didn't even get close to Governor Whitmer. KittenKlub (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is notable even though the plot foiled and it's a state-level instead of a plot against the federal government and looks like major local news. However a lot of news media has published an article about it. Like in the US a coup or even a coup plot is in most Western countries rare. Even though it's still local it's rare to see one, which makes it notable in mine view. I also don't think the article's title is the right name for the incident. Like most people already addressed, it's still a plot but I don't know if we can change the title to "Michigan coup plot attempt"? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been renamed. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AGF and all, but this is why we get accused of thinking this is US-pedia. This is such a small story it shouldn't even get an article, let alone be on ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think arrests of people who had planned to kidnap and execute a governor merits an article, but I agree with the rest of your statement. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ram Vilas Paswan

 * Support A longstanding MP and minister should deserve its own space in the mainpage. Note to, it might be helpful to link to news articles outside India to see the coverage of this news. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Has some referencing gaps.  Spencer T• C 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will get to it tonight. Unless someone gets to it prior. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Done.
 * Support. The above edits are done. Article looks good from a references / citations standpoint. Ktin (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important figure in Indian politics, a ten term parliamentarian, held multiple ministries in the central government. Outside india sources have been added,referencing improved. PratyushSinha101 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing:Indonesia omnibus bill protests

 * Support It is a big thing occurring and definitely deserves a seat at the Main Page.  Gerald WL  15:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for either main page or ongoing, protests seem important. Gex4pls (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Juxlos has already stated his opposition here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as protests seem violent (at least more violent that George Floyd or Belarus). Will also support ongoing. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank Luis for that. Luis clearly have some balls to get out and record the demonstrations (and not get injured). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I got stuck in a traffic jam that time, so I thought Why not? Sadly I only have 15 holy seconds... I stopped recording as it went more violent. Should've recorded it throughout while running, argh stupid me.  Gerald WL  10:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – RS coverage, beyond the region, of three days of protests reports 1,000s of demonstrators in multiple locations met with tear gas and water cannon, no fatalities. – Sca (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 6 police wounded. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Is this not the same as February protests? We don't put every George Floyd protest resurgence every time someone is additionally shot or killed. 1,000s of demonstrators in multiple locations met with tear gas and water cannons seem like what I see on CNN and BBC for US every day. Albertaont (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhhh...no. This is the main protest. The february was just like a skirmish and nothing compared to this one. The February demonstration was only limited in Jakarta, while the October demonstration was nationwide. And I can't found any instance of demonstration in February. There's almost no mention of the February demonstration, while the October demonstration was relayed back to back in Indonesian television. The small skirmish protests expanded and peaked after the enactment of the bill, and the February protests wasn't put into the ITN. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I could confidently say that there were little to no protests in February. Surely, before the enactment of the law, people would resort to peaceful advocacy and audiency. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral Ok, you convinced me. I'm neutral now, maybe the February protests can be split, since its just a few lines and have it as an intro. Albertaont (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I had already opposed earlier - I would just note the current state of the article's grammar. Juxlos (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it might be helpful to restate your opinion as to why you oppose for clearer rationale. Do you oppose the article because of the grammar? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll go and do a copyedit to comply with Canadian English.  Gerald WL  16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , how about a compromise to put it in the ongoing? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still quite unconfident about the coverage level of the protests. Admittedly, international news is being eclipsed by a few other big jolts so this doesn't seem to be close to headline. Juxlos (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your concerns, I've crosscheck it with the criteria at the In_the_news:
 * The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?) The articles discussing about the event are long and go into great detail. For example check on the sources at the news sources in the upper template.
 * The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?) All major news sources have a different reporting about the story. For example check on the sources at the news sources in the upper template.
 * The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?) Very frequent, check the frequency for CNA, Reuters, Antara News (even the government is reporting about the demos frequently)
 * The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?). Varied news outlets, from domestic neutral about omnibus law (independent domestic news sources such as kompas etc) to pro-omnibus law (government owned such as Antara), to international news sources (mentioned on the sources at the news sources in the upper template)


 * Comment Only sustained major protests which have been going on for at least sometime get ITN coverage. This is still too early for that. Should wait and see if the protests continue, these are mostly limited to Jakarta and seem to have mostly been dispersed by government forces. Gotitbro (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note - protests are quite widespread across not-Jakarta: Surabaya, Medan, Bandung and Makassar (the main secondary cities) have seen some too, though smaller in scale. Juxlos (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Check out 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests. The protests are also limited to their capital.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Update I have changed my nom to ongoing instead. Pinging those who have commented here: Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Protests have died down, as the spike is on 8 October. However the news is still reporting on it. Not sure if it would fit ongoing or a seat in the bulleted list; either choices I'll support it. It could've been more interesting if it's nominated on 6 and quickly reserved.  Gerald WL  12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what does the "ready" mean? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, haven't read the page header. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unmarked ready. We don't quite have consensus here yet. Also, my understanding is that items should be blurbed first, and later, if they are still ongoing, then the ongoing section can be considered. Correct me if I'm wrong &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I alert the people in the WP:ID, would it be considered canvassing? How do I attract more people to express their opinion about this?Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 22:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have notified the Indonesian Wikiproject regarding this matter. I just can't risk this for a stale (it should be a fail/success). Feel free to trout or block me of suspected canvassing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly no bad actions have been done by you. It's a good decision actually that you attract people from WPID. I'm sure you must be lelah akan menunggu.  Gerald WL  12:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are quite noisy about canvassing. There's enough amount of blocks caused by canvassing here. So I would voluntarily get one (it'll count as self-imposed block) rather than being blocked forcefully by the admins. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How many more consensus do we need? Have notify people everywhere but no one seems to respond. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Silence can also mean that a lot of editors do not feel that this is ITN-qualified, and yet is not confident enough to directly oppose it. Juxlos (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Juxlos and anybody who doesn't comment. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry this seems to have become stale. I recognise that the article is receiving fresh updates every day but I don't think this is featuring in international press anymore. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Martin, it's the inevitable. Please close this nomination as stale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

 * Support The article is in good shape. KittenKlub (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Might as well get Nobel Prize season out of our system Gex4pls (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Great article that is well sourced. I enjoy seeing these impressive academics featured on the homepage. TJMSmith (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All the cns have now been addressed, mostly by (thanks!). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready to go. I looked for any newer free images (she looks fine in her elder years) but can't find anything sadly, but have put the one from '77 in image protection. --M asem (t) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use an image from >40 years ago, we should probably say that in the caption. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, hence why I noted its from '77 here. Sadly, while she had gotten a medal of honor from Pres. Obama, I can't find a .gov based image of her, and the only .gov based images are all third-party credits (not PD-gov works). --M asem (t) 13:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Came here wondering why it wasn't there already. I was initially perplexed as to why the image was in the public domain, since it is relatively recent, but seems like the licensing checks out. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get Nobel week over with. Eager to see who gets the peace prize. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A more recent picture of her would be nice. Gotitbro (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly would, but we don't have any others &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I did a search on flickr and google images but came up nothing, even nothing with a firm clear PD out of the US .gov area either. --M asem (t) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Two world records in athletics

 * Support both articles fairly well sourced and look ok for main page  JW 1961   Talk  12:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both articles are fully sourced and ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The achievement seems big enough to justify a blurb, but it's a shame that Gidey's article is all WP:PROSELINE. The updates are pretty minimal but good enough as I suppose there isn't much more to say. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as explained by the editors above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there anyway to weave the event into the blurb? Two records broken out of the blue with no well-known event is odd (but it is legit, not questioning that). The event appears to be specifically crafted to allow athletes to try to break WRs. --M asem (t) 13:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I didn't support when we posted Cheptegei's 5000m record in August, and I don't support these either. I enjoy athletics/track and field, I just don't think incremental improvements to distance world records are that newsworthy.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In this point in athletics history, when we have reached almost the extent of human capability, increases to world records are going to be incremental and small. It's inevitable. Crushing a record a'la Bob Beamon is going to be extraordinarily rare.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. Two new world records set at the same competition is clearly newsworthy. Also, both results are remarkable because of the relatively large margins compared to the previous world records.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Gidey's article isn't great but its sufficient. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Single sentence updates aren't sufficient. What I would consider minimum standards is the update in Cheptegei's article about is 5K WR earlier this year.  Spencer T• C 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Bios look fine now, the main article as explained above can’t be puffed up beyond one-liners. Gotitbro (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spencer that a one sentence update is not sufficient. A bit more detail is needed please. Any reactions? A summary of the race? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Pennington

 * Support looks ok for RD, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks fine to me as a short RD. Interesting to note that he's a Ramblin' Man, kind of reminds me of a Wikipedia editor I've seen around here before. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mario Molina

 * Support. Streamlined sections and did a round of copy edits. Well-referenced article. Meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Someone has added a 'move' tag on the page. But, I don't think that should have an impact on homepage readiness. I will be awake for an hour for any edits. RIP. Ktin (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in good condition. The move tag is a shame though. KittenKlub (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the article and removed the ugly tag &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good job on updating, now a nice little article, looks ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's an amusing little coincidence how the 1995 Nobel Chemistry Prize winner dies the same day as the 2020 ones are announced. - Poydoo can talk and edit 13:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Delta

 * Oppose, per WP:CRYSTAL. The imposition of a state of emergency is far from ITN-worthy in its own right. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the alt blurb. Main blurb doesn’t mention the state of emergency.  Also ongoing events don’t have the blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still not (yet) remotely worthy of ITN. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't recall a hurricane ever being posted as ongoing. We generally need to wait for the effects. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, since the Mexican President just announced that no deaths occurred during the storm. I suggest that you withdraw from this nom, and then re-nominate it once it hits to United States (Louisiana can't bear another major hurricane, it's still struggling with Laura). ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait for more impacts to be announced. In addition, it's going to hit Louisiana as a even stronger hurricane (see Hurricane Laura). Changed from ongoing to blurb. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait (Nominator) is voting wait with a blurb change once it has hit the United States. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh. If there's a vote that screams "US BIAZ!!!", it's this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Golden Dawn verdict
-- Sorry if I don't edit in the correct way, please do it for me. Although I don't agree with this point, I should correct the facts, they actually have 1 EMP who is found guilty today, even if he dissociated himself from the party recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foivos87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Parochial. Party has 0 MPs in either the Hellenic Parliament or European Parliament. At any rate, the target section does not support the label of Neo-Nazi in the blurb. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to C&C's concerns, the target article has cite tags and the update is not substantial enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Parochial, but so are many things we post here This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because Golden Dawn elected two members in the current European Parliament in 2019 (even if they were both later kicked out of or left the party), and as recently as 2015, they finished 3rd in the Greek elections. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's like the Libertarian or Green party being labeled as a criminal organization. Still, it's local politics, who knows what the Golden Dawn even is outside of Greece? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More like if UKIP were. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wacko fringe politix. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability The arguments against the notability could all equally well apply to UKIP, and I would have considered UKIP being declared a criminal organization sufficiently notable to post. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb, and changing my vote to full Support per TompaDompa This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the altblurb better EdwardLane (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if quality is good enough. It’s hard to call it fringe when they were the third largest group in the Greek parliament for four years. Prefer the alt blurb. I’m on mobile so I can’t really comment on the article quality.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They're fringe now, though, and they've always been extremists, from what I've seen. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: article is marked as B-class quality, which seems about right. There are 2-3 inline maintenance tags but nothing major. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * Support - at first glance I see nothing stopping a posting of this Prize. Also historic win for two women.BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree that the articles look ready for homepage. Tagging to see if a composite image can be attempted which includes both winners. Also, agree with nom that genome editing can be included in the blurb. The CRISPR gene editing article might require some effort in referencing. Ktin (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone beat me to the punch, but I see no issue with the proposed composite image, and I've added it to the image protection queue. --M asem (t) 13:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Articles are impressive, especially Doudna's. Looks ready to go. I agree we should get CRISPR gene editing into the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – The articles look good at a glance. Both licenses at File:Emmanuelle Charpentier.jpg and File:Professor Jennifer Doudna ForMemRS.jpg are solid. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Both articles on the laureates are good to go and surprising indepth. I would only suggest giving Penrose's picture a bit more time before swapping pictures. --M asem (t) 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - suggest changes to WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I gave credit / thanks to for the nomination on your behalf as that might have been inadvertently missed post posting. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Folker Bohnet

 * Looks good. Wish we could post it! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. Oldest RD is October 7. Wish we could’ve posted this earlier.
 * I explained that the obituary wasn't there earlier, and that it would need ignoring a rule. I said so three days ago. This process is disappointing at times. I will nominate him for DYK, but that means 500 readers instead of 5000. He made people laugh, and deserves to be remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Feuerstein

 * Support I see the article has improved since yesterday. Nice small article. KittenKlub (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clever humor and wonderful nonsense. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Nash

 * Oppose for now. I came here to nominate it, but the article has few missing refs. They are easy to fix. Due to his fame I expect it to be fixed soon.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * added refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * could you have another look, please? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It's nearly there but a lot of the discography section still needs referencing. Will change to support if/when some knowledgeable editor can fix this  JW 1961   Talk  07:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * added refs for the discography section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support, thanks for the ping and updating the article, looks good JW 1961   Talk  16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose discography looks like it still needs some refs Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which parts are missing refs? I want to change my vote to "support", but I want to be sure that the article is ready. I checked it and I could find any missing refs.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a source for the Adult Contemporary, Cashbox, or Canadian chart positions, even at AllMusic. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added refs for those charts. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Eddie Van Halen

 * Support A couple of refs and a little copy editing is needed, however I assume that the article will be in good shape soon. Eddie Van Halen is definitely ITN material. KittenKlub (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support There is on CN as I read it now, and I would REALLY like to see that Other Work proseline killed quickly in favor of real prose (it sticks out badly). And to nip this in the bud, Oppose blurb - perhaps a symbol of the 80s for a lot of people around my age group but not the type of influential musician as someone like Bowie or Prince - his career was too closely tied with the band itself and not so much any direct solo work. --M asem (t) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it was basically his band. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Other work section needs lots of work, and theres a citation needed tag in Early Life. Has merits for a blurb, but I'm on the fence. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I disagree with the Billie Eilish doesn’t know what Van Halen is so they can’t be relevent route. Every news alert I got called him a guitar hero and legend even if VH peaked 40 years ago. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - We did not post the blurb of Chris Cornell, who would be about the same stature. Agreed with the above that he needs to be sui generis influential a'la Bowie or Prince.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - One of the top handful of guitarists of all time. I understand if this just gets an RD listing, but he was hugely influential. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but a blurb is only for those whose death and/or funeral could be a stand-alone article. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD at the moment based on quality; oppose blurb - his field is solo guitarist and, while a legend, I wouldn't put him in the top X. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article can use a couple of tweaks, but he was definitely ITN RD notable at the least. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to a blurb; he was prominent enough for The New York Times to send out an email alert about his death, much like the aforementioned Bowie and Prince. oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose RD – a couple orange tags and citations needed. Didn't see anyone nominate for a blurb in the first place so I won't !vote on that. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, a substantial innovator in his field. Leaning oppose on a blurb, though. BD2412  T 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Terraformed rock and roll and took guitar musicianship to places the world had never seen. CoatCheck (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, once the orange tag is taken care of JW 1961   Talk  20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb I don't think we'd blurb Gene Simmons, and this is about the same level or slightly lower. Still orange-tagged, too. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb per Bongwarrior. Arguably "transformative" in his field. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support' - but please change "Dutch American" to "Dutch–American". --IWI (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD the article was cleaned up very well - thank you to those who did it. A very decent article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – support RD – Guess I missed being 'transformatized' by Van Halen. – Sca (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not Thatcher or Mandela level of global influence. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maintenance (e.g., citation needed) tags have been resolved and issues with the "Other work" section have been fixed. TribunalMan (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Not quite seeing a blurb here, though I'd hardly call it a crime if there was. Teemu08 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Great guitarist, influential but not Prince or Bowie. P-K3 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral blurb Not Prince or Bowie in fame, but easily a household name and near the top as far as influence and skill. Article is decent. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral on a blurb, but I would like to stress that - to my knowledge at least - the standard we typically use is whether an individual was at the top of their respective field, not whether they changed the world as much as Nelson Mandela. In my experience, the "Thatcher Mandela rule" hasn't really applied at ITN for the last several years, so it would be best if supporters of said standard do more than just invoke the names of Mandela and Thatcher to explain why they oppose. <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> 💙 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we're not basing it off of Margaret Thatcher's guitar skill? In seriousness, I've more often seen Prince and Bowie for musical artists, Thatcher and Mandela for political figures and Fisher (bitterly, typically) and Williams for actors. There is of course the "Thatcher/Mandela every time" faction, but fewer in number. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Inspired a generation to play guitar well, not to sing and trouble audiences with the nature of his game. Prince and Bowie were no Van Halen, that was their whole point, the reverse is equally true. Hard rock might likely have perished in the '80s the way pop was going under those two. 142.51.200.1 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – This is the price we pay for raising the bar so high. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've marked it as ready. Whether or not there is consensus for a blurb, it is ready to post to RD. -- Calidum  00:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb Not sure if he meets the threshold for a blurb, I have seen very few musicians get one in general. Definitely support a listing on RD; Article looks good. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - does not meet fairly high blurb threshold. Neutralitytalk 02:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD – discussion for blurb can remain open but consensus appears to be leaning against. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Despite his solo on Michael Jackson's "Beat It", non-rock fans more familiar with his band than him.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support for blurb I appreciate 70s and 80s rock music is something of a niche topic, but even those completely unfamiliar with his work will recognise the name and the unique guitar style. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for blurb Not necessarily against it, but we have more important stores (Nobel Prizes, etc.) to post and the RD is fine This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics

 * Ghez's article is short but has just one cn to address. Genzel is missing a lot of references for awards etc. Penrose's article is much longer but has long passages with no references so will be the hardest to fix. I think we can post once Ghez is ready with just that article bolded, then bold the others as/when they're ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong suppport: no justification needed.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We even have a nice FP pic for this. Added to nom. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that black hole (M87*) is not related to their work. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked for a free image of Ghez with no luck but made up a compoosite image for Penrose and Genzel. --M asem (t) 14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's going to look pretty bad if we show images of the two men but not the woman... Better not to have an image at all. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I recognize that issue, but again, there's simply no apparent free images of Ghez. That said, we can always just show Penrose (who has half the prize here) and of which there's more than plenty to pull from. --M asem (t) 14:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Masem's "just show Penrose" suggestion per his lifelong prominence. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What about File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg? It has been in her article for a while. Brandmeistertalk  17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Something's odd: I go to the source that image claims, which is an NSF page (ok so far), here but it says there "Credit: Courtesy of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation via Wikimedia Commons" and the image is linked to a 2014 article  which implies we had an image here before that NSF used, but I don't see any signs of that image. So something's very odd here, and I'd not want to use it unless I knew the original source for sure. --M asem  (t) 17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like that image originally came from here. Copyright info there is broadly CC-BY-NC-ND, but it specifically carves out an exception for media organizations to use its media, including photos, under CC-BY. jSarek (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a weird license, which I don't think works for us because that means it doesn't apply to redistributors of our content that don't meet their definition of "media". I am confirming over at Commons to make sure if this is a problem. We are in no rush but if this is usable, I will composite the three shots to one. --M asem (t) 19:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons has confirmed this is not a good enough license for us to use as "Free" because its conditional. --M asem (t) 13:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose obviously based on poor quality BLPs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per consistency (the Nobel Prizes usually blurbed). Since yesterday's is still not posted, maybe combine two at a time, with a separate blurb for the fifth (the Peace Prize). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have never combined the individual Nobels. --M asem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would rather put them up separately, just trying to find middle ground. Lots of recent 'citation needed' tags added which don't bode well for this nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per TRM, if you want to bold the recipients, then they have to be decent BLP articles. Currently many are unsourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM, article quality is not up to main page readiness. If someone cleans up the referencing, I'd be good with posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support also, in part, because we have a history of being bad at representing women who get Nobel prizes. Also +1 to Modest's comment of not representing the men if there is not a picture of Ghez. Sadads (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not only has it important coverage, but it also means the fourth woman to have been awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No time to review the articles at the moment, but we really should not feature images of the two men if the woman who won cannot also be featured. This would be the case at the best of times, but is especially the case post Donna Strickland. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for Commons experts to confirm if a "free" image of Ghey is really free, at which point I will montage the 3 of them; otherwise, the proposed solution is to stick with Penrose (by far, the most famous of the three of them). See above for discussion, but this is absolutely on point and correct we should not just feature the two men. --M asem (t) 22:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked over of the several deletion pages and the original OTRS ticket. This is a NO, not free for use on the Main Page.
 * I suggest using a single photo at a time to avoid the obvious concerns. We cannot be blamed for not having a photo of Ghez, but we can be blame for creating a composite with her missing. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've presently replaced the two-man image with just a Penrose (that is at image protection now). --M asem (t) 01:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Coming in quite late here. Other than the image that is following up on, what is pending here? Anything that I (or others in the group here) can help with? Ktin (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article Roger Penrose needs a lot of work. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Gave it a good go! 4 tags remain, which are really at a paragraph level. If someone can take a pass at these, I think we should be close to ready! Alrightie folks! All  tags are now removed. I think the article looks good to go to the homepage. If there are any other edits needed, I will be online for an hour before calling it a night. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All three articles are good enough now. Kudos to Ktin for his efforts on Penrose. KittenKlub (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work, posting. Get ready for chemistry today. --Tone 07:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks! It will be good to see if gets an update at commons for that composite three member image. If that comes in good -- it would be worthwhile to add the composite image. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks! It will be good to see if gets an update at commons for that composite three member image. If that comes in good -- it would be worthwhile to add the composite image. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Najeeb Tarakai

 * Support The article is well sourced. The subject's death has been mentioned in sources like Reuters. Abishe (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced JW 1961   Talk  08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This article is well sourced and well written. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you all.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests

 * Oppose for now. Let's wait to see how this develops in the next few days. The figures on the number of protesters so far don't point to any notability (the number of injured is yet high but unreferenced) and the article is merely a stub.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: need to add a reference to the elections. A blurb like, The Central Election Commission of Kyrgyzstan annuls the results of the recent parliamentary election, following protests in the capital, Bishkek. Sheila1988 (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Did we post the election? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support with blurb change as the protests seem to be a major situation. One of the recent events was a fire that injured 590 people.  Also this situation has caused multiple governors in Kyrgyzstan to resign.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment check Portal:Current events for October 5-6 to see some of the notable parts of this. Blurb 100% needs changing, but the event is notable enough for ITN.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Currently has no blurb. This will likely be more fit for Ongoing.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support For ongoing, just like the belarus ones, seem to be a lot of election based protests this year Gex4pls (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment switching to ongoing. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb Added (Violent protests in Kyrgyzstan break out due to the results of the Kyrgyz parliamentary election. Protesters seize multiple government buildings in the midst of the Coup d'état.).  I went ahead and made a blurb for the event.  It might be too long, but I honestly think both parts are huge. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but oppose on article quality. Stubby. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but way too early for it to be "ongoing". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait Sorry but this article is still a stub if the nomination is for ongoing. If this thing lasts for another few days (most likely), we can post then. Albertaont (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose direct-to-ongoing Willing to support a blurb following article expansion/improvements, but items should generally go to ongoing first (esp for recent events) before rolling onto ongoing (if eligible).  Spencer T• C 19:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and proposing altblurb3 - parliamentary results have been annulled. I have added references to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for altblurb2 on neutrality grounds, or at the very least ongoing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment better at the ongoing --Tensa Februari (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this seems to have essentially universal support and for good reason. Go for blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * alt3 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This aged out amid of flood of Nobel prizes, but per the discussion above and the continuing updates to the article/situation, I moved it to ongoing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Tropical Storm Gamma

 * Oppose A bit tame compared to other tropical cyclones, the impacts also haven't exactly been confirmed yet. If it ends up significantly damaging mexico, then it could make ITN, but for now it's only resulted in six confirmed deaths, and mild damage. Delta on the other hand might end up ITN, if the forecasts prevail. It's already made landfall, btw, it's just going to make landfall again. Gex4pls (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 5 deaths is unfortunate, but it is not significant enough for ITN.  I Need Support  😷 18:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until landfall per others. We'll have to see its ultimate impact. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment 6 people have now died. I'll lean support but not yet. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)A storm like this is pretty [[
 * Oppose This seems to be a petty run-of-the-mill tropical storm. Unless we get word of catastrophic flooding, I don't think it's worth mentioning here. Also, a correction, Gamma did indeed make landfall in the Yucatan. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone. 6 people is somewhat average, unless we see bad flooding or an unlikely restrengthening into a category 1 hurricane. But that's unlikely. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By all indications, the following storm, Delta, will be a much more significant news story in a few days. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note. This was closed but I've reopened. There is no need to snow-close something after only 90 minutes, no matter how good your pun is. I'm neutral on posting this at the moment, but I don't think the presence of another storm should dictate whether or not this one gets posted.  -- Calidum  20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what meant is that this storm isn't newsworthy or noteworthy. So he opposed it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, and also, the storm is about to be massively overshadowed by a potential major hurricane landfall. Perhaps both Gamma and Delta will get a mention due to their back to back strikes? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hurricane watch was just issued for Yucatán last advisory for Delta. But since Gamma is now dead, I’m going to SNOW close this, and perhaps we can mention Gamma when Delta gets nominated. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if you look at satellite, all of the thunderstorms are located 100 miles north of the system, in open water over the Gulf, and the system is basically a remnant low. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment National Hurricane Center says Gamma is dying at a rapid pace. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bob Wilson

 * Comment Not the former Arsenal goalkeeper and broadcaster.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's too short right now, it needs expanding.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not in the news. Stephen 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too short. Ping me when expanded.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sufficiently ITN, substandard article. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is short, but it's over 2k prose so not a stub, and has a reasonable summary of his career. Also, comments that it's "not in the news" are invalid, as this is an RD nom. I'd suggest this is ready to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I make it 1310 characters readable prose size. I would like to see more for his Exeter City career than "was the first choice goalkeeper for several years", particularly as the club were the ones who reported his death - Cardiff don't appear to have noticed.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: K. K. Usha

 * Support The article is small, but in good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per KittenKlub.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty well referenced JW 1961   Talk  22:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Medicine

 * Support I guess it is common practice to post individually. Oh well, Support in that case. Gex4pls (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We never have waiting for any individual prize, that's not how it works. --M asem (t) 13:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article and ITN/R all fine. Imagine trying to post all the Nobel Prizes in one blurb - it wouldn't fit in the box. Just post it. Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem, tis the Nobel season. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting only the Award page. These are not super long bios, and it should be easy from the Nobel's committee and articles that should appear (if not already) in NYTimes and other major papers to flesh out the three winners. I've done this in the past several years, it is not hard. (Separately, I've tried searching for free images of Rice with no luck, if we want a composite image of Alter and Houghton like I did for the London Marathon winners, I can do that). --M asem  (t) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I deliberately did not bold the awards article - that was . Undone. There's no way that general article could have a substantial update on just the 2020 award. Unfortunately I don't have time to polish the bios right now (and might save my time for the physics prize). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nominator. I honestly dunno what is going on here. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? Belugsump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My God--it's full of stars! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment For multiple winners, I thought we only bolded the prize? Well, you're going to need a lot more refs for Alter, Houghton and Rice seem mostly fine. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we always go for the individual winners. The prize article is trivial to update and barring a complete lack of info on the winners (unlikely) would be the last resort. Clearly not the case here, and it only takes a man-hour or two of work to get all three to shape. --M asem (t) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose only because if we post this, then we would have to post all the other Nobel Prizes, and it would clog up ITN. I propose that we combine all the Nobel Prizes into one post that we make when Nobel season is over. The Image Editor (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do post all the other Nobel Prizes. This happens every year and we've never combined blurbs before. They're separate entries at In_the_news/Recurring_items. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because we've never done it does not mean we can't. This is not a court. Stare decisis does not hold. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting them all together would be long, would take up a large part of the space by itself, and by the time the last one is awarded on the 9th this would already be getting stale as older news. Best to continue separating the blurbs, and let them fall off one by one after a few days or a week. The Peace Prize alone would have to be a blurb, so for consistency (and yearly consistency) they should go up one-by-one while they are still news. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is better if the ticker runs faster. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, post now, worry about improving the articles later. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles have to be Main Page-worthy before they get posted, with all paragraphs being cited and orange tags being cleared up. I haven't looked at the articles so I don't know whether they currently meet those standards, but that's a pretty universal rule. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Best to remove the tags and post, then. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is completely unacceptable, it is not just the presence of tags but the lack of sourcing where it is expected to be. --M asem (t) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like some editors have spent more time expounding here, and not on fixing the problem. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. You've fixed nothing at all. Stephen 06:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is WP:ITN/R and, as so, it should be posted. However, without knowing which is the "target article" it's hard to assess it's quality and readiness to be posted.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy. The highest accolade in science. Uhooep (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is standard for ITN and the articles are acceptable. Natureium (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles are not in acceptable shape. Missing citations throughout on all three. Rice's is likely the closest with only citations missing on some awards. --
 * Support - but main page should be the prize itself. Until articles are up to shape.BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:ITNAWARDS: Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Relevant ITNR, especially during a pandemic. Gotitbro (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rice's article is now fully cited, so I think we can post with that as the bold link. Houghton is also close so I'll fix that up shortly. Can someone mark as ready? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Houghton is now also fully cited so can be bold. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment But what about Harvey Alter? I don't think we can pick and choose, because all three won, and therefore all three need to be of sufficient quality. I think Alter is ready now. Support KittenKlub (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose More work needed. For example, the article about the virus which is linked in the blurb has several orange cleanup banners and doesn't mention any of the 3 scientists.  As I understand it, Alter established that there was something to be found, Houghton found and named it and Rice helped study it.  Saying that they collectively "discovered" it seems to be an oversimplification. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article quality requirements apply only to the bold link(s), see WP:ITNCRIT. I have no objection to saying 'work on' instead of 'discovery', but the Nobel committee and much of the media coverage says they discovered the virus. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The virus article ought to be bolded because, during this pandemic, people are especially interested in viruses. And another thing – why is there no picture?  We have an actual picture (right) of the virus which was discovered.  The picture was put into the public domain by one of the winners - Charles Rice – and so we should use this opportunity to show his handiwork. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ITNAWARDS, the winner of the prize should the target article. The picture should be of the winner(s). --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course, sub-standard BLPs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the BLPs are clearly not good enough at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Fully sourced now, AFAICT. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Referencing improved in all articles. I did not bold Rice's article since there is only 1 sentence in the article about his contributions to Hepatitis C research, and needs more expansion before it should be bolded. Houghton's has a marginal update but passable and Alter's is sufficient.  Spencer T• C 13:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A comment on images: I was going to make a composite image but found that the Houghton image came from a source on Commons that has since been deleted, making that image suspectible. That leaves only the image for Alton as the only image for this blurb that I would be reasonably comfortable with having on main page. (A search for Rice brings up no CC/PD images). I'm going to crop the one good image from NIH and prep it. --M asem (t) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , File:Dr. Harvey J. Alter (1935- (28926785543) (cropped).jpg is ready and already protected thru zh.wiki. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I had cropped the same picture but not as tight File:Harvey_Alter_cropped.jpg so its more a matter of preference. --M asem (t) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , sound good. Please bold link Charles Rice at the same time. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pic swapped and Rice bolded. I noted that Rice just got a "free" image but it is lacking appropriate copyright info at commons so not willing to post that yet here. --M asem (t) 15:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jan des Bouvrie

 * Weak oppose - some sections are sparsely cited, I'll support with the addition of more citations. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale oldest RD is October 5. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carla Federica Nespolo

 * Oppose on length. I'd like to see it just a little longer, perhaps with different headers rather than just one "biography" section. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Oldest RD is October 5. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Schifter

 * Comment: Pretty close, would like to see just a little bit more detail about what Schifter did in the positions listed in the career section.  Spencer T• C 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - citations are adequate. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mordechai Yissachar Ber Leifer

 * Support. Reasonably extensive and well-sourced article. However, if we need to explain that Ashdod is in Israel we do also need to explain that New Jersey is in the United States in the infobox! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support but four citations needed . -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have either deleted or commented out those statements requiring cites. He was just buried a few hours ago. As more obituaries are published in the English-speaking world, I will update the article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support well sourced and informational article. Great job by Yoninah! TJMSmith (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) New Caledonia independence referendum

 * Support in principle but the article is currently orange-tagged and has a few uncited paragraphs. It's a bit odd for them to have another one after only two years, but not the worst part of 2020. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, to answer OP's question, we did post the 2018 referendum IIRC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your memory is better than mine. Banedon (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Big news even though it failed (Possibly more so because it did fail which was unexpected iirc). Once the issues are fixed as mentioned above, excellent ITN candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the second referendum of three which are required to happen under the Nouméa Accord and any blurb we carry should make this clear.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Could possibly reignite or extinguish tensions between the French and the New Caledonians, definetly ITN Gex4pls (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support–This will be breaking news. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull - the article isn't ready - it's orange tagged, and is missing any prose in the body about the election itself and the results. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled - I've decided to go ahead and WP:BOLDly pull this one anyway, in the absence of second opinions. It's fairly clear from the project guidelines that orange tags aren't allowed, and the first two !votes above are conditional on the issues being resolved. I also do think some prose is needed on the results as well as on the campaign. Of course there's consensus on notability, so hopefully this can be re-added ASAP. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reposted - I've added quite a bit of material to the campaign and results sections in the article, expanded the lead a bit, and fixed up cites elsewhere, so I've reposted it. I'm guessing we're going to get a glut of Nobel prize stories coming through soon, as we always do at this time of year, so seemed best to get it some time ASAP. Hopefully this doesn't constitute WP:INVOLVED, as it was also me who pulled it in the first place! But if anyone thinks there are further issues that need resolving then please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; endorse reposting.  Spencer T• C 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Major IR news, completely slipped my radar, nice to be informed about this through the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenzō Takada

 * Support well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks pretty well sourced from a skim, seems good enough for RD Gex4pls (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I was coming in to nominate and found the article already nominated. Solid C or B class biography. Meets homepage / RD levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Reasonably complete and well-sourced article. --M asem (t) 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 London Marathon

 * We can probably make a composite picture of both winners (both have free images) for posting this. --M asem (t) 15:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, though I have literally no idea how to do that. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the composite image up on Commons, and adding it for protection. --M asem (t) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's an important marathon and the weather only made it harder. The articles are in a good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article may be brief but supplies sufficient coverage of pre- and of the event and winners. --M asem (t) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Widely followed events (especially in Nagorno-Karabakh). – Sca (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure if this is an issue, but the article is already linked in DYK. That would mean the article would be linked twice on the front page.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At worst, the DYK will roll off in <24 hr, we can technically wait for that to happen, but I don't see harm in posting this while the DYK is happening. --M asem (t) 17:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, it will roll off DYK at midnight UTC tonight, if people think the ITN should wait until then. I expanded it for DYK and then that made it easy for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all. The DYK link is not an issue, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Very decent article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added an alt blurb written in the active voice rather than passive voice. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Prefer Alt. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted with Alt. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Now let's get Nagorno-Karabakh into Ongoing, where it definitely belongs. – Sca (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Fratelli tutti

 * Thanks for the nomination, welcome to ITN. Unfortunately I don't see anything particularly significant about this event. Popes release encyclicals every few years; is there any reason why this one is especially important or has wide-ranging implications? The article makes it sound like just warm words. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, popes do not release encyclicals very often nowadays (last one was in 2015), so I thought it was worthy of being ITN. They usually have quite an impact, cf. Laudato si' Veverve (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but with a different blurb and without an image. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * what would your blurb be? Veverve (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing very original: "Pope Francis releases the encyclical Fratelli tutti addressing [subject]". The latter bit requires rather more imagination and expertise than I have! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the subject is "fraternity and social friendship" according to the title of the encyclical. Veverve (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would sound POV if we used that verbatim. I notice the Catholic Herald cited refers to "his social thought" which we might link to Catholic social teaching. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is POV to say "Pope Francis releases the encyclical Fratelli tutti discussion fraternity and social friendship" Veverve (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read the article, you get a generic overview of what's being said. However, if you read the Fratelli tutti, it speaks strongly against the "Me First" politics with statements like: "As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident." and even has a section called A “throwaway” world So maybe some copyediting is needed to make the message more come alive. KittenKlub (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * is it better now? I have added a new section and fleshed out some others. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is better. Let's make it a Support without the image.KittenKlub (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We post laws rather rarely; given the Pope's much-reduced temporal powers, papal encyclicals do not meet that threshold. We also don't generally post much on religion; when was the last time we posted something from the Dalai Lama, for example? This is nice, but ultimately more like a "fireside chat" in my opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a Catholic myself, but do not think a "law" is a good analogy for an encyclical, but nor is the Dalai Lama a good analogy for the Pope. There are fewer than 400 million Buddhists (many of whom do not recognise the Dalai Lama's authority) against 1.2 billion Catholics. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be those as they may, I feel that this is still an announcement by a highly-respected figure, which while nice is still inappropriate for ITN. I don't know if we've posted previous papal encyclicals, or whether my opinion would change if we have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Pope's encyclical probably won't do much except ask people to do better. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Haeger

 * Oppose for now Huh. Baseball is my wheelhouse but I hadn't seen this story until now. Unfortunately it needs some more sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is fully referenced now, but I am putting myself down as an updater. This needs another supporter / posting admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Thomas Jefferson Byrd

 *  Support  Article's been cleaned up enough for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the entire Works section is unsourced. And IMDB cannot be used as a source for it. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A step up from what it was though, I guess I'll source a couple of the works. Gex4pls (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose All that's sourced correctly is his date of death. I've removed the non-RS filmreference.com. Much better sourcing is needed in all sections, including the Filmography, before this can go on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too stubby, nothing about his death. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article had practically no sources prior to his death and the article is still inadequately sourced. The article is a complete stub and he wasn’t particularly well known before he died. The Image Editor (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Wildfires

 * Support Coverage has died down considerably. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose The fires are still burning (almost 4 million acres have been burnt), so I'd rather keep it up, but the fires aren't as big anymore. But I say wait until they are extinguished. Gex4pls (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are indeed still fires burning, but most of the enormous blazes that were threatening urban centers have been contained. We don't need to keep an ongoing item up for smaller conflagrations that are no longer in the news (it doesn't help that other stories are squeezing it out).--WaltCip- (talk)  15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support according to the guidelines, the target is not getting regular content updates however Oppose according to the criteria used to keep other festering shit in the box for months on end because the "sub articles" are getting updates and here are some links to WP:RS which aren't in the target but who cares   . When we decide what criteria are used to judge this OG item you can count the appropriate !vote from me. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh... not sure what you’re getting at. Support or oppose or comment? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it really depends. If we're using the "protests criteria" (Belarus, Venezuela, Hong Kong, India) then I oppose because much like those articles, this one is getting minuscule updates but you can see I dragged up some WP:RS to prove it's still "in the news" and highlighted the "sub articles" which are getting updates. It seems, however, that we're following the actual criteria and removed it for being stale. I'm just trying to figure out when the two different criteria for Ongoing items applies. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Destroyeraa, whom I consider to be the authority on these sorts of disaster articles.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems fair, there haven't been updates for a couple of weeks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the article? It was updated yesterday with two new fires. Does anyone actually look at the targets when considering ongoing noms? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I looked at the Timeline of Events section, where as far as I can see the latest date mentioned in September 22. I don't count simple entries in the list, because that doesn't represent a newsworthy update to the article. There may be fires still happening at the moment, but not to an extent that meets our usual Ongoing requirements. As indeed you acknowledge yourself above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Coverage has died down, and definitely not close to notability of either Belarus protests or Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (which has consensus to post to OG). Albertaont (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Spencer T• C 02:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PP Comment – Guardian reported "two new big blazes" Oct. 3 and quoted Alex Hall, director of the Center for Climate Science at UCLA, as saying, "Our fire season is by no means over." – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fire seasons in California are not extraordinary. This one just stood out as being particularly extreme, but the worst of the blazes have been contained.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cal. fires this year have burned a record 6,250 sq. mi. (16,180 sq. km.). That's extraordinary by any measure. Still burning. - Sca (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Mendocino Complex Fire continued burning well into October and November, as did the Camp Fire. You're going to be posting "still burning" for a while.--WaltCip- (talk)  11:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) White House outbreak of COVID-19

 * Oppose – Same basic topic as yesterday's DT-virus nom. – Sca (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Rather more severe than the Brits’ outbreak, since 10 people have gotten it already, and this thing spreads really quickly. Trump hospitalized, Biden exposed, and it’s getting close to the election. What a mess! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please change this nom into one using the ITN candidate template. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support one cannot deny the story is in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not exactly the same as the earlier nomination, which was just about Trump; this is about a decent chunk of the US federal government getting it.  I might suggest that  propose a blurb for consideration(if possible, using the template provided for blurb nominations above the edit window for this page). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the template for the benefit of everyone reading this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I was skeptical when the news first broke, but given the repurcissions (on the elections, the governance of a superpower) and given how it has spread beyond the president, yeah, no doubt this should be posted. It's major news, with significant impact. It's also the top headline in news outlets outside the US. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E4C9:4335:D6E3:43CF (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no denying it's in the news, but we are not a news ticker and the actual global impact of this is at best unknown. Essentially this is either a covid story or a US election story, and either way we don't give blow by blow accounts if everything that develops in those ongoing sagas. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We did not post when other world leaders got it, nor do we post due to the speculated importance this has based on the media. We're not going to posted because of the US bias of the world news. --M asem (t) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Now apart from Trump, three U.S. Republican Senators have tested positive since yesterday already. Regarding "peculated importance this has based on the media", we are in fact supposed to look at what the sources say about the importance of various events, rather than speculate about their importance or lack thereof themselves, as all the opposes do above. By the way, not that anyone here will care but the top two pageviews for Oct 2, were for Hope Hicks with 1,213,508 pageviews, and for Donald Trump, with 434,632 pageviews. that was before the wave of positive diagnoses from people near Trump in the White House and the Congress became known. Clearly, the Wikipedia readers have their own idea on whether the topic is 'in the news'. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per Nsk. The #1 thing our readers are looking for, and it's (still) front page news around the world. It's undeniably the biggest news story in the world right now. (And it's at least as important as the Stanley Cup, which has been on our front page for a week.) Lev!vich 14:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP is not a newspaper. If readers are looking for this on WP, they are in the wrong place. That's CNN, BBC, or even Wikinews. We have no idea if this is yet an encyclopedia topic of enduring coverage. --M asem (t) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to repeat that? Why is the Stanley Cup worthy of putting on our front page but POTUS getting COVID a month before the election is not? Tell me what logic supports this outcome. Stop linking to not news because this is called "IN THE NEWS" so yes it's clearly where we link stories that are in the news. This is in the news. So let's proceed from there: why should this story not be posted while other news stories are? What's the difference between this and the Stanley Cup or Arm-Aze or anything else we post? Lev!vich 14:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the Stanley Cup is an enduring topic of coverage, having a long history to it. We have zero idea if this COVID outbreak will have any impact on anything at this point, it is all wild speculation by the press who right now are frothing at the mouth with election coverage. Its clear night and day difference. --M asem (t) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You completely lose me when you say that the Stanley Cup is an enduring topic of coverage but POTUS getting COVID a month before an election might not be. I must be on an entirely different planet than you are right now. On my planet, every US presidential election has more enduring coverage, and more impact upon the world, than any Stanley Cup. On my planet, Trump getting COVID has already received far more global coverage than the Stanley Cup could ever hope for. I don't remember Le Monde or Bild putting the Stanley Cup on their front page for multiple days. You can replace "Stanley Cup" with anything on ITNC now or recently and it still holds true: new Kuwaiti Emir, Nag-Kar, and Arm-Abz... none of those have received anything close to the international news coverage that Trump/COVID has already received after less than 48hrs. Also, none of those are anywhere near as much interest to our readers (as determined by page views) as Trump/COVID. If we're not going to list the world's biggest news story on ITN, there's really no point to having an ITN. Lev!vich 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, Trump + other WH members getting COVID is still in the "burst of coverage" level of news. Every reporter is speculating on what will happen - will the next debates be cancelled, is this an October surprise, is this a ploy, etc. etc. As an encyclopedia, we have to look past that to identify if this is really a story to document in depth. There are certainly facts to be documented, but the weight of the story from an encyclopedic view is of yet unknown value, because it has no currently known impact on events. This is NOT#NEWS, NOT#CRYSTALBALL and a whole host of other NOTs at play. While what readers want to see is of some importance we also know they are not the best judgement of what makes an encyclopedia, as otherwise if we went by pageviews and reader interest, we would drop our academic side and focus on celebrity gossip, Pokemon lists, and Game of Throne summaries. Readers coming to WP as if it were a newspaper are unfortunately doing themselves a disservice because that is not our purpose at all. --M asem (t) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I bet you can't name an example of a story (from any time in history) that was on the front page of every newspaper in the world for two days but did not have lasting encyclopedic significance (or whatever test for inclusion we want to use). Or to put it another way, which of these things is not like the others: celebrity gossip, Pokemon, Game of Thrones, the Stanley Cup, the leader of the free world being hospitalized with the modern day plague a month before his election. Lev!vich 16:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been arguing on pageviews and what readers want to see, that's what I presented. And of course we have posted stories that have dominated headlines for several days because the enduring importance is immediately obvious, such as after aircraft disasters, major earthquakes and hurricane/typhoon landfalls. I can't think immediately of examples of other cases, nor would be easy to check, but I am certain there are cases of ITNCs that we have not posted where the support !votes have pointed out (appropriately) worldwide frontpage coverage, for at least that day, but which we have not posted due to lack of clear enduring importance. This is how we distinguish what is news and what is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. And of course, there is also the systematic bias factor here that we should not be posting the case of US leaders getting it when we have not at all posted the other major world leaders having gotten and recovered from it. --M asem (t) 16:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll ever understand why routine sporting events like the Stanley Cup and the 2020 London Marathon "is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia" with "enduring importance" (suitable for the main page) but POTUS getting COVID is "news" (not suitable for the main page). Lev!vich 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple senators and top officials in the White House and the Trump campaign have all been infected, in addition to the president, and the story continues to develop while getting top billing in international RS. I would support ongoing as well. Davey2116 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru and Masem. If something actually happened rather than press speculation on what might happen if certain things happened, I might support this replacing the Stanley Cup, but this will only push the Arm-Aze conflict instead. ITN isn't known to much consider if what's proposed is more newsworthy+encyclopaedic than what's live, which is not always a good thing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Weak) Support per my reasons outlined on the ITN talk page. 's rationale of "it's in the news, but we are not a news ticker" is just about the most laughable thing I have ever seen since I've started contributing to ITN. --WaltCip- (talk)  14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect (and I mean that, because you're a valuable editor here), you clearly haven't picked up the conventions that we follow here since you "started contributing to ITN" then. If you think one of our guiding principles is laughable. Newspapers print tens or hundreds of stories every day of the year, and sometimes they all print the same thing as each other around the world. This applied to the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it applied when Boris got COVID, it also applied when Kirk Douglas died. But ITN has always weighed such coverage against enduring encyclopedic value, because that's the reason the section exists and it ties into our first pillar, which is that we are an encyclopedia. And clearly we can't post hundreds of stories a day ourselves. If you think there's something wrong with the "not a news ticker" convention then seek to get it changed on the talk page, rather than ribbing me and numerous other editors for invoking it for the 10,000th time in the last 15 years. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I concede to your point regarding encyclopedic value, and also concede that in its current state the story is less encyclopedic value and more political intrigue. I admit I was looking at it purely from the prism of newsworthiness. I'll downgrade to a weak support and strike out my admittedly excessive comment against you. I apologize.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * many thanks for your reasoned response here. I agree that there's a fine line sometimes, and this one may be somewhat borderline, but for me it's still on the wait-and-see side of the line in terms of the lack of knowledge of its impact. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I disagree with (and kind of think is ridiculous) isn't the principle that we are not a news ticker, it's the suggestion that this story is a "news ticker" story. An example of a "news ticker" story would be "Trump and Biden hold first debate". That's the kind of blow-by-blow election coverage that we should not include in ITN. This, on the other hand, is global, front page, breaking news. It can't be dismissed as just a blip in the news cycle. Lev!vich 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can get behind "enduring encyclopedic value" as a criterion, but it's unclear to me what that means. If an article exists on Wikipedia, it has already cleared Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so the community has already decided that the topic is worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. The ITN community seems to have stricter standards, but it is unclear what those standards are and how they are applied, especially when a story that is getting as much coverage as the Trump White House COVID outbreak is deemed not significant enough to post but the outcome of a hockey game is. Qono (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we can all agree that (with the exception of RD) merely having an article is not enough to merit posting an event at ITN. We wouldn't expect to post things like the 2017 EFL Trophy Final. And maybe you're right that the standards aren't very well-defined. As someone keeps noting, we posted a bus plunge story a few weeks ago, mainly because it had a high death toll, but obviously it's global impact was negligible. The White House outbreak, on the other hand, hasn't killed anyone yet and may not do so. If everyone recovers safely within a week, then it becomes a non-story. The same was true when Boris Johnson got COVID - that was front page news around the world too, and he even ended up in intensive care - it looked like his life was genuinely in the balance - but we still didn't post. And rightly so, because ultimately he recovered and life went on as normal. As such, that story ended up as little more than a news-ticker item. The Trump outbreak may likewise be so. Obviusly it escalates into something more then that's when we post. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I won't support as I haven't time to review quality, but the notion that this story is ephemeral is ludicrous. We're still talking about the Comey letter four years later, and that is substantially less impactful than the sitting POTUS being hospitalized with a deadly virus a month before the election.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Will certainly have *some* historic significance - much more so than the Stanley Cup. Historians are still writing about Grover Cleveland’s mouth growth. Zagal e jo^^^ 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as its significance is yet uknown; several world leaders have had Covid, and have recovered; if it spreads enough to paralyze the executive branch, or to bring succession into play, then we might consider it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support While it is probably the most notable thing happening today, the article itself needs work. Mcrsftdog (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Not in terms of the president getting it, but the idea that there's a localized outbreak in, of all places, the center of government (rather than random cities). Hopefully that would be posted in any other country. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Spanish center of government suffered an outbreak on March and I didn't even consider it relevant to be nominated here. While government functions are maintained, it becomes anecdotal, sad, but anecdotal.Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean when the deputy leader of the third largest party tested positive? Wow, indeed I would not have nominated that either. Spot the difference. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E4C9:4335:D6E3:43CF (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Get informed or read better. I didn't said Parliament, I said center of government, where some of Moncloa palace workers got infected, even one died. Also, two minister of the Spanish government and the First Vicepresident tested positive, including several members of the technical committee (one of them was the "Spanish Fauci") and the world didn't stop turning. The world is not America. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Vanamonde has said it all. Notable for the US, but just interesting for non-American people. Not even members of the government other than president Trump are infected, so the impact on the executive branch is little (if the president's health doesn't deteriorate). Other countries have suffered a situtation like this. Senators? Wow, so many others in the world have been tested postitive or have died. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: This has been, quite literally, in the news - the top story on most English-language sources and many non-English ones, not just those in America, for over 24 hours. It is noteworthy, the article is decent, and should be posted. As someone else pointed out, if our standards allow a post about the Stanley Cup winner, they should allow a post about this. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Ganesha8 This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's not enough happening yet to post; the potential for something big to happen is why news sources are covering it. At least there's an article now.  I'm also not sure who the "seven top officials" are supposed to be -- we have a president and 3 senators, beyond that there's advisors like former governor Chris Christie and party apparatchiks like Ronna Romney McDaniel. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent. It is likely that further cases will be reported in the coming days, and there may be broader repercussions - delaying the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, cancelling presidential debates, and the like. There is also a line of questioning in the media about whether the timeline indicates that Trump knew he had the disease before attending certain events, which would expand the scope substantially beyond the Rose Garden event. However, I would wait until any or all of these repercussions manifest in some tangible way. BD2412  T 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a range of reasons. A lack of significance, particularly the diagnoses of anyone other than Mr and Mrs Trump. ITN is not The Top 25. Any speculation about future effects is just that - speculation. If Trump dies - then by all means, blurb an article, but at the moment he's just one of millions of people who have caught the disease. Chrisclear (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Donald Trump "just one of millions of people who have caught the disease" is a bit disingenuous, no? 174.109.103.123 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was sincere. When there is an infobox already in place for the pandemic, there is no need to blurb people getting sick from that disease. Chrisclear (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If it leads to a far more important story, then it will be that story that we post. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. As all reliable sources point out, Trump was not infected a few days ago, because his illness right now is only seen in people who caught the virus more than about one week ago and whose illness takes a turn for the worse after one week. CNN now reports that Trump got supplemental oxygen on Friday. Trump's condition was kept a secret until after the closure of the Dow Jones and even then downplayed. Trump's condition effectively ends his bid to get reelected. Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt your last sentence. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's far too early to predict what else will come up between now and the election. Although Biden has recently tested negative, he was exposed to Trump, and it may be that he has also caught it and has just not developed enough of a viral load to trigger a positive response. BD2412  T 23:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many other countries had outbreaks in their governments. T Magierowski (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Abyssal (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support + comment It's all that's on the news right now so it makes sense that it's added. The blurb should also mention that Trump has been hospitalized, though. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No COVID blurbs unless/until it's over especially given the other peoples' opposes. Ultimately a political concern in the US, would support iff (God forbid) Trump or someone similarly high-ranking dies. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other prominent political figures along with their top officials caught it earlier this year but we didn't post blurbs. I see no reason why this should be an exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some of the executive branch now has covid; that's not a big deal in the scheme of things. If Trump and Pence both get this bad then I would support. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, the outbreak is by no means confined to the Executive branch -- the SCOTUS nom is exposed (if not the superspreader), judiciary Senators tested positive, hundreds of staff exposed, media exposed Feoffer (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Having a executive members alongside Trump that tested positive is unexcepted for me because how good condition of presidential ally is, making it IMO notable to posted to ITN. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - people don't take Covid19 seriously, catch Covid19. Not a story. Something very serious happening to the President or Vice-President, that would be a story. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hospitalization is pretty damn serious. Feoffer (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Very weak support I see the argument that we should hesitate to post any COVID-19 related blurbs for as long COVID-19 has its own section of the ITN template, but this now extends far beyond Trump himself and is widely reported international news. I don't intend to be Americentric here, I'm actually a little surprised that we didn't post when any individual world leaders were diagnosed with COVID-19, but I think those stories would have been much more notable had it been the case that numerous top officials in the British or Brazilian governments all tested positive at the same time. <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> 💙 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did my eyes deceive me or I just saw someone compare Donald J. Trump (or the executive branch of the United States federal government) to some random cop in Madrid? Really? I guess that's a better argument than "American leaders get sick all the time". Howard the Duck (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is easily the top story in the English-speaking world and is front-page news internationally. The article is in good shape and is up-to-date. This exceeds the criteria and so should be posted. Qono (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, notable and widely-covered news both nationally and internationally. Scope of story has widened beyond Trump's diagnosis in a way that meets ITN standards. Morgan695 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the present; did not post when other prominent world leaders were infected (e.g. Johnson, Bolsonaro, etc.). If this leads to a transfer of power due to severe illness or other worse consequences, then worth posting at that point.  Spencer T• C 02:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Huge news, the argument about "we didn't post other world leaders" ignores the fact that the United States and its political leader(s) are simply much better known and more influential globally than are those of most other countries. Pretending otherwise is simply denying reality. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is systematic bias that we absolutely fight against in how we select stories and thus a very strong reason not to feature this story. --M asem (t) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The US simply is large and important, for better or worse. Thus stories about its leaders are more relevant to the rest of the world than those about other countries This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Less "relevant" and more "interesting". Media hypes up Trump's covid positive more than other world leaders because this is a more interesting and entertaining situation, and putting Trump in a headline always gets clicks. ITN needs to balance media coverage with media hype, and it's a fine line. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And things do, in fact fall on the right side of that line sometimes. For example, an outbreak of COVID at the head of state and government's office! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which has happened in three other major countries before and which we did NOT post because there was no clear sign the leadership was at death's door. --M asem (t) 05:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The significance of this isn't that it might kill him, it's that there's an election next month. How it will influence the election is a matter of speculation; that it has and will continue to influence the election is a matter of fact. Lev!vich 05:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about one man -- the outbreak has majorly disrupted the functioning of all three branches of government during an election, jeopardizing continuity of government. This is utterly unprecedented, there are no international comparisons. Feoffer (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is "White house" no longer part of the United States? This is completely bizarre nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clear USA bias if this were to be posted. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom - If the pandemic disrupted the top echelon of any other government, we'd include it. On top of that,  one candidate has been exposed by the other.  I get wanting to guard against systemic bias, but this is ridiculous.  Imagine if the entire leadership of, say, North Korea, had been exposed to a pandemic, with the twist of the leader being hospitalized after having exposed a rival member of the ruling elite;  there is NO WAY that isn't the most newsworthy subject on the planet.   Feoffer (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This has already happened in Burundi (see 1) and we rightly covered the President's death on ITN. The US is a big country with a vast number of people responsible for its governance. It isn't a question of everyone with any political importance in the US having been incapacitated. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on two points. First is that COVID-19 is already amply covered in the box which is already ITN and should create a very high bar for separate COVID-19 stories being featured. Second, I agree that the nomination is bizarre. Are we surprised that powerful people are also susceptible to a major pandemic? Does anything affecting the President of the US automatically constitute an event of global significance, even if its real significance is WP:CRYSTAL? Would we have posted JFK's repeated medical problems on this basis? And are we simply a newsticker for US political gossip? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As clearly expressed by above, COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic and many other world leaders have gotten it and subsequently recovered. The only exception to post this would be if someone unfortunately dies or if it leads to leadership changes (which would be ITNR anyway). Gotitbro (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And this should have been a WP:SNOW close anyway, the significance comes from Trump not the White House staff or other related people for it to be considered for ITN and the Trump nom was closed just a day ago. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS nominee & two judiciary Senators during election season is BIG deal.  Feoffer (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While the SCOTUS nomination process is affected, it does not affect the current function of SCOTUS: They will continue to run wth 8 justices (as they have in the past when down one), and the nomination process is always a process of indeterminable length depending if nominees are rejected or not. That this was trying to be rushed before the election is of partisan politics importance but this is the type of stuff we absolutely avoid using as a reason to post at ITN. --M asem (t) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes it has generated acres of coverage but until the running of the US government is seriously impacted (transfer of power etc) I don't think it justifies posting. P-K3 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * US government is seriously impacted -- Pres hospitalized, Veep and DemNom exposed, SCOTUS nom exposed.  Feoffer (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hospitalized but still running the country. And all those other three tested negative. P-K3 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I don't think "being exposed" really matters unless it requires the person to self-isolate for a long time, and even then, there would need to be a substantial effect from this self-isolation. If the person test's positive it may be a different matter but again, it depends on the effects of this. This has obviously had effects on the presidential election and campaigning, that much was obvious from the moment of the diagnosis. It looks like it may have had an effect on the Supreme Court nomination process, but while that may be something that matters a lot to people in the US, I'm unconvinced it's ITN worthy. After all, we AFAIK didn't and shouldn't have posted about Kavanaugh being accused of misdeeds, and AFAIK didn't and shouldn't have posted about the Senate refusing to consider Gorsuch. Perhaps the combination of Supreme Court plus elections plus other effects is enough, but I'm unconvinced at this time. I do find it funny that for all the fuss over the supreme court nomination, it's now looking likely the biggest effects of that may end up being the effects of the nomination due to this cluster and the fallout e.g. on the election etc rather than that there is another conservative on the Supreme Court for potentially decades to come, even though the latter could still happen. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It actually just doesn't feel like it's that important, or at least not yet. It's super interesting to those of us who are noting the venal idiocy of a man who turned mask wearing into a political statement and got everyone around him sick because the boss didn't like seeing them wear masks, but unless one or more people actually end up really sick, or a ton more people get diagnosed, meh. —valereee (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The above comment shows just how this all turns into a political food fight which makes us look like we have a political agenda. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Gibson

 * Support One of the greatest pitchers of all time, RIP. --Rockin 03:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom and Rockin. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support fully referenced. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Alexander De Croo

 * Support Big news for Belgium to have a federal government at last This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (for now) but Support in principle. The article needs expansion and isn't that great. However, a big development in Belgian politics and who doesn't want to post that? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The king is the head of state.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So Belgium has the king still in charge? I didn't know that, since I thought most countries (except Thailand of course) gave up monarchs and monarchs were only figureheads. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even figurehead monarchs, like Queen Elizabeth, are still head of state, just as figurehead presidents are (the President of Israel). 331dot (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Imagine Nancy Pelosi becoming the head of state. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 02:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support New heads of state are always important. I prefer the first blurb, as the others lack context on the situation. Gex4pls (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The PM is not head of state. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know they aren't technically the head of state, but you know what I mean. Gex4pls (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows what you mean, yet here we are --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as the resolution of a long political crisis. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support also because it was a very long road to the prime-ministership. KittenKlub (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. No question about this nomination. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. We're not posting an article with sentences like "His government is the most feminine Belgium ever has" or "In 2010, like the majority of party chairmen wants De Croo a protocol against the King's power" on the WP:Main page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I recognise my poor English but I've added it to WP:GOCE and I've asked an editor who has more experiences in expanding articles in great quality so let's wait for a little bit before he copy-edit it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. No-one is keener than I am to get a Belgium-related story onto ITN, but the Alexander De Croo article really needs work before it is possible to post. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know your feeling; it's because he is the new PM after having nearly two years without a formal government that's why I believe it should be included. Also why does it really need work before we can post it? Is it because of the grammar quality? If so per my comment above, there will be someone who will copy-edit it until its grammar reaches a better quality. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that we don't post article solely on their contemporary importance and the quality of the article needs to be taken into account too. I'm afraid grammar is only part of the issue; it really needs attention from a native English speaker. Even if this wasn't the case, there are also some very large gaps in content which would need to be resolved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the story isn't about De Croo, it's about the formation of the government. Is there an article about that? Negotiations? Coalitions? etc? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's say it kinda is about him because he is the new PM after those years. But I know what you mean. There is an article called "2019–20 Belgian government formation" but it needs a lot of cite work and it doesn't mention the Brussel and both Walloon Government and the French Comunity Government (I still wonder why we have so many governments in one small country). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Lead needs some cleanup for grammatical errors et all. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as pointed out, the main article should be electoral vote/about government formation as is precedent for electoral/relate changes. Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. I'm okay with either solution for the target, but the De Croo is not FP ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Asda sale

 * Oppose WP:EASTEREGGS in the blurb aside, I don't see how this is significant enough to warrant posting at WP:ITN. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposedly this has to be all over the news in the UK, but nope, BBC World News has that red breaking news rolling coverage of Trump for hours now... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per notability. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'd like a better update (like why the sale) but the worlds largest retailer departing the worlds sixth largest economy is certainly news. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's post this before the Brits wake up! That'll show 'em!  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. But remember WP:POINT. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large ish business news, but not important in the grand scheme of things. Gex4pls (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous two. Also, basically parochial. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others above. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine business news. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Gotitbro (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly because the deal is still subject to review from the Competition and Markets Authority which had previously stopped Asda merging with Sainsbury's. While this deal is more likely to be permitted than that horizontal merger, it's still a possibility that it won't happen at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

 * Support Excellent nom for ongoing, if it gets put up we should remove the blurb though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment as long as it's clashes and not whining on social media it's fine for OG, though it also suffers from "hyper reporting" and every daily update starts with "according to the Armenian MoD" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This may or may not be premature, but the idea is to keep the blurb until it gets kicked off, and replace with OG. Albertaont (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not premature, since Belgium just got a new Prime Minister and that might kick this off. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when necessary; at least as relevant as the Belarus protests. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per Orbitalbuzzsaw. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, when moved off blurb JW 1961   Talk  18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'm surprised it hasn't been added yet. Pretty serious conflict between two countries. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely a noteworthy current event and one that is escalating. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when moved off the blurb. <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> 💙 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus established to post to OG once it gets kicked off blurb. Marking as ready for when time comes. Albertaont (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support When blurb drops, likely to remain in ongoing for quite sometime. Gotitbro (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – for Ongoing – Unless something big happens. Today's coverage  looks like more of the same. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing now that blurb has aged off.  Spencer T• C 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lou Johnson

 * Support Decently sourced article JW 1961   Talk  18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump tests positive for COVID-19

 * Agree. Most powerful man in the world got infected and soon might be fighting for his life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SNOW. If he has to resign or dies because of it, absolutely. But just catching it isn't noteworthy. Morgan695 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM on Boris. The POTUS isn't a reliable source for anything. But other sources have started reporting on the tweet. Wasn't he tested before the debate? This must be a prank on Biden, LOL! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we have NYT and a bunch of other media outlets on it now, so sourcing concerns are gone. Significance? I'm leaning support, even keeping in mind the need to think globally. I'll wait for some others to weigh in before making it a bolded !vote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: just to be on the safe side, I have created Draft:Death and state funeral of Donald Trump. It will, of course, be needed at some point. BD2412  T 05:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no reason for this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And its gone. Seriously? Spartaz Humbug! 05:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just preparation for what is eventually inevitable. I don't suppose your qualm is with the proposition that when he does die, there will be a state funeral? BD2412  T 05:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest SNOW close. C'mon...this isn't a Trump ticker. People are getting sick with COVID left and right, especially in our messed up country. Same reasoning should be applied here as with BoJo. Anything beyond him getting sick is pure speculation and violates WP:CRYSTAL ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Won't stop him tweeting. He will no doubt still find a way to "debate", for want of a better term. Not significant unless he gets genuinely ill. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well, age 70+, obesity and COVID-19 means he is in the danger zone. The risk of dying is considerable and the risk of living further, but with a damaged body/brain, is huge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Obviously it's a much different scenario should the president need to cede his executive authority (whether temporarily or otherwise). rawmustard (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not sufficiently significant events for me, except if the president has died. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * EU and US stocks dropped immediately after the twit at Asian stock markets. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking merely contracting the disease isn't ITN-worthy, but if he needs to step aside temporarily because of it, then that would be. Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose I'm actually unconvinced even the president temporary stepping down merits ITN although I appreciate unlike for surgery there is no expected recovery timeline so it can get complicated since temporary stepping down could mean a long time away which I'm more willing to accept may belong on ITN yet we probably have no way of knowing and there may be no real specific update that means this . Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose really?? Snow close. Alsoriano97 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want to urge another look at this. I understand the argument being made that U.S. editors and media as a whole are overreacting to this announcement in terms of its global newsworthiness. However, you all are underestimating how globally newsworthy it actually is. Here's a murderer's row of international news sites that have this at or near the top of their page: Sydney Morning Herald, Hindustan Times, Al Jazeera, Korea Herald, Japan Times, Der Spiegel, France 24, NZ Herald... Make no mistake. This is a big deal. As morbid as the proposition seems, the U.S. is potentially a few steps away from a significant regime change, and that is what the world is reacting to.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Boris Johnson going into intensive care and an interim government being formed in the UK wasn't posted, this won't fly unless Trump dies. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't equitable. The amount of international news coverage is significantly higher for this story compared to that of Boris Johnson's.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stephen's right, there's no way that flood of opposes is going to be overcome unless something happens like him becoming ill enough to have to hand over to Pence. The announcement by itself is never going to get consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a way, and it wasn't a flood. Those opposes were based on personal opinions and they happened before substantive coverage from the media around the world came in. If people actually bother to take a look at what the news sources say around this story and its impact, they might change their minds. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with WaltCip. The thread was closed too quickly, in less than 1.5 hours, of course while the U.S. editors were asleep. Perhaps a revenge for the RBG story being posted so fast? Anyway, the story is definitely the number one story for most news outlets around the world today, and one can easily predict which Wikipedia page will have the most number of hits today, by far. As NYT byword headline says: The news of an American president contracting a potentially lethal virus carried global repercussions beyond that of any other world leader. With all due respect to Boris Johnson, a U.S. President is still way more important on the world stage, especially with the election being just a month away. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the above discussion, I don't feel it should be reopened unless circumstances significantly change. There is no support at all in the discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it would have hurt nothing to leave this open, sad it's been shut down so quickly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose still, even with the hospitalisation. Johnson got the same, but no ITN, and I think that's the right decision. If it escalates from here then yes, I would support. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 22:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Murray Schisgal

 * Oppose 200 words of prose isn't sufficient depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Zef Eisenberg

 * Support Decently sourced, could use some edits, specifically the Personal life section which should be moved or broken apart, but I think it's just about main page ready. Gex4pls (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, looks ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some CN tags remaining; article as a whole could use some copyediting.  Spencer T• C 19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)