Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Pamela McCorduck

 * Support Referenced, adequate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doğan Akhanlı

 * Support Referenced. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article meets the basic criteria. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can the quote be integrated into an existing section or removed? Seems a little out of place to have that as its own section without any background or explanation specific to that.  Spencer T• C 04:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, done - it's sort of the headline though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. No ITN creation credit was given out as that user has been blocked since 2018 and has not contributed to this article's updating using the same account. --PFHLai (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I nominate an article which is just a stub, I don't credit the creator, but in this case, it was substantial referenced groundwork. The creator did more for this article than I did, PFHLai. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gerda, if you like, you can post the ITN notice on the user talk page. However, the message may not reach the intended recipient. If this person is still around, a different account is used. The old account is blocked. --PFHLai (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: James Jemut Masing

 * Comment: Political career section needs expansion; lede has information not included in the body.  Spencer T• C 00:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The wikibio is oddly structured. The longest paragraph is about the subject's death, followed by the intro. The shortest paragraph is about his career in politics and is tagged for {expansion} with a request for info on what "he has done in his 8 terms as MLA and in his various ministerial posts." Too many things mentioned in the intro are not found, let alone elaborated, in the subsequent prose. Coverage of the subject's life is clearly incomplete. Time is running out for this RD nom.... --PFHLai (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Farrar

 * Oppose He was governor of SD, but the article says absolutely nothing about what he did during his tenure, not even as AG. Far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If little more cannot be added, the wikibio is ready, then. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was half of a century ago and he was governor for only 2 years, quite possible that he did not do much and/or there is not much press coverage. - Indefensible (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Argus Leader obit has a few events of his term, if someone would like to add it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good call-out, added a little bit of detail with that ref. - Indefensible (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. It's brief, but I can't find much more either.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It covers the bases adequately now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments: I find the coverage a little thin; so I added some small bits here and there. I could not verify that he was admitted to the bar without the bar exam, so added a {cn} tag there; please add refs if anyone has RS for that. I also wonder if the flood of 1969 and the case of Thomas White Hawk should be mentioned, but I am out of time.... --PFHLai (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not able to find a ref for that cn tag either, but should be OK for RD and we can just remove the sentence if needed. - Indefensible (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur, and I have removed that sentence. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything else that needs to be done for RD posting? Article seems pretty decent now, the 2 items you listed above seem like they would be nice to have, but not essential. - Indefensible (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks ready now, but I am now too involved as an contributor. I should not be voting, let alone posting. It would be a conflict of interest. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply and updating the article, hopefully it will get picked up by someone before timing out. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen, glad the article got listed. - Indefensible (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Salisbury rail crash

 * Oppose - it's a significant incident in terms of UK railway and could had been so much worse, but on the global scale with the thankfully minor resulting injuries, I don't think it's significant enough for an ITN posting. -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. There would have to be exceptional circumstances to justify posting an accident in which no-one died. Jim Michael (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - similar cases such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#Wallan_derailment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2020#(Closed)_Stonehaven_derailment were not posted and this event seems less significant. - Indefensible (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non-fatal crash (thankfully). While still will likely be subject to investigation to figure the cause, this won't have the significance compared to fatal accidents. --M asem (t) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Here we go again…and per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While there is absolutely no question that there will be at least two formal investigations into the cause (RAIB and Office of Rail and Road, it's too soon to say regarding a criminal investigation), based on the information currently publicly known, this seems less significant than the Stonehaven derailment which wasn't posted. If the non-public information I've seen is correct then this might be more significant for the railway than it first appears to the layperson, but it will almost certainly be a minimum of several days, and quite possibly several weeks, before it is known how significant it actually is, possibly months before it's sourceable to public material and the significance may not be apparent to those unfamilar with the railway without multiple paragraphs of background (which is almost never suitable material for an ITN post). Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Catherine Tizard

 * Support, only one unreferenced sentence.  Nixinova   T   C   05:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as above. Kiwichris (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Remy

 * Support decent article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 21:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in good shape (for transparency: I have previously contributed to this article) Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pauline Bart

 * Support Short new article but enough for RD, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 21:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bert Newton

 * Wait Only Logie-winning between 1979 and 1984 (but once consecutively), missing a few citations (per tradition), otherwise seems legit. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support One of Australia's most famous entertainers of the latter half of the twentieth century. Reports surrounding his death have been mainstream newsworthy in Australia for four consecutive days so far. Solid article. Crackersgreen (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per Crackersgreen. There are 2 redlinks (TV show/movie without pages) but I don't think that's a reason not to post. Adpete (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw support - I looked a bit hastily and did not notice the unreferenced material (before all the tags were added). Unfortunately some of the references will be hard to find, because there aren't many online reliable sources on the early days of Australian TV. Adpete (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whether the nomination is successful doesn't depend on the criteria of the notability of the subject (which in this case would be reduced only to a country), but on the quality of the article. And it doesn't meet them: cn tags not fixed, lines and whole sections unsourced... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are too many footnote-free paragraphs and bullet-points. Please add more references. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More than 40 {cn} tags need to be addressed. Please add more references. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COP 26

 * Oppose No blurb specified.Pyramids09 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Too early. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Has not happened. Also, blurb is missing. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernardo Tengarrinha

 * Support Article is in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I added one cn tag, but that shouldn't preclude this from running. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that the nominator has fixed the tag. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. No ITN credit is posted as the anonymous contributor is no longer at the same IP. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Davidson

 * Oppose despite being listed as a GA, the entire career section is unreferenced. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment that "career" section seemed to be an unsourced rehash of his entire life from birth to retirement - which is already impeccably sourced. I have been bold and removed it as it is unorthodox to have such a section. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - It was added as a lead section in 2010, it appears. Connormah (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per above explanation, was fine to remove it, and article is good now. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - GA with acceptable sourcing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Quality article, well-sourced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Antonio González Casanova

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Long enough and has enough footnotes to qualify for RD, but this wikibio would likely benefit from another round of copyediting by a native English speaker before the link gets on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your copyeditings, PFHLai. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Alsoriano97. --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - ready for RD. Sources completed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Did some additional copyediting.  Spencer T• C 04:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ashley Mallett

 * Comment two cn tags and the Sheffield Shield section is unreferenced. Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add more references to address the {cn} tags and the {Unreferenced section} tag in the Sheffield Shield section. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Status remains unchanged after so many days. --PFHLai (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tonga's first positive COVID-19 case detected

 * Oppose based on article quality. The article in question is basically a stub once you remove the background section that is about Covid-19 in general.  There's four short unconnected lines of text about the actual subject of the article.  That's not good enough for highlighting on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Jayron. We have an ongoing story posted as-is, an update to the main article there would be sufficient. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it's interesting that no cases were detected before this, this isn't super notable. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn't post this for any other country, and it's not that newsworthy. Article is severely lacking too, considering there's been a pandemic for 20 months. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article is nowhere near good enough for ITN.  NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 16:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing is sufficient for this, this is not a groundbreaking news story. --M asem (t) 16:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Puneeth Rajkumar

 * Comment. RIP Appu. Gone too soon. Article requires some work in referencing, not too far away. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article updates have been completed. Article looks good. Marking Ready. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support after improvement in referencing.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose some lines still have no reference and there are orange tagged sections. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article has now been fully updated and sourced.Venkat TL (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support more citations have been added to the article. This is a well known actor of Kannada film industry and the article received 2.34 million views yesterday compared about thousand in the days before that . ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Are the following wikipages required to be fully sourced before this RD nom can proceed? Puneeth Rajkumar discography, Puneeth Rajkumar filmography & List of awards and nominations received by Puneeth Rajkumar. --PFHLai (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ok with them being in the current state per the recent discussion in our talk page. Ktin (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After much consideration, I have concluded that the forking to start the list of awards and noms as a separate wikipage was not done in an acceptable manner, as a hole in the coverage developed in the process. To address this gap, it would be preferable to leave behind a summary of the accolades in this wikibio, along with a link to the new wikipage. Too late now. No worries. --PFHLai (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's never too late. You can just fix it.  No one will stop you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What I meant by too late is that this RD is already on ITN. It is not bad enough that I have to revert Stephen's edit there. --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Reinaldo Pared Pérez

 * Comment needs a lots more sourcing, especially on circumstances surrounding death. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And also needs expanding, and the date of death to be confirmed- article says both 28 and 29 October. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A 172-word stub. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

California condors reproduce asexually, a first

 * Strong Oppose No article, no blurb. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You can use the California Condor article, it mentions the parthenogenesis. Scaramouche33 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the article. At least it's an FA... Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a blurb now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I found this kinda intriguing, and while it is not top headline news, it would be some interesting science news to post, and a featured article to boot. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of those occasions when a high quality article makes up for the fact that it may not be on all the front pages. It's an interesting story and the update is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Go for it. An FA article with a reasonably interesting blurb (parthenogenesis is rather rare in birds, anyway) is something that should also appear in the news from time to time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These two birds lived years ago, died in 2003 and 2017, hardly suggestive of a present general ability. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose insufficient coverage in any article to justify a post. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I understand, this isn't the first time a viable offspring hatched through parthenogenesis in Aves. The interesting story is that it's an endangered species as opposed to a domestic turkey. But given the unreliable nature of parthenogenesis it's questionable how useful this discovery will be to conservationists Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the first observation in female birds that were not isolated from male birds. Count Iblis (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot, Pawnkingthree, and Szmenderowiecki. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Ferry

 * Long enough (>4500 characters) and with footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 National Rifle Association ransomware attack

 * Oppose Not really a major cyberattack. We post cyberattacks against governments. Pyramids09 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would have to be on the scale of multiple international agencies, akin to what happened in the 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine. A highly directed attack to one entity is not really significant. --M asem (t) 02:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a particularly groundbreaking event. It is not even known what, if anything, was paid. BD2412  T 04:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited long-term national or international effects.  Spencer T• C 05:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mort Sahl

 * Support Article is well referenced and comprehensive, not a single obvious issue I could see, aside from a few missing citations in the personal life section. BSMRD (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3 {cn} tags in the personal life section have all been replaced with footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A few citations still needed, and there's a tagged section. Stephen 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasy for ITN. Is there a possible blurb discussion to be had with Mort Sahl? Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He could be considered "Top of his field" and "transformative" in comedy. But I don't think he's well-known enough globally for ITN. I'll just stick with an RD Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is in pretty good shape but there are one or two cite tags and the Discography and Filmography sections need sources. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Two sections have tags and the problems should be solved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discography and filmography sections continue to be unreferenced. They must be properly sourced before this RD nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Princess Mako marries

 * Oppose. She was not in line for the throne, whereas William is. This is normal for women in the Japanese Royal Family (a much smaller group than the British Royal Family). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose she seems to be down 5 generations from being leader. We didn't post Beatrice or Eugenie from the UK, both of whom were similarly unlikely to be rulers. And those weddings had a dedicated article about the wedding, whereas this is a few paragraphs in her biography. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think women can get the Japanese throne at all, unless the law is changed. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, definitely oppose. Someone who wasn't ever going to get power giving up the non-power is not ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd consider if she was in the direct line of succession, but no. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I question whether we should have posted William, but he at least is going to be king. Mako is the Emperor's niece, in a country which excludes all women (and female line men) from the succession. We probably shouldn't post royal marriages at all, but certainly not minor royals who cannot legally inherit the throne. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per all previous op's. Subject isn't a significant or widely known person outside Japan. (Please don't read me the rule book on this one. It's just common sense.) Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Smith

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencer. Impressive sourcing. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are some new requests for citations from User:Hanamanteo. --PFHLai (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Citations (requested above) all now fixed JW 1961 Talk 08:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Roh Tae-woo

 * These aren't just the normal sourcing problems, "virtually unreferenced" is if anything an understatement. Apart from today's obituaries, there aren't even citations for detailed English coverage.  I don't read Korean, and the Korean article has its own problems (NPOV tagged, lots of unreferenced content, and at least one reference is to "Wikipedia article from 2007"). User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the subject definitely qualifies on notability but article is probably not doable in time for lack of sources. The Korean article similarly lacking refs to borrow from makes it even harder. - Indefensible (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a long way off being ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio continues to be very much under-referenced. Too many footnote-free paragraphs to qualify for RD. The orange tag up top also indicates that the lead is too short. --PFHLai (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Joe Lee Dunn

 * Comment: body of the article is unsourced, though it is probably sourceable. BD2412  T 04:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Work needed on references. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio continues to be very much under-referenced. Too many footnote-free paragraphs to qualify for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Herbert (manager)

 * Long enough (2500+ characters) and with enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Reyntiens

 * Comment: Needs a little bit of reorganization with biography and career sections (e.g. info regarding him and his wife is in both sections), but otherwise pretty close.  Spencer T• C 03:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and suggestion, Spencer. I've made a few tweaks here and there a few hours ago. I hope it's improved enough. I'm afraid the wife has to show up twice, though. She was also a collaborator / business partner.--PFHLai (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough for RD. If he were American, someone would probably ask to blurb it, as he's at the top of his field. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Downs

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfredo Diez Nieto

 * Support Decently sourced and formatted, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per article talk, his day of death was the 23rd the latest. Should we move this or just leave it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's okay either way. The link is no longer on ITN. The only impact of the move would be on when this nom gets archived. --PFHLai (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fofi Gennimata

 * Support A touching death. Her wikibio is not in bad shape and have enough sources, but a bit more coverage of her political career would be great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be well-referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personal life section needs editing to adhere to Wiki-voice. 202.8.114.75 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can remove the quote, I don't think it adds that much to the article.Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree it certainly needs a rewrite, with things like After a brave struggle he passed away on 25 April 1994 at age 54 in it, which are not encyclopedic at all. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is a bit confusing: was she concurrently leader of PASOK and Movement for Change (Greece), or did she keep switching between the two? I guess it's the former (since one is a party, and one is a movement), but the article doesn't say, and thus confuses me (and presumably others without knowledge of Greek politics). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The personal life section has been cleaned up a little bit Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Joseph, the summary of the article states quite clearly, "was a Greek politician who served as president of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) from 2015 to 2021. During her tenure as party leader, she also co-founded and led the Democratic Alignment and the Movement for Change, two successive political alliances of centre-left parties formed around PASOK." _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the politicial career was written as well as the lead, then I wouldn't have missed it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Political career is mostly resume in prose format; what did she do while in those roles?  Spencer T• C 00:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose what said, the political career section is just a list of roles. Surely she must have done something noteworthy in those roles? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Just needs more a bit info on her political career. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to expand the section on her political career. Take a look and let me know what you think. Don't be fooled either, there's not that much deep coverage about what she did out there, sadly. Regarding your concern, Joseph, I honestly don't see it as dramatic so I invite you to fix it the way you can best understand it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Alsoriano97, User:Scaramouche33 - thanks for updating the article and getting it posted. - Indefensible (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced, long enough, this is good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Consensus is in favor of posting.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support looks good now, thanks for improving. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état

 * Wait We need an article first. So far we know that several civilian leaders were arrested, the internet is down and people are protesting. There goes any hopes for democracy in North Africa Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * update Now we have an article, but it needs a lot of work before it's ready for the main page Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - As previously said, we need an article to assess. Perhaps this nom. should be closed and re-opened when and if we have an article.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC) My bad. It seems that we have a stub article.-- Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 05:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - An article was created few minutes ago. Therefore, I updated the nomination and the blurb.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as article creator - The article's still a stub but should be fleshed out enough within a few hours, and the event itself is a perfect fit for the front page news section. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 06:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Eh, it's my first attempt at contributing to an ITN. It's not ready yet, but it's 3:20 AM my time. Hopefully and  can continue the work there. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support The article is basic but fully referenced and good enough to post. Reporting on this part of the world is difficult as it's been shown every time the Mali coups were nominated for example; we may never get the full story or indeed any clear aftermath. Sudanese politics is a very volatile and messy affair and therefore its a challenge to have any sort of clarity on what is happening. Furthermore I'm not sure if we have any Arabic speakers involved but certainly not being one makes it even more difficult. I've added the Guardian article to the references as well by the way. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Is this coup being undertaken by Burhan, or by some other factions in the Armed Forces? Different setnences in the article seem to suggest the possiblity of both outcomes, which are two very different stories, I'm not saying we need the whole story, but I think we need to at least wait until we know who's in charge. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait as far as I can see, nowhere in the article does it explicitly say it's a successful coup, so we shouldn't be posting a blurb saying that. It looks like it's all up in the air at the moment, so wait until it's properly confirmed what the situation is e.g. who is now de facto in charge. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, BBC, NYT call it "reports of a military coup" and an "apparent coup". Definitely not confirmed to be a successful coup yet. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that’s decisive to support the nomination. Whether it’s successful or not, a coup is a coup and therefore it must (or should) already be ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb suggests it's been a successful coup, whereas I don't see evidence that is the case. The PM and some others have been captured/arrested, but I don't see evidence that the coup is successful i.e. the people partaking in the coup actually have power. I don't see any sources that say the government has been deposed, only that members of that government have been taken. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The sources are not reliable. Whatever is happening is a work-in-progress and so we have to wait for the dust to settle and the outcome to be confirmed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * please elaborate on your statement "The sources are not reliable"; Bloomberg, BBC, ABC, AP, Guardian, Al Jazeera are the sources? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Update Burhan has dissolved the government Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Most reliable source (RS) sites are treating this as an accomplished takeover. AP headline: "Sudan's military takes power in coup." – Sca (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait right now I would describe this as an "apparent" coup; clearly Hamdok is no longer in power. It's not yet clear who is (is Burhan organizing the coup, or compelled to act on behalf of it?).  Likely in the next few hours the situation will become clearer. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support we had waited long enough. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 15:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I shudda said "more or less as an accomplished takeover." – Sca (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) are reporting that the coup was successful. Details are still sketchy, but the article does a good job of reporting what is known so far, is well referenced, and meets our minimum requirements. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the coup succeeded, is it not ITNR? 331dot (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what? Yes, if the coup has succeeded then it would be ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Article, at 700+ words (± 200 of which are 'reaction'), seems rather preliminary as of 18:30. Further details presumably will come fairly soon. – Sca (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to keep the International reactions section as concise as possible. The domestic reaction section also talks about the subsequent protests and deaths which is fairly important to the story. Should I trim it down a bit more? Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Article seems to be in a decent enough shape, and demonstrates yet another blow to the democracy movement in the Middle East. Also added an AltBlurb to discuss the fate of the Soverign Council's members, and emphasize that this was the interim government that was overthrown. Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added AltBlurb2 in case the other one is too wordy. Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions but Hamdok was detained before the Sovereignty Council was dissolved today I believe, so not sure the wording is the most accurate. Probably more like Hamdok was detained early as their top priority. - Indefensible (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both CNN and BBC reporting that the coup was successful. Perhaps we should focus on if the article is good enough for the MP as it seems that the coup really succeed.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – BBC now says at least seven killed and 140 injured after soldiers fired on crowds protesting against the military coup in Sudan. – Sca (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Article updated to reflect that information. Unfortunately it may not be accurate for much longer. - Indefensible (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was now a discussion of page move to the 2021 Sudanese coup d'état. While editors unanimously agree to remove "attempt" from the title now known as October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état, they disagree whether the month "October" will removed or not. I would encourage editors who discussing blurb proposal to join discussion on talk page. More participants will gave better conclusion. 114.125.235.174 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. Things seem to be changing fast so we may need to adjust the blurb at some point. --Tone 07:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – On Tuesday, RS reports of death toll ranged from four to 10, with seven being the most numerous choice. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(READY) RD: Sunao Tsuboi

 * Support article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this (and the Andersson Hed nom below) are ready to go. Hope they can be posted before they get archived in 15 minutes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erna de Vries

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully referenced and ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(READY) RD: Fredrik Andersson Hed

 * Comment: Is there more depth that can be added in the career section? Seems mostly a prose listing of his various tournament appearances, qualifications and finishes without much more fleshed out IMO.  Spencer T• C 16:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is long enough (2000+ characters) and has enough footnotes across the prose. IMO, this is READY for RD. The lack of depth in the career section mentioned by Spencer above is consistent with him being in and out of qualifying school -- nothing to write home about.--PFHLai (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok, per PFHLai. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arnold Hano

 * Support. Looks good to go, to me. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gene Freidman

 * Comment One cn tag Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unfortunately, similar to the Mike McCoy case above, the career section is too light on material and focuses too much on just the legal battles rather than a narrative about the course of his career. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Amakuru. The real McCoy case is actually a few sections below. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I do beg your pardon! What an egregious error on my part... smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No harm done. No worries. --PFHLai (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The wikibio is long enough and has lots of footnotes, however, coverage seems rather incomplete. How did he increase the number of taxi medallions from 60 om 1996 to 900 in 2015? revenues of $2.5 million in 1996 to $120 million in 2008? And then suddenly the story jumped to 2018 when the company was permamnently closed. Did the legal problems lead to the company's collapse? Or was it the rising popularity of ridesharing (Uber, etc.)? The wikibio is also unclear about when a few things happened -- now tagged with {when?}. --PFHLai (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Uzbek presidential election

 * Results are missing but otherwise, elections are ITNR. --Tone 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until there's actually final results for this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Show election, but election none the less This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed blurb calling this a re-election is an affront to real elections. Added altblurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The first blurb is fine, it's okay to show a re-election because it's the truth: Mirziyoyev was re-elected. The altblurb might be confusing, as it makes it sound that Mirziyoyev was JUST elected. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * changed the wording from "becomes" to "remains" Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support The article issues have been fixed and appear to be ready. I prefer the altblurb, although it escapes from the usual blurb type for elections. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article now have an orange tagged section. Time to fix it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - and  The preliminary results were released by the Central Election Commission, the final results will be released at the end of October. However, all the RS are calling Mirziyoyev elected by a large margin. So, I don't think we need to wait anymore.-- Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 22:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the voter turnout section is orange tagged, once this is resolved, it looks good to go. I prefer ALT0, as he was elected (even if the election was questionable). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the results by region image in infobox is blank (and so misleading), can it either be updated or removed? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is fine, before the entire section was missing. Just address the disputed tag at the voter turnout section and we're good to go. --Tone 07:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and Should we remove the image in the infobox and the orange tagged section? The rest of the article looks ready to go.  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 05:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the table? Probably yes, the table seems to be the main problem and is not vital for the article anyway. --Tone 07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 22:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Impressively detailed article which is generally well referenced. The orange-tagged turnout section has reappeared so needs to be either cut again or fixed with references. Maybe move it to the talk page for now. Otherwise good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - All issues were resolved by ShadZ01 (which was added as an updater). I believe as all the issues were resolved it's good to go, so I marked it as "READY". I'll not ping people, because I don't want to annoy anyone on a Friday night. But it's ready.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 04:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Michael Tyler

 * Support Clear signs of improvement since the nom; I think this is adequately sourced now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The prose is long enough and has footnotes at expected spots, but the tables in the Filmography section need more refs. Please address the few {cn} tags there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks, Winderz IoT, for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Grant Woods

 * Comment One cn tag in the Career section and the 1994 election needs a source Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited depth of coverage; needs information about his role as attorney general.  Spencer T• C 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Osman Kavala case

 * Oppose Not significant yet development. 180.254.162.137 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait and see what the actual impact of this is. Also, if it becomes notable, maybe we should have a separate article and bold that article instead? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Considering the autocratic, mercurial source, this banishing of ambassadors doesn't seem truly significant or impactful – at least, not yet. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Nominating IP address listed as blocked. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor Sca announced that the nominating IP address 109.252.201.66 will be declared "persona non grata".  WaltCip- (talk)  14:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This may have the start of something larger in diplomacy, but this seems like a lot more of sabre-rattling and not a significant development. --M asem (t) 13:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Well, it got us talking about it, I suppose. But there's no geopolitical implications outside of this without having to resort to rubbing the crystal ball.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Peter Scolari

 * Oppose Article is in bad shape, a lot of unsourced sentences (not to mention filmography section). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Udo Zimmermann

 * Comment – Prominent figure in the Classical arenas of both Germanies and thereafter. Another fairly comprehensive RD article. – Sca (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Halyna Hutchins

 * Comment: Let's not post this on MainPage till after the AfD is closed. Also, please be reminded that the Filmography section needs to be referenced. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added more links --Andrei (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've closed the AfD as a WP:SNOW keep. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb Shot by a quite famous actor while making a movie about manslaughter and miscarriage of justice. Basically The Crow, but with roles reversed, charges reduced and a notable co-casualty. Not a "transformative" cinematographer, but definitely a big story here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already determined that the inadvertent shotting is not a ITN blurbworthy story (see below). And to have a relatively unknown actress qualify for a blurb is highly questionable (this is not a Kobe Bryant-level of importance). --M asem (t) 21:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was before all the victims were notable. And no, she wasn't Kobe Bryant. But she wasn't retired, either, arguably at the contemporary top of her field (which wasn't acting). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Not blurb-worthy but the article has quickly passed GNG requirements so there's no reason to withhold it from RD now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD I know there's still questions about why a prop gun was loaded and likely more details at the movie article, but it would be nice to see a statement from Baldwin or investigations related to the death, eg, at least as I read the media, they definitely don't seem to be blaming Baldwin for the death (whether legally he will be is a different question). --M asem (t) 22:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Accidents are blurbable, too, not just murders. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added his tweet, anyway, sure doesn't seem malicious. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether to blurb or not was already decided a few posts below this, and the result was "no". It's too late to relitigate that. This is only for deciding RD. Mlb96 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This target article didn't even exist when four people voted for four hours on an upcoming movie's article and/or a sentence semantically about a living actor and producer. Whole other nom here, about a recent death. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is well sourced, I would support a blurb but I feel a consensus won't be reached in time (which sucks). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you had, we'd be tied 2-2 right now, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Full Disclosure I wrote that blurb, uncredited, after the last vote. The nominator does not necessarily support it, and should be presumed "RD only". I was not compensated in any way for interfering in this process, and am not part of any relevant artist's guild. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. This story is generating significant news coverage and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, extremely strong oppose blurb The death is tragic, but she was in no way notable enough for a blurb; had Alex Baldwin been the one killed, I would argue that he would not be worthy of a blurb. This is a story of morbid curiosity but zero lasting impact (with the possible exception of reform I'm regards to weapon safety on set). -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment InedibleHulk, could you stop being POINT-y? You're disrupting the discussion. Someone with more experience than I should TROUT you. Baldwin is no A-lister and Hutchins is nowhere near top of her field. This is a tabloid-level story dominating a slow news cycle. 202.8.114.140 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD --PFHLai (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martha Henry

 * Comment One cn tag, otherwise everything seems ok Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced sentences in question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's a Support from me Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support because of how prolific she was. Connor Behan (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike McCoy (businessman)

 * A little short, but at >1700 characters, it's long enough to not be considered a stub. There are footnotes where there are expected. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [Update: 2100+ characters long now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)]
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Opening sentence states that he is an "American oil and gas businessman" yet this is only mentioned in 1 sentence in the article. Needs more information regarding his professional career.  Spencer T• C 23:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Spencer, I believe that it was a mistake to state in the opening sentence that McCoy was an oil & gas businessman, as he was more widely known as a sports owner & executive. I have re-arranged the materials in the intro. I have also added a little bit on his career in the industry to the wikibio. I hope this is enough. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a little too slim for me to support but my oppose is struck.  Spencer T• C 03:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking. --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, long enough and sourced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. The career section is almost entirely about one thing, which leaves almost nothing on the rest of his career. Needs a bit more detail before I'd consider it ready I'm afraid. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a few words there. --PFHLai (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PFHLai has kindly added a bit – hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't really add much. I think there is still a hole -- we don't know what he did in the oil and gas industry after leaving the Cowboys. I think this is due to the nature of his business as a low-profile worker, drilling in the middle of nowhere and toiling away from the limelight (unlike running a large taxi company in one of the largest city in the world and being somewhat connected to Trump's circle like Freidman above). And I would argue that this is not a hole that is big enough to kill this nom. The obituary released by his family and friends did not mention much more, anyway. I take this to mean that there's simply not much to write about. --PFHLai (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Definitely good enough for RD inclusion now.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - OK, given that PFHLai has added a little bit, and there's a genuine sense that there isn't much more to say, I'll withdraw my oppose. And with three other supports, this one was good to go so I've posted it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Rust shooting accident

 * Oppose this blurb makes it look like there's an article for the incident, which there isn't. It's four sentences in an article about an upcoming film, and that's all it will ever me. Tragic- yes. ITN-worthy- no. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think this would be in the news if it did not involve Baldwin. In essence this is a tragic workplace accident. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But it did involve Baldwin. I doubt Cumbre Vieja would have made the news if it had not erupted. He's in the news in both UK and US? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality based on minimal update on a stubby film page, Rust (upcoming film). Probably oppose on significance of the event too, a (currently) accidental but tragic death of a person that might not have a standalone page.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance – unless it could be shown that this was not an accident. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernard Haitink

 * Support It looks good article, however its lead should be improved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Multiple CN tags that need to be addressed.  Spencer T• C 06:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose two orange-tagged sections, and multiple other cn tags that need to be addressed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just one section now - Awards and honours - that needs attention. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * much improved since I saw it, - working on it Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * upd: Joseph, there are still a few unreferenced awards (commented out), and two of these final concerts (commented out), but I don't believe missing them makes the article unencyclopedic. I need a break for fresh air, - would be pleasantly surprised if someone revived those bits with refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks good to me. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Much improved, well sourced throughout. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite comprehensive as RDs go – over 1,000 words. Suggest post. – Sca (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I make it now 1,425. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What else is required here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they just wait for the "oldest" one on the page to have at least 24 hours. (And sometimes they don't.) I'll nominate the next shortly, it's sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, do they? I didn't know. Have they written that down anywhere? I guess that has a certain logic, as there's a finite amount of space. But not sure if that prevents this being marked as "Ready". Perhaps it should be marked "Ready (awaiting a slot)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – This significant RD has been ready to be posted for 16 hours. There's no editorial reason to delay it any longer. (I don't understand the Halyna Hutchins RD taking precedence over it, either.) – Sca (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: The paragraph in the Career section on his involvement with Boston, London, Berlin, etc. has zero footnotes. Please add references. (There is a {cn} tag at the end of that paragraph now.) --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now fully addressed? (I suspect all of those facts can also be found in the existing sources). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted--PFHLai (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Einár

 * Oppose. Basically a discography without context about his life or work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have expanded it. And it has been deemed a Start article based on article content besides Discography.BabbaQ (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have expanded the article further since above comments. Also added more sources.BabbaQ (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment it's 2183 characters long (excluding tables)- is there any more than can be said about him? If there really isn't then its just about long enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added some additional information. It’s long enough for RD inclusion now. BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support about long enough. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been expanded, and is of sufficient quality for posting to the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

 * Support looks fine for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Pinkney

 * Support Looks to be well-referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I fixed a couple of missing cites. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Haselböck

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Barbadian presidential election

 * Support. Change in head of state, and in system of government. Article is small (~start class) but cited throughout. I don't believe we should be using a title ("dame") in the blurb though but I could be wrong. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a bit trick to me. This seems to be a ceremonial position and an indirect election. Am I right?-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's also the election of the head of state who will succeed Queen Elizabeth when the Republic is established, so a little more significant than such elections would usually be. I'm personally mixed on whether or not it's ITN, or whether it would be better to wait until 30 November when the monarchy in Barbados officially ends, but I get why the conversation is occurring. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not opposing, but I'd suggest waiting until 30 November, when the constitutional shift is to take place. Much bigger story. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is important however the article looks not good. It should be improved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am broadly supportive of this. The article, while a bit short, is decent and the event is significant, but I do agree that it may make more sense to do it when the constitutional change actually takes effect. The blurb could also use revision to note that this is the first president of Barbados following Lizzie's removal.  Mel ma nn   07:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "Lizzie" hasn't been removed until the 30th, so we shouldn't be posting that yet. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as it is notable that they are switching how their head of state is chosen. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support whilst an unusual election, it's a change of head of state. Fine for it to run now, or on the 30th, which is when she becomes head of state. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I also support posting this in November with a combined blurb. --Tone 09:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ’’’Support altblurb’’’ Proposed an altblurb that clarifies the significance
 * Oppose posting now, wait until November 30. This election does not seem notable to me. The current Governor-General was nominated and approved by parliament to be the first president-elect, which appears to be a mostly ceremmonial role similar to her current role as Governor-General. I don't think we post when ceremonial heads of state change in other countries. Like others I agree the notable event is becoming a republic, which happens November 30. Arstoien (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to support altblurb. Jayron32 below makes a good point. Arstoien (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for Nov 30 This is quite a big thing for Barbados. I like the alt blurb. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. It is in the news now, so it should be posted now.  Waiting for arbitrary future dates when a story may or may not be in the news seems like a bad idea.  If it's being covered now, we should post it now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support posting a blurb now, but I think altblurb is slightly misleading and the original blurb is insufficient. I think the best blurb would be one that says that Barbados is transitioning into a republic, but "Barbados becomes a republic" makes it sound like the change of government type is effective immediately. This is something they've been planning for over a year, and Parliament appointing their first president is just one of the last major steps in that process. I'd propose an altblurb myself but I'm not sure what the best way to word it is yet. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb II, similar to BBC headline. I bolded the link to Republicanism in Barbados rather than 2021 Barbadian presidential election because most seem to think the becoming a republic is the main story, not the election. Arstoien (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Altblurb II is the most accurate one so far. <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> 💙 19:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: Is this meant for ITN now or end of November? And which link in the blurb should be bolded? 2021 Barbadian presidential election or Republicanism in Barbados? Both? --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Sakharov Prize

 * Support Checking the Sakharov Prize webpage, there's not much more details there either except a biography of Navalny. The article itself is top notch, however, and worth putting on the main page.  News is covering this, besides the EuroNews link above, there are substantial stories from WaPo, NY Times, and al Jazeera.  There's sufficient coverage to indicate significance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel the blurb needs to say something of why he got the prize or what the prize is nominally for (presently short enough to add something) though I'm not seeing, as usually with something like the Nobels, a short statement for the reason. --M asem (t) 15:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Prize's own webpage: the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is the highest tribute paid by the European Union to human rights work. It gives recognition to individuals, groups and organisations that have made an outstanding contribution to protecting freedom of thought. Through the prize and its associated network the EU assists laureates, who are supported and empowered in their efforts to defend their causes. I'm sure we can crib something from that.  I've made a stab at an altblurb.  Feel free to edit it or add another altblurb as needed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I know the prize is ITNR and not doubting its place there, but its relatively unknown and so why its given out should be mentioned. Good with the altblurb for that. --M asem (t) 16:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, but it could really do with at least a couple of sentences on why he won the prize. I've added alt2, which is based on the quotations in the WaPo report. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a quotation to the article. Some more on the reaction would be welcome. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On this, just below where you added, can we sentence-ify and add similar reasoning for the "2021 Knight of Freedom Award and 2021 M100 Media Award" things? They stand out when I look at the Sakharov Prize details. --M asem (t) 17:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – That pic is 10 years old. Perhaps a more recent one is available? – Sca (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Alexey Navalny in 2020 (cropped).jpg? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but composition is jumbled. Could be cropped to a mug, but facial expression is rather odd. – Sca (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality and age are both relevant factors, and I'm okay with an older, better picture over a newer, lousier one. His appearance does not appear to be significantly different between the two pictures.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If one did want to hunt for a newer picture of equivalent quality commons:Category:Alexey Navalny is a good place to start. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These two aren't too bad.  Favor the first one. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – A significant gesture vis-a-vis Russian autocracy. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Worth putting in, considering the article quality and the significance of the subject.ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support while there are a few unsourced claims in the BLP, "it's got more than 400 refs" etc etc, and I haven't the energy to argue. It would be just fine to bold the prize article too which, after all, is a featured list and isn't in bad condition.  I would say that.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as prize article is excellent, and this is a significant subject.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the EU awarding the Russian opposition leader in the current climate gets to ITN through ITNR, there may be something wrong with ITNR. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe the Sakharov Prize winners should not be automatically assumed relevant news stories to post to the main page, the place to have the discussion is Wikipedia talk:In the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: COVID-19 pandemic

 * Support No longer an urgent developing story, overall, just became its own daily genre of mundane statistical reports, like weather, stocks or sports. New normal, as they say. Certainly doesn't need us to spotlight it anymore, if it ever did, the word's out. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose one would be hard-pressed to find a news outlet which doesn't publish COVID-related stories every day. Banedon (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the requirement to stay on ongoing is that significant additions are being regularly made to an article. That isn't the case here, as there's barely any updates in October 2021. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is still the single dominant story worldwide, even a year and a half after it started, and it still kills thousands every day. We've always treated it as an exception to the "continual updates" rule, in the interests of providing a quick link to this ongoing story from the main page. And having it as an Ongoing item was already a compromise given that we previously had a dedicated box to it at the top of ITN, whose removal many editors opposed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When was there an agreed consensus to treat this as an exception? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The main reason why the article linked from ongoing doesn't receive regular updates is that it's already attained a stable version, and most of the daily updates are therefore done in its numerous sub-articles. If this is not enough to justify it, there are cases where we can invoke WP:IAR, and this is surely one of them. In the long run, we'll probably remove this from ongoing when WHO declares that the pandemic is over and post it in a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the unequal distribution of vaccines globally and the unequal vaccination rates across different regions of individual countries, it's unlikely that the WHO will declare the pandemic to be over any time soon. So we can't wait for such an announcement. The only criteria we can use is public interest which is still very high and will remain so for a while Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The pandemic is not only still going on, it's still front-page news in many (perhaps most?) countries. Coronavirus stories are currently the top item on the websites of the BBC, CBC, Guardian, New York Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Life has not returned to 'normal' in most places. I understand the argument that the article isn't receiving frequent updates, which has merit. The traffic is also down to 20,000 hits per day - not insubstantial but not as high as I thought it would be. The numerous sub-articles are being updated, so we could switch the link to a more active target, but then it would be difficult to decide which one and we would be missing parts of the story. We shouldn't penalise an event for being so big that it spawned dozens of articles. This is the biggest news story since ITN began; I think we can treat it as a special case and IAR. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Banedon, Amakuru. The pandemic remains the paramount condition of life on Earth and as such is comprehensively covered by RS media worldwide on a daily basis. – Sca (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is, quite literally, ongoing, and as others have said before, this is the biggest news story, and it's been so for over a year and a half. It would be wrong to remove this from Ongoing. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We can't wish COVID-19 away. Even if vaccines are now widely available, the ongoing supply chain issue caused by pandemic lockdowns is definitely still present and covered by RS.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The pandemic is ongoing and will be still for a long while. Sadly that link may remain there for a really long time but so be it. Rhino131 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Would it be better to change the link to a piped link to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2021 which is fully referenced and regularly updated? We could just shift the link each month to the new month's timeline.  Just a thought... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's listed in the 'Series' box below the infobox. Perhaps it should be added to 'See also' list below the text? – Sca (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say no, at that would be an Easter Egg link. If we're keeping COVID-19 on ongoing, it should be the main article about it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A reasonable suggestion in principle, but in practice those timelines are a random selection of facts with little consistency and no coherent narrative. I doubt they would be of much use to readers. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still top news around the World. Change to "COVID-19 pandemic (October 2021)" to include an updated article without removing the main article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Plenty of daily updates in subarticles of the topic - the top level is too broad for most of those to perculoate into that. --M asem (t) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The main problem with the Covid article is length – more than 18,000 words. That equates to some 70 pages of typescript, or over 500 column-inches of the newspaper type of yore. Maybe a contingent of courageous copy editors should set to work on paring it down somewhat? (Not that it's unimportant, it's just unwieldy.) – Sca (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:IAR, much like the pandemic itself.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Rochon

 * Support - C-class fully sourced article. Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Megan Rice

 * When? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.58.81 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Article quality looks good EXCEPT 1) there is no prose explanation of her death, either the manner or location of it, except that there is a date of death in the parenthetical at the beginning 2) The date, Oct 10, is to old to be considered for current inclusion on the list, unless news of her death has only been more recently released, and the explanation of her death in the text should indicate such a discrepancy as well. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WaPo obit added by the nominator is dated the 11th. Suggest Close. 159.53.78.141 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that this is the nominator's first nomination with WP:ITNC. I see that they have missed out by 1 day. I also see that the article is well-referenced and from the looks of it -- pretty much ready to make it to homepage / RD. As a one-time exception, I would request the Admins to consider this nomination, given that it is the nominator's first submission. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Russia-NATO relations

 * Weak Oppose All articles agree NATO dumped Russia in 2014 for messing with Crimea. Technically still something between them intermittently since, but hard to say exactly what; I think the average newsreader already considers them adversaries. That said, I'm willing to wait and see if an altblurb can put over the importance more decisively. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the source - NATO did not dump Russia in 2014, the two continued to exchange diplomats with one another. Banedon (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. In the context of a supposed military alliance, occasional talk between a few dozen people in Belgium is pretty far estranged. Almost none of their talk described in the post-Crimea years of our article is even with each other, just about each other to their respective media partners. That won't change now, and neither will their complete lack of practical cooperation. Just fewer offices in Brussels going through the motions of...whatever it is happens daily there. Hard to say, but it certainly seems like pure formality. If a believable ally (like Denmark) suddenly ditched, that'd be hot news. But Russia's presence always was fairly conspicuous, no element of surprise left by 2021, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Finn

 * Comment First spot check of references turned up problems, now tagged. 'Ography in good shape.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first part of the sentence in question and added a ref for the second part. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article seems to be fully sourced, including the bibliography. So, I think it's good enough for a RD.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edita Gruberová

 * Support. Well cited throughout, should be ready. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A voice hard to forget. Article looks pretty good. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  11:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: János Kornai

 * Oppose – At a grand total of 46 words, this article seems to have been prematurely nominated. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC )
 * Hi there -- did you mean to post this above comment on a different thread? This article has 662 words and is considered by rater.js to be a C class biography. It needs some work in organizing and tidying up, including adding refs for unreferenced sentences. But, definitely has more than 46 words. That said, if there is a Hungarian editor, I would like some additional news sources if available. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he meant to comment on Electron quadruplets which has exactly 48 words. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Sorry... – Sca (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If you still need more sources,Hungary Today recently published an English-language articleon his death Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few {cn} tags and an orange tag atop for missing citations. Most of the Works section has no footnotes, and the first footnote in that section has a deadlink (only the header of the website gets displayed on my screen). Please add references (and links to working websites).--PFHLai (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Electron quadruplets - New state of matter

 * Oppose on Quality Article is two sentences long. However once the article gets expanded I think this is notable enough. Jbvann05  21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At a grand total of 46 words, this article seems to have been prematurely nominated. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021
 * Oppose as of now, very much a stub. Unsure of notability; there seem to be a lot of weird states. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as really really early in the discovery process. Yes, it's a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal, and appears to have replicated experiments elsewhere, but even reading these news reports, they're not sure if these results conclusively give this answer, only that it continues to support this potential theory which has been around for a decade+. --M asem  (t) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions Is it visible? Tangible? Some "thing"? Is the thing in the Phys.org picture the matter? How is that not a solid, if so? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, the new state of matter hasn't been directly observed yet. There was experiments done that show evidence that a new state of matter may exist, but it may not.  Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Source comment - The two attached sources in the article are press releases from the professor's university that have been re-printed as the outlets haven't written their own pieces yet Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With science stuff it is different. The real information was published to Nature Physics, a big science journal.  Also, the professor listed you could consider the "main author" of the research and information, but there is tons of Universities from different countries involved in this.  Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as a single-source stub. I'm always unsure of when the right time to post a science story is, but this seems like something we could post at this point were the target article better. State of matter is currently largely uncited too otherwise I would suggest an update to it, which may still be feasible if someone with a science background is familiar with useful sources for it—I think we're more likely to get an update to that page than to get a main-page worthy article out of the new state in a timely fashion. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. I could just be ignorant here, so please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding of the situation is that evidence has been found which could suggest that a new state of matter may exist, as opposed to researchers coming to the conclusion that a newly discovered state of matter does in fact exist (or that it most likely exists). I'm worried that posting a blurb about it would imply that the findings are more conclusive than they actually are. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Phys.org churns press releases. No article should ever be written with it as a starting point, let alone run on Wikipedia's main page with the most hyped-up possible description of the result presented as fact. Beyond that, it's not even in the news, having so far only been picked up by the typical press-release aggregators. "ITN" isn't short for "In the clickbait". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - We could never publish a two lines one source orange-tagged article on the Main Paige.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article isn't necessarily even notable enough to exist, no way it's notable enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

 * Support removal Even though the eruption is still going it has lost the necessary interest of type of coverage that needs regular updating as to keep it in ongoing. This is an honest look at the news covering it, and while there's a story or three daily on it, its "yup, it's still going, still causing damage to the same parts of the island and we're still waiting for any big eruption", but otherwise like watching a teapot boil at this point. Should there be an actual destructive event, I can see a new blurb on that. If the eruption peters off, then that's it. --M asem  (t) 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal Even more than the sparsity of updates, what convinced me is that all of them are sourced to local Canary Islands news sources, and almost all of them from a single source. In other words, not wide coverage.130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal there are updates as recently as yesterday (17 October), and some updates for almost every day in the last week. This is still ongoing therefore. There is continued coverage in other sources in the last few days: The Times (paywalled), CBS, Sky News. All of these sources could be used to expand it, and demonstrate there is more than just local coverage of the ongoing event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the event is (literally) slow moving - there's still lava flow and the occasional quake, but the situation is not radically changing quickly as to necessitate updates that would have been ITN on a somewhat daily basis. Ongoing's not great for such slow-moving events either. As I noted, if there's a major event that happens, we can reconsider. --M asem (t) 13:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The update on Oct-17 was one sentence about lava slowing and one about rescuing some dogs. Are five stranded dogs pertinent enough to keep a story in ongoing? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal The OP's diff table is huge – over 200K – and so tends to prove the opposite.   The intensity seems to be getting stronger, as reported in the news – Lava tsunami; No end in sight; More cancelled flights; Drones deliver food to dogs.  And it's not like the space is needed for anything else – we'd just be printing white space otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't prove the opposite. There are minor content tweaks but very limited new, pertinent information as stipulated by the criteria In_the_news --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I'm updating this regularly - am trying for updating it daily. Saying that it was only updated on the 8th and no updates since is clearly incorrect per the article history (compare this with the other 'Ongoing' at the moment, last had a big non-bot edit on the 20th September). There are regular news stories about the progress of the volcano - the one I follow most is Canarian Weekly, so that's what I tend to reference, but there are others I could reference as well (e.g., El Pais has a whole section on its English front page dedicated to the volcano). Suggestions / messages about gaps would be really useful on the article talk page please (as would a notice about this discussion!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Daily content tweaks are not new, pertinent information as stipulated by the criteria In_the_news. The edit history doesn't reveal content changes, which is why I provided a diff of rendered content per revision. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing 'content tweaks' (fixing typos?), I'm adding updates to the content. There appears to be no definition of what 'pertinent information' means in this context. Mike Peel (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok then show me the new, pertinent information. I saw one about slowing lava and some stranded dogs. Did I miss one? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't defined 'pertinent'. But the current status is that a second lava flow will start going into the sea shortly (it's <200m away; nearby people have been restricted to their houses to protect them from the gasses - waiting for this to happen before this gets included); the town of La Laguna is at risk of going the same way as Todoque (football stadium and a supermarket already gone - mentioned in the article); and there have been the biggest earthquakes in the area recorded since the volcano erupted (up to 4.6 - in the article already). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal all the time people are reminding us that this is still "in the news" and posting links, but I'm not seeing any real encyclopedic content being added. Sure, the date formats have been tweaked and I think one sentence was added today by Mike Peel, but neither the "number of edits" nor the size of the diff table give any indication as to the quality of the updates being made.  This is so boring to explain ITNR each and every time, and this one in particular. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just reply by saying "Don't let anyone bully you away from contributing whatever you like, however you want. Stay strong and don't be dissuaded." Will do my best to do that, despite how all the ITNR discussions seem to be surprisingly stressful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That completely misses the point, and fair play, you added a sentence, and that was literally the highlight. Anyone can edit anything in any constructive fashion, yes, but unless it's maintaining a series of high quality, ongoing edits to an item listed in Ongoing, that item isn't meeting the requirements for Ongoing any longer.  Don't make it about you, it's not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence today (so far), two sentences yesterday, a sentence the day before .... Mike Peel (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, your contributions are the highlight. As Laserlegs enquires though, are we keeping an article on the main page because of five stranded dogs?  Is that really the mission of the encyclopedia?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See my reply to them, just above, giving three key developments that have either happened since the last discussion, or are pending. Note that none of them were about dogs. Mike Peel (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "key" developments? Ok.  My !vote stands. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those additions/stories are part of this being a very "slow-moving" (in both literal and theoretical sense) news story. There is a slow-rising but small uptick in continued damage to the island but unless a sudden eruption/quake happens, no one's lives are at danger at this point, and everyone is just waiting either for it to peter off or for the cautioned "big" event, which if that happened, would certainly create a flurry of news. Keeping something that is just having this trickle of news in ongoing is not helpful because it is meant for stories where we'd likely to have otherwise have blurbs on a near-daily basis. --M asem (t) 15:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove While there are some small updates being made from time to time, the article is no longer up to quality (all new additions are a WP:PROSELINE mess) and major news sources are no longer featuring this prominently. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality can definitely been improved (it's been interesting to see the flurry of edits by other editors today). Whether major news sources cover it likely depends on which country you are in and what language they use, sadly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question When was the last time something happened that is more significant than the non-posted List of currently erupting volcanoes?  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken this one to Articles for deletion/List of currently erupting volcanoes due to serious structural problems. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove: Volcanoes can easily go on erupting for months, doing little bits of damage here and there. That doesn't make them front-page news. Perhaps editors have enjoyed seeing lava fall into swimming-pools or something entertainingly tweetworthy. That doesn't justify being on the front page either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes them ongoing events. Your sarcasm isn't appreciated. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of the ongoing line is to displace the need to have blurbs on the same event over and over again (eg like Olympic or World Cup results). That means there needs to be events that are blurb-worthy to be happening in the event, which the ongoing eruption is not generating. --M asem (t) 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't align with what Ongoing is all about. Otherwise we should 2021–22 Premier League on there, right?  It's "in the news" around the world and is an ongoing event, albeit with relatively trivial events (watched nonetheless by millions across the globe), sounds like we need that here right now.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, this is turning into a debate about what 'Ongoing' is fundamentally about - I think we should be doing much more there, but that's a topic for another venue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * indeed. Ongoing is an oddball at the moment, oft-misunderstood from its initial instantiation.  By all means, and I mean this, please make proposal(s) at WT:ITN on how to improve the way it "works"?  And thanks for your efforts on this article, I feel I may not have been clear that your contributions really stood out amongst the hundreds of tweaks.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mike Peel's commendable effort. Others too... 108.46.31.187 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal -- trivial and no longer generating sufficiently noteworthy coverage to remain in Ongoing. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This isn't to say nothing is currently happening or that there isn't a steady flow of updates, but merely that the ongoing updates are not at the level where, in isolation, they might warrant their own blurb, and as I understand it that's what the ongoing ticker is meant to represent. It's not one blurb-worthy event strung along for as long as it's happening (or surely we'd still have the last US election up there for how long it's still being contested), but one listing for a series of what might otherwise be blurb-worthy posts (the covid pandemic is a good example of this--we could have a blurb for every new case/death milestone, or new vaccine, or new variant detected, etc, but we collapse them all down into one ongoing listing). And since the current state of this event is no longer at the point where a day's events would be independently worthy of listing, I can't support it remaining as an ongoing item. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, as updates are ongoing to the article, and Mike Peel is doing good work on it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Andrew has been showing persistent signs of WP:OWN about including this on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.114.34 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal Should have never been added. Lots of things that get blurbs have "ongoing" impacts, doesn't mean we keep them posted forever.   GreatCaesarsGhost   02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal per Jayron and Grapple X. The is the fundamental problem with the ongoing section; this should have been posted as an item and allowed to age off, rather than being directly posted to Ongoing..  Spencer T• C 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. Not much is happening, media interest has passed. Yes the eruption hasn't stopped, but ongoing impact is low. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove – From what we've see it appears this eruption could go on for a very long time without great change. If something really significant happened we could consider it then. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove - The article was never really at an acceptable level and hasn't gotten better since it was put in ongoing. Key problems are that it is almost all a proseline and that it lacks an effective explanation of either the geographic or geologic setting of the eruption. I keep meaning to fix these deficits, but I have been saying "I'll fix it tonight" for 2 weeks and haven't done anything. Rockphed (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed from ongoing. --Tone 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Colin Powell

 * Support, possibly blurbworthy as he was the first African-American to be Secretary of State. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to go, RD with official state portraiture. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose quite a bit uncited.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've got rid of one of the "Citation needed" tags; at most that section was synth, but I don't believe even that section applies. The other I've been able to find nothing and suspect it might be OR. I also note that there are other lines that should probably be tagged with "Citation needed", though most of those are for relatively minor matters with no major impact on the article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment His wikibio can be improved. In any case, if he has to have a blurb it’s for his career, especially for leading international policy and global diplomacy during the Iraq invasion, not for being "the first...". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: Article needs some small improvements. Otherwise it looks OK overall. However I do not believe this article is blurb quality, but it does look suitable for RD once the issues are fixed. Colin Bear  ( talk  - contributions) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD on necessary improvements but oppose blurb He's a household name in the US associated with the events of the Middle East but reading through, outside being the first African-American SoS, whether his role was that impactful. Visible, yes. --M asem (t) 12:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dates of ranks and Awards and decorations need sourcing.130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Although former POTUSes get autoblurbed, I don't know if the same is true of other cabinet members. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He was not a world transformative figure, even if he had a role in significant events. If this were USApedia, he would get a blurb, but it's not. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – pending improvements to article. Arguably 'transformative' as the first Afro-American secretary of State, i.e. the No. 1 U.S. diplomat, and a Cabinet member. His tenure is in recent memory. Held several other high positions in the U.S. government and military, and was widely known abroad. Very widely covered by RS sites, i.e. 'in the news.' A household name to many. Pics. avail. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He was forced to resign after helping start a war he failed to prevent, hardly a top diplomat, despite the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This not about our opinions of his career, it's about significance of his role and news coverage of his death. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not my opinion. Plenty of obits recall the facts behind his sacking. So does his article. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not about the character or outcome of his decisions, it's about his influence and the notability of the positions he held – over an extended period. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Influence and position are all about outcome. He died a man "whose sterling reputation was forever stained when he went before the United Nations to justify an invasion of Iraq", per the AP lead. Forever includes the past 18 years and today. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very prominently in the news. Influential person in recent history. Nuff said. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC).
 * The invasion of Iraq is one of the most significant events of the 21st century so wouldn't his role make him more ITN-worthy? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It could (pending an altblurb about a general) be a point for blurbing. But it still disqualifies him from the top tiers of diplomacy, which is all I'm arguing here. My "no blurb" from above is based on "old man dies" and "not the president" points. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I find it hard to believe we'd post a blurb for a cabinet member of any other state. I'm not a fan of the supposed "Thatcher/Mandela" standard for blurbs but even relaxing the bar, Powell's highest office was, if I'm not mistaken, fifth from the "top" as far as seniority goes within his own nation. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not a head of state, not a head of government. Just one of many members of the government executive branch. Chrisclear (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD - Plenty of uncited text. 2601:143:8000:A7E0:F92E:2FB6:5A95:404D (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit split on this one. He's definitely a highly influential figure in recent history and played a major role in forming Bush Jr's foreign policy, but personally I don't think he's at Kissinger's level. In Herring's book on the history of US foreign relations, Powell is mentioned twenty times. For comparison Kissinger is mentioned in over a hundred paragraphs and there's a separate chapter on him and Nixon. So it depends on how high the bar is Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait... Henry Kissenger is still alive? Wow. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That feeling when you outlive 4 secretaries of state that came after you Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support only when missing citations are fixed. It's ridiculous to me that people don't believe the first black United States Secretary of State is notable enough. Trillfendi (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Maybe I'm being a bit US-centric (not that there's anything wrong with that), but he's been a notable figure for over 30 years, and was closely involved with both Iraq Wars. His notability in the first Gulf War was in a league only otherwise occupied by George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Norman Schwarzkopf.  If it weren't for his personal preferences, he likely could have run for--and won--the Presidency in 1996 or 2000.  And it was partly due to his influence, clout and respectability that there even was a Second Gulf War.  His notability is probably most comparable to Henry Kissinger, in terms of being blurb-worthy--if you would oppose Colin Powell, then you should oppose Henry Kissinger on the same grounds.Ryan Reeder (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, suggesting a higher level of world influence. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was basically window dressing to placate the U.S. for losing the Vietnam War. – Sca (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely would support Kissinger, but I'm still on the fence with Powell. Starting to tilt towards support though. Right now,it might complicate things if we start comparing this nomination to a hypothetical future one Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He was highly influential in American Politics for quite some time, first African-American Secretary of State, Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, held numerous other positions, and was a major leader for both of the invasions of Iraq. Wandavianempire (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Considered as presidential candidate in '92. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words they are a person who didn't do something that wouldn't have made them notable enough for a blurb had they done it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Old man dies is the story, that's what RD was made for. He wasn't a world leader, he wasn't transformative in his field, his death isn't going to change anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not quite up to the level. I don't know of many US political figures outside of Presidents who would have a blurb. Kissinger yes, but I think Powell then falls short. Rhino131 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb we've not posted head of states who die of old age, so why should we post someone who is less notable on the world stage? No evidence that his death is ITN-worthy importance. Also, oppose RD for now, as there's too much unsourced content. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Article needs some ref work before posting. I would support a blurb when article is up to scratch. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now due to some quality issues in the article (already noted above). When it is ready, I would support RD only because neither the manner of his death, nor the reactions to it, need any further explanation that a blurb would afford.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for now per aforementioned quality issues, neutral on blurb. We will certainly point to this discussion if Henry Kissinger ever dies for precedent. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I find it fascinating how US-based editors in an effort to internationalize things oppose a nomination for clearly notable candidates. Same thing happened recently with Rumsfeld. Both are incredibly well known globally thanks to their involvement in the Iraq war, including some very strong opinions from older generations. Ironically Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the top blurb and picture after her death, and she is a lot more obscure outside of the US. Prominent Cabinet Members and CJCS should really get a blurb by default, these discussions are ridiculous. Meanwhile actors from the 40s and C-list athletes with borderline stubs constantly fill RD with no problems. Especially when some here cite "quality issues" even for RD, as if articles likeEnamul Haque (actor) were anything beyond average. jonas (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, the picture is not a thing - MP admins like to cycle the picture anytime they can to keep the page fresh. Second, US (and UK) editors should recognize the inherent bias in thinking stories/people from their homelands are more important, while the anti-bias forces should understand that they actually *are* more important in world culture due to western influence. It's a balancing act, but sacrificing mid-level political appointees seems a modest price to pay.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - He is not in the same league of other politicians whom we have blurbed.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as David Amess? – Sca (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Amess is only blurable because of how he died. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD upon citation issues being resolved Powell is not a former head of state nor is his manner of death exceptionally newsworthy, albeit there would be worldwide reaction given his roles both in the Persian Gulf War and his tenure as Secretary of State. A RD mention is more than adequate, however. rawmustard (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. According to a documentary I saw, "can you name the Secretary of State" was a question asked during Navy SEAL training around that time. Connor Behan (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD regardless of article issues since he was an influential military figure. Neutral on blurb for now. Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Powell was one of the most influential American leaders of the 1990s/2000s; again, far more obscure people get RDs all the time without issue. Article issues shouldn't bear on this. Neutral on blurb, not quite sure if he merits it but I can see the case. The Kip (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article in reasonable shape. Well-known global figure.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: When there are 10+ {cn} tags in the article, it should not be on ITN -- Neither blurb nor RD . --PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think we should put importance and significance of a person above the quality of the article. For example, when Elizabeth II dies, she will most certainly get a blurb since she played an instrumental role in shaping the UK and the British monarchy. We can always fix the article while it is posted. I see nothing wrong with posting as a blurb or RD if an article needs more work. Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Support RD once CN issues are resolved, of course, but it's hard to justify blurbing him. If we are to blurb a politician's passing, they should meet at least one of these criteria: that they were a head of state, or that their death itself was a notable event (as is the case with Sir David Amess), or that they were otherwise one of the most well-known figures of the time and notable for other reasons. I feel like there'd be a better case for blurbing Kissinger whenever he passes, and even that'd probably take a lot of discussion to reach a consensus. <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> 💙 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD due to lack of recognition of Colin Powell outside being only senator and secretary, unlike the Queen of England, where her's death will be posted as blurb. 180.254.171.143 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Powell was not a member of the U.S. Senate. KConWiki (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, Highly influential figure in american history during the early 21st century. KommanderChicken (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD p  b  p  01:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD (only) – Wasn't really a world statesman. STSC (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb ONCE sourcing is fixed. It's very funny how all these US editors are trying to internationalize ITN/RD. I mean, c'mon now.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Standing up in front of the United Nations and reciting a list of falsehoods makes him 'transformative'.  He had a keey role in starting a major war.  He more than anyoe else was the public face of the invasion of Iraq.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. But now no longer news (in the 24-hour news cycle world). CoatCheck (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm surprised this is even in contention. Do not post anything other than the death of a head of state or government. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I oppose a blurb as well, that is just plainly wrong and against current consensus. We are not limiting ourselves to head of state or government even in the political space when it comes to posting blurbs. See the posting of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. WaltCip- (talk)  11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That should not have been posted either. Banedon (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then how about Sean Connery, Diego Maradona, Hank Aaron, or Prince Philip? Mlb96 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD - just a few sources that needs to be added before posting. The article is nowhere near ready for a Blurb however. BabbaQ (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD there is no difference in standard between RD and blurb-level BLPs, and this one clearly doesn't yet meet it. Also oppose a blurb in principle, for the reasons given above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb US Secretary of State is not the power-holder in the country, he served his term 16 years ago with nothing that really makes him more important than the other holders of that office, and the cause of his death is not an assassination or an accident that would make it notable. That being said, he doesn't qualify for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD not blurb this would be better off as an RD nomination then a ITN item. TootsieRollsAddict   (talk to me pls I am lonely)  11:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Although he was notable, his death is not notable enough to warrant a blurb and can be simply described in his article. Perfecnot (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Just a few citations added and it's good to go. Whether it's significant enough for a blurb is up to debate, but I'm leaning Support blurb. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that it's still a long way off even RD standard. 16 citation-needed tags currently. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb He was a significant US figure, and was the first ever African-American Secretary of State. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Although the blurb option was my post, it's evident at this pt. that RD is the consensus. Marked needs attn. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 15 CN tags, and plenty of editors expressing concern about quality still. There is no consensus for blurb, but no consensus for RD either. As I've said previously, we need a way to more clearly state opposition of a blurb that is not read as support for RD.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RD is the consensus, but there are stil cn tags. Not posting until fixed. --Tone 19:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No more Citation needed tags. A great team effort. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD. In two minds about blurb, but the article is ready. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Referencing issues resolved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is now ready. Major involvement in starting and overseeing one of the deadliest wars this century so far. Highly visible, international role including that presentation of lies at the UN. Abundant RS coverage of his death. Also the first African-American secretary of state. I would alternatively support image RD since Amess has been up there awhile and Powell is widely recognizable. Davey2116 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You realize there's no war, lies or black history in the blurb, right? It says a former US secretary of state died (of apparently nothing), aged 84. If you expect people to click inside for SHOCKING details on a big name, they can learn for themselves the same way via an IMG-RD post. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article now looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to RD line. Quite a miss now. Don't see why a substandard article can prevent this name-listing. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Tone 08:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bandula Warnapura

 * Support. Referenced throughout, no tags for concern. Seems ready. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) The International 2021

 * Oppose WP:ROUTINE as yearly event in a niche area. We do not post winners of the National Lottery or Love Island either despite its huge participation and following.Abcmaxx (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this event is not covered in many mainstream sources, and so is not important enough for ITN, as it's way too niche. And the nominator is wrong about half the sport postings right now consider sports such as Cricket and whatnot that have infinately smaller followings world wide than championships like the International, as the IPL, which is on front page now, had 380 million viewers this year . Although WP:OSE applies anyway, we should focus on this article, which isn't ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * >this event is not covered in many mainstream sources ; Neither are cricket, or whatever pollo, or even less popular sports that get posted yearly. And way fewer people care about those than about the international Daikido (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Truly terrible comparison. Cricket is a 200 year old sport and is definitely well covered in all mainstream news outlets in places that play this sport. Gaming, whilst popular, is still struggling to be even recognised as a sport. Lots of people care about Strictly Come Dancing and Great British Bake Off, we still do not post the winners of those "sporting" competitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Cricket is in the mainstream news where it is popular. Cricket is popular in India and Pakistan, where over 1/7 of the population of this planet lives. No sources have been offered indicating this is in the mainstream news anywhere. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Cricket is not covered in mainstream sources": wrong., , from a 30 second check. The International in the other hand is a competition that most people have never heard of. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (ec) No sources offered indicating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Had a look to try finding mainstream sources but nothing's showing up other than dedicated gaming sources, many of which would not meet WP:RS. Is that perhaps a journalistic problem, that they aren't covering something with "tens of millions of concurrent viewers"? Probably. But it's also indicative of this not being something we're able to post either at this point. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Hold up for a second. This is a new article of good quality, which is job #1. It is being covered extensively in a large number of reliable sources. Lots of editors seeking "mainstream coverage" which is not an agreed upon standard here - go find mainstream coverage for the Cape Verde election where sure to post soon. Also the pageview count is comparable with IPL - people are looking for this. Clearly the nominator triggered a bunch of you with a really bad argument, but the is not about them. Consider the nominated article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please offer some of these sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My question as a reader is, the international what? – Sca (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And why does a developer-sponsored tournament for one of their own games, clearly to promote the game, merit this attention? Why this game? 331dot (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not here to decide what merits attention. We follow RS.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If that were true, we would have posted Shatner, which was actually in mainstream news. This tournament is just one expensive advertisement for their game. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the three mainstream sources above, here are additional sources that have been evaluated positively at WP:RSN:     GreatCaesarsGhost   12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Computer gaming is a major cultural pastime which ITN under-represents (mind you, so is television). However e-sports are a minority pursuit within gaming and this particular tournament has received coverage only in specialist gaming outlets (IGN, PCGamer etc.) and does not appear to have been broadcast on any mainstream television channels. That's not enough to merit an ITN blurb. Valve streaming people playing their own game is good marketing, not a genuine sport. In addition, the article is mostly results tables, with no prose on the actual play or outcome. The comparison with cricket is laughable - that sport has over a billion active fans and 300 million current players . e-sports are nowhere near that level. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we really all on here seriously suggesting that all of e-sports in 2021 is a niche interest? That one of it's biggest events, following by millions around the world, is a sales promotion of the game's corporate owner?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am suggesting both of those things. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Esports are far from niche, given it is a >$1B market within a $200B market of video games. Esports are more likely to use streaming media than broadcast, so that should not be the factor here. The International has been reported on by mainstream news in the past, but this year, being the first back as a live event after COVID (and even then, limited due to venue changes and a limited live audience due to COVID restrictions) it has not be noted yet by any major sources, and in fact I was waiting myself for some before nominating (the ones given aren't the ones I'd have used). So would tend to agree that right it fails the normal "in the news" test for this specific event, but calling esports "minor" greatly misrepresents their role relative to video games when it comes to what would be an ITN aspect. --M asem (t) 12:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The global market for cable cars is >$3 billion, soap is >$30 billion, and yoga is $90 billion. That doesn't mean we should be posting them in ITN. Your explanation for the lack of media interest is just special pleading. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not pleading about this being posting, I am opposing it still since there's no mainstream coverage of the event still as of today. But I do oppose calling it a niche sport considering some of the other athletic ITNRs we post. --M asem (t) 14:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion of an update to WP:ROUTINE is in order - though there will be the question of which ones are notable: Overwatch World Cup? League of Legends World Championship? Pokémon World Tournament? etc. Plus, most Esports by design of the games don’t last more than a decade or so - at least none of note yet. Regarding media coverage, I’d say the more famous events are more covered than the less covered ITNR ones like The Boat Race or America's Cup. Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been arguing for years that the Boat Race should be removed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I actually opened a discussion around a year or so ago about which possible video game esports would be potential ITN topics. The International would definitely be one of them, but there absolutely has to be non-specialized coverage. Mainstream sources have covered The International before, so that's my expectation here. --M asem (t) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - E-sports in its current form will never get posted to ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This event was actually posted in 2016 and 2017. Can't link the archives because of the [] issue, but they're in the August 2016 and August 2017 sections. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We also blurbed the death of Carrie Fisher in that time, so the bar has certainly risen. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Largely absent from RS main sites. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Purely due to no prose Results. To answer above concerns: there's no less than 6 RSs covering this, including very widely-read ones like MSN and Yahoo. I would like a genuine answer as to why these are not considered RSs, or why they are considered "specialized". There's a double superlative here: largest prize ever for an E-sport tournament and largest prize pool ever. I think that's enough to justify notability ex-ITNR. Asking why the developer is hosting a tournament is just silly. Who organizes FIFA? A group of disinterested parties?130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the more apt comparison would be if the World Cup was organised by Adidas to advertise the Telstar 18; as for "not RS", I was referring to searching for broad coverage, which brings up Wikipedia, "Liquipedia", and Dota 2's homepage before any news sources. I have no issue with Yahoo but it was absent at the time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait untill we see coverage in more news outlets. BBC, CNN, Euronews, Al-Jazeera, South China Morning Post seem to be completely silent on the topic Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even as someone who plays video games, I cringe a bit when people try and put them up at the level of other sports, but the reality being Esports certainly can reach a level of notability that rivals other sports. The reason that nominations for ITN as far as Esports goes simply aren't up to snuff is kinda similar to some of the combat sports where you have to factor in the significance of every event. For example, if there was a single annual tournament recognizes as THE title event for a wide range of competitive games then that would certainly be worthy of ITN, but does Dota 2 Esports alone have enough significance? No, so that's my vote (and I would hope this sort of policy becomes precedent at some point) DarkSide830 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose E-Sports is nowhere near the level of most actual sports and hasn't been covered in widespread media nearly enough. As an aside, cricket is regarded by many as the second most popular sport in the world and the last World Cup had 2.6 billion viewers and 8 million watched the final just from the UK. Terrible comparison. Jbvann05  16:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 15000 page views per day isn't enough to make the "page views" argument. A better topic for DYK. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 16:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I do agree with the idea that it's about time we start including some e-sports. E-sports are sports, and we have no problem posting sports to ITN.  E-sports have large audiences, large revenues, and large purses.  In some countries (Korea) e-sports attract a bigger audience than some sports on ITN/R.  The only thing we're really lacking is an objective way to evaluate e-sports to determine which ones are ready to join the list of sports on ITN/R and which ones are not yet there.  I don't have a solution for that, but hopefully someone else does.  In terms of this specific blurb, however, the biggest purse in e-sports history pushes this into weak support territory for me, since purse size is one potential objective indicator of significance; but I'm open to hearing arguments either way. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced esports are a sport, but whatever they are called, there is no objective event held to determine who is the best- these events are usually held by gamemakers as promotional events for their individual games. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from main RS sites. Significance not apparent. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Earthshot Prize

 * My comment is only to question how major are these awards compared to the dozens of other environmental awards that are out there (it has news coverage, it has an updated article). I mean, each winner getting GBP 1 million is nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but given this is by a charity rather than, say, the UN, and doesn't have the test of time like the Nobels, I just have a bit of concern on how these are more significant than any other. --M asem (t) 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a new award in its first year is difficult to assess the significance of. They've got some celebrity involvement, certainly, but is that it? Do actual conservation scientists consider this the top award in their field? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose More work is needed. For example, there's a simple grammatical error in the proposed blurb – are/is.  And there's much more.  In the case of the Nobel prizes, we expect to have articles about the winners and it's embarassing when we don't.  But none of the winning schemes seem to have articles – there are no links in each category.  Having links for the various celebrities and sponsors is not enough. For example, consider the case of Costa Rica.  We have an article Deforestation in Costa Rica but there was no article about Reforestation in Costa Rica until I started one just now and that's still just a stub. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not a notable project (with Shakira as one of the judges?) STSC (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She's "offset" by David Attenborough, though, as far as eminence goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Largely absent from RS main sites. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh? Name one.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever else anyone thinks about this, I think the BBC and NY Times are pretty mainstream. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Absent from main pages of AP, NYT. - Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On a 2 minute search, I've found BBC, Guardian, The Times (paywalled)], Euronews, Independent, Sky News. All of which are mainstream coverage of the event, and not all just copies of each other's articles (as sometimes happens for events). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, if you have to search for a topic to find it in the news, it's not major news. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "traditional" wire services (Reuters, AP, AFP) are also doing their thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prince William donates money and issues a press release. This is a grant named as a prize. Nothing here. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the article, it's not his money, but funded by philanthropists and other charities. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose less notable than the Esports prize which may or may not be newsworthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this blurb really should explain *what* this prize is. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sean Wainui

 * Comment added BBC Sport article and referenced some bits using it. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I see no reason to oppose Abcmaxx (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Opoose A couple of tagged unsources sentences.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unsourced, important content. Like source for how many appearances for NZ U20. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is one {cn} tag left -- need to confirm the number of appearances in the U20. Otherwise, this wikibio is long enough and has enough footnotes to be READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Please consider trimming off that half sentence not supported by references. (Adding a footnote would be better, if possible.) --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Ross

 * Long enough and has footnotes at expected spots across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. Hope this can be promoted before it gets archived in 17 hours time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brendan Kennelly

 * Support - Fully sourced. Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

2020 Thomas & Uber Cup

 * Comment needs some sort of summary of the tournaments. Right now, for the tournament itself, we only have tables and knockout brackets, but this is insufficient article quality for an ITN posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Virtually the entire article is cited to primary sources (BWF and regional bodies) or something called "tournament software" which does not have any indication of being a reliable, independent source.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. There is no prose at all on what happened at the tournament. There needs to be at least one fully-referenced paragraph describing the event, who won etc. We never post articles that are just results tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two days later, still no prose. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more days later, no changes. --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Cape Verdean presidential election

 * Support Change of head of state, ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; changes to a countries head of state tend to be sufficiently notable for ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is short and needs at least some prose in the results section, as well as reactions. Then, it is ITNR, so it can be posted when meeting the standards. --Tone 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, José Maria Neves needs more citations. Joofjoof (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements - Notability is a given and doesn't need to be discussed; the article isn't in a horrible state, but it is a little too slim to be ready. It could benefit from more text in the campaign subsection. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Article improvements are much appreciated; striking condition from !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> 💙 21:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per others. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - and  I added some info on the results and aftermath section. I don't use to write many election articles, but I've tried my best.-- Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. Still very short but the basics are there. --Tone 08:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, could someone give me the "credits". Thanks. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 20:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroshi Ono

 * Support Short but meets minimum standards. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is long enough and has enough references, except the bit about a "mysterious illness" that made him unable to move, which is not mentioned in the footnoted Ref.#3 and needs a new source. Otherwise, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That illness was mentioned from one of the existing sources (while sources reportedly claim what it is, think stating it would be a BLP issue), so that has been fixed. --M asem (t) 19:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis Franks

 * Long enough and has footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Lynn

 * Support - fully sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted after removing an empty "See also" section. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leo Boivin

 * Support Seems to be properly referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Striketober

 * Oppose Unless the strikes are large enough to paralyze the US economy and bring the government to the negotiating table, I doubt it's going to have a lasting impact. Also the article could use some work, for example there's no mention of the Taft-Hartley Act in the background section (Although I'm not sure if a background section talking about the history of labor unions in the US is really that necessary) Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This sounds like it might be better for Ongoing, although I'm not certain the article would be updated consistently. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not enough coverage for ITN, which isn't intended to be a republishing of an American news website. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing because it's not important enough. If this wasn't in the US, nobody would consider nominating it, it's just one of the way too many not important US-centric nominations. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's it Joseph... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment still stands. If you would like to see more non-US items posted, please nominate them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph and Scaramouch. Come on…strikes happens everywhere! Also the general ones. Unnotable (per now). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough. Tradedia talk 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – So far largely absent from main RS news sites. – Sca (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification –, , , , , my intention was to make this an ongoing nomination (that's why I didn't include a blurb). The ITN template has been updated, my mistake. Just wanted to ping you all in case you had a different opinion on including this as an ongoing news event.--WMrapids (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good faith, but I still oppose this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still oppose ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It feels like even the major news sources consider the connection between these strikes as somewhat coincidental (but there are reasons for common timing), and as such, so far not a major news story in of itself. --M asem (t) 15:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - with thanks to the good faith nom, but Ongoing nominations still need to satisfy the same newsworthiness criteria as blurb items; and under most circumstances they would start life as a blurb anyway, rolling onto Ongoing when they reach the bottom of the list if they're still receiving regular updattes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith no, but only the individual strikes should count if they do at all This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Alan Hawkshaw

 * Oppose Many unsourced statements. It doesn't appear any work has been done since the nomination.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are at least 12 {cn} tags in the prose, plus a few more in the list of bullet-points. Please add references. --PFHLai (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Shenzhou 13

 * Note: Fixed malformed nomination. Originally nominated by IP noted above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Not withstanding the underwhelming effort at actually filling in the nomination template properly, even at the second time of asking, this article also has lots of citations needed and it's almost stale. The bottom two entries in the template date from the same date. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality far too many citation needed tags right now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerd Ruge

 * Suggestion: With under 1600 characters of prose, this wikibio looks rather stubby. Perhaps the "important reports" can be incorporated into the prose to make it less stubby? --PFHLai (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Expanded the article and has now shaped into a C-class biography. Can expand further, but, the article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD in its current form. Ktin (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 6000+ characters now! That's an impressive growth just overnight! --PFHLai (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tropical Storm Kompasu

 * Oppose $20 million USD isn't that much damage, and the death toll is routine for this part of the season. Damage is missing for Hainan and the rest of Southeast Asia. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * php 2.97 Billion ($58 million USD) is a lot of damage to a developing country that is heavily reliant on agriculture. More than a billion php in losses in the agricultural sector. Will update the article. Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support though with updates that Destroyeraa stated they will add and of course pending additions. --M asem (t) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support We've posted stuff like this before. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – A significant storm badly affecting the region. STSC (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose storm season is storm season and this one isn’t bad enough to even make the Asia page of BBC news. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Updates have been made, Hainan impact added. Destroyer (Alternate account) 22:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support death toll is clearly notable, and this is the fourth-deadliest tropical cyclone of the year so far. Article quality is more than sufficient for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – After a period of consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this storm is notable enough for an ITN posting. Sure, this storm may be seem like a lot to some people, but it has a significant death toll, and it did a substantial amount of agricultural damage in the Philippines, in addition to having notable impacts elsewhere. Also, NorthernFalcon is right in pointing out that Kompasu is currently the 4th-deadliest tropical cyclone in 2021.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this storm dissipated on 14 October, I don't see how it's still a current event for ITN? If nominated a week ago, I would have supported, but it seems stale to me (unless anyone can convince me otherwise?) <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can stick this in as the 4th item on ITN, I suppose. Any more SUPPORT votes? --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes time for recovery services to fully assess the level of damage and provide an accurate death toll. For example, Hurricane Ida was posted a week after landfall. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand and I don't mind waiting a bit. I am hoping for more support votes to come in soon and raise the Support/Oppose higher, before this items becomes too old to displace the oldest item on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per support comments above. SodaSoummelier (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tropical Storm Choi-wan (2021) killed 11, this one killed 40. We don't have a minimum deaths for notability and nothing in the article says this is anything other than a routine storm tragically killing 40 people in a developing country with lax building codes and enforcement where sadly higher death tolls are to be expected. Can someone tell me what makes Choi-wan unusual other than some arbitrary death toll? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of reasons, 40 is still a high and noteworthy death toll. Not sure what Choi-wan has to do with this here. I'm not following. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is 40 a high and noteworthy death toll? Would 38 have been? Why is 40 the magic number? What circumstances around this particular storm make 40 high and noteworthy? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Even 37 works for me. There is no magic threshold number. If you want to know why this is noteworthy, click and read. It's news. And the wikiarticle is updated to reflect what happened. Good enough for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kompasu is the deadliest and most damaging storm this year so far in the Philippines. Having caused nearly php4 billion in damage, it will certainly get retired. Choi-wan was not posted because it was a run-of-the-mill storm. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Typhoon Molave killed 27 last year. Seems totally routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Seems totally routine" for an appearance on ITN, I suppose. --PFHLai (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Indian Premier League Final

 * Oppose almost no prose in there at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Prose updates for the match have been completed. If there is anything else that is required, please do let know. Ktin (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has been expanded, and its inclusion would be in line with precedent set by the inclusion of events such as Super Bowl LV. Unrelated to my support, and on the topic of the article - it might be worth explaining why it was played in Dubai rather than India. I assume that this is due to COVID, but it would be good if the article clarified. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks great! Sherenk1 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine as it has a match summary. ALT1 follows our normal postings for sports matches with finals, ALT0 is an WP:EASTEREGG link to the article on the final. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Killing of David Amess

 * Wait We don't yet know the extent of his injuries, and the article is still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We also posted the murder of MP Cox in 2016. Attacks on legislators are rare in most western democracies. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait to see the outcome/extent of his injuries. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – One person injured killed wouldn't make the grade, no matter how extraordinary the circumstances, unless it could be shown that organized terrorism was involved. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has to be terrorism, but any deliberate attack. Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, if the attack was because he was an MP or because of his political views, that qualifies as terrorism under UK law. Though the murderer of Jo Cox wasn't actually charged under terrorism, he was dealt with throughout the trial as a terrorism case. -- KTC (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Wiki/ITN isn't governed by UK law. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely anywhere in the world the assassination of a member of a legislature is considered to be an attack on the state and hence terrorism? This isn’t a question of law it is a question of notability. -- keirstitt (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality of bolded article. Article is barely longer than a stub, and contains next to no useful information beyond what would be included in a blurb.  Would support if there were a more detailed article to highlight on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to support Article has developed to a point where it is acceptable to the main page. It should probably still keep being expanded as more information becomes available, but it is already in a better state than it was when I first assessed it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's dead. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And someone's been arrested.   – Sca (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as we posted MP Jo Cox. But article will need more expansion once more information is known about the circumstances- I'm sure news sites like the BBC will do comprehensive articles about it in the next couple of hours. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would be odd for me to simultaneously oppose a bow and arrow attack that kills 5 while supporting a knife attack that kills 1. Each is a tragedy, nobody likes to see loss of life, but with all due respect to Amess I don't see his notability as rising to the level at which we'd automatically post (e.g. if he was a top government official or something). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support since he tragically died. Murders of sitting national legislators are rare. That said the article should not be titled "murder" yet.(update: it's not, didn't realize it was a redirect) 331dot (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait as quality of the article, particularly his political career, needs improvement - particularly the area currently tagged "one source". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, per prior precedent, and it is currently receiving international coverage, with a red breaking news banner on both the NBC and CNN websites.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Spot news. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the article quality is not there yet. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Full support now it's been expanded.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only as he does not rise to the significance level required for a blurb, even given the unusual circumstances of this death.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are kidding right? A Member of Parliament has been assassinated. This is a "death is the story" nomination. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle -- KTC (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only – Per Walt. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: High profile assassination. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, highly uncommon event; circumstances of the death are the story. Connormah (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is definitely Jo Cox and 1/6 level. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As with all instances where the story in the news is about the death, rather than about the person once they have died, we should consider a blurb. Since this is the assassination of a sitting lawmaker in a peaceful nation, the news rises to notability for inclusion. I don’t think we need to consider the case of Jo Cox when making that decision, but her assassination (and I am surprised the articles aren’t titled that way) was posted. I think anyone saying RD only is deliberately ignoring the point of deaths being blurbed and are looking at the person’s individual notability rather than the actual news story. Amess didnt die of natural causes, it’s a political assassination. For another comparison, 1/6 could arguably be boiled down to an attempted assassination of politicians, and none died but the significance of its occurrence in a relatively peaceful nation was the news. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're conflating two separate concepts. A blurb nom for any story must be deemed sufficiently significant by consensus. If the are not blurbed, then we can post an RD as applicable. But it doesn't work the other way: we don't automatically post a blurb because an RD-eligible subject is murdered.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t saying automatically blurb any death that has a story, I was saying we must consider blurbs for them, then said this one was notable because of the political angle. I very separately noted that the calls for only an RD were making the argument that Amess isn’t notable enough on his own for a blurb, which I agree with, if he had died of natural causes, but he isn’t the subject. I hope this is clear if my original comment somehow wasn’t; I agree with you, you misunderstood me. Kingsif (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's appropriate in any case to list a murder as an RD. If an RD eligible person is murdered then the murder would always be a notable story in itself, if not then they wouldn't be RD eligible either. - keirstitt (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This incident seems similar to the 2011 Tucson shooting, which was posted to ITN as a blurb (granted over 10 years ago). Stabbing of David Amess is a stub and not presently postable though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And Giffords didn’t even die! On a less plain note, I thought an above comment said it was no longer a stub? Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Six people did though. It says 957 B (162 words) "readable prose size" as it doesn't count the bulleted "responses", and I wouldn't either. I support in principle but no rush. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle but wait for details to be released and the article to develop. At present it has just three sentences on what actually happened. He only died an hour ago, we can wait a bit longer for information to be released. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle but Oppose on current article quality. The article is bloated with response and thin on the details that we need for this. --M asem (t) 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - a major event. GiantSnowman 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle extremely rare for a politician in a western democracy to be assassinated. Steelkamp (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People get stabbed all the time, sadly, and he was a relatively low-profile politician, certainly not somebody at the Thatcher or Mandela level whose death we'd note in a blurb if he had died in any other manner.   Sandstein   15:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That "Mandela/Thatcher line" is for when the death is of natural causes, not when the death itself is the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do sitting legislators get stabbed all the time? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but the story is a cross-section of common events: knife murder (common) and low-level politician dies (also common); combining the two, even if rare in combination, does not make for main-page material.  Sandstein   16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you recall, specifically, the last murder of a sitting politician which was raised here and not posted? I'm just wondering if they're really that common. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the List of assassinated serving British MPs, so it seems to be not that uncommon even in the UK. And I don't think that I'm committing too much OR by assuming that in certain conflict-prone regions of the world (e.g. Afghanistan) MPs are murdered with rather more regularity, but I haven't seen loads of Wikipedians wanting to post those cases here. One might call this systemic bias. (And if we go by rarity, we should cover the murdering MPs, not the murdered MPs.)  Sandstein   17:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nine in over two centuries (and that's just counting from the first instance, not from the beginning of parliament) feels like it is uncommon, if anything. And to your second point, if you want to nominate one of those instances then we can post it, but "no one asked for X, so we shouldn't do Y either" is a far cry from sound logic. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't think a sitting member of a national legislature is "low level". He had also been an MP since 1997, and was well known and regarded from what I read; he had been knighted for his service. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 151 words of text, article is a stub, barely half a stub at that. At this pt. not eligible for a blurb, only RD. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We understand you don't think this should be posted as a blurb. You don't have to say it 3 times. -- KTC (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly is eligible for a blurb, as the nomination is for his death, a murder of a sitting member of a national legislature, as an event itself, not just him. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it's a tad over 400 words, ergo technically eligible for a blurb, although on the thin side for one. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb the assassination of a federal elected official is more significant than a run-of-the-mill murder, and merits a blurb. Article appears to have been expanded recently, and should now meet the quality requirements for a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A knighted MP who has been in Parliament for over 38 years is not a low-profile politician and cannot be dismissed on the basis that "people get stabbed all the time". Leaky caldron (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The assassination of a Member of Parliament is a major story. Saying "people get stabbed all the time" is, quite frankly, offensive. GreebleNeeble (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article retitled. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I find it hard to believe that if he were a member of parliament in another country he wouldn't even have the coverage he has and wouldn't even be nominated. And my opinion would be the same. The assassination of a lawmaker does not seem so notorious to me, because, however important his office may be, Amess was "just another one", not a parliamentary leader or a party leader. Not all MPs have the same relevance, so not all should be given the same relevance. RIP._-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the British equivalent of a US congressman being killed at a rally. Maybe in nations with more polemic politics such a thing is commonplace, but I can’t think of a one. Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - the killing of a lawmaker in a country where it rarely happens is inherently notable enough for ITN. If this happened in the US or Canada, I'd also support posting it. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  16:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In which country is the murder of lawmakers a national sport? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb - definitely notable enough for RD. A blurb? Not too sure. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Major story in the UK and a story internationally, but the killing of an individual representative who is not in their country's government cabinet does not rise to blurb level. Cox may have been a blurb but the discussion was hardly one of overwhelming consensus. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Political violence, much less outright assassination is extremely rare in the UK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Assassination of MPs is almost unheard of in the UK so when it occurs, it's a huge story. As seen on List_of_serving_British_MPs_who_were_assassinated there have been nine in our history and five of those were related to The_Troubles. This is a big deal and should be treated as such. GreebleNeeble (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and/or RD This is a serious high profile issue, assassination of British MPs are rare and we have precidence for this as we posted Jo Cox's murder. I would support the blurb and the article is well sourced enough for an RD at least.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Murder of a politician is unusual in Europe. High profile.BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as per The C of E. --LukeSurlt c 17:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but don't forget to add the 'Sir' honorific before his name. ♦ jaguar  17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added it in. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SIR, his knighthood is an honorary one (according to the Knight Bachelor page), so we should not include "Sir" in front of his name (at least, if I am reading that correctly, I may be wrong). --M asem (t) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honorary knighthoods are given to those who are not British citizens. "Sir" in front of his name is correct usage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason we cannot also make his bio article bolded? The only major issue right now on it is the "Current event" tag on the death section, which is not a critical quality issue. --M asem (t) 18:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Discussion totals 2,500 words. Seems time for an uninvolved admin to do something with this nom. – Sca (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Last major English political figure stabbed in a church was 715 years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And that was not in England? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, 841 years, if you're going to demand historical realism. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Beirut clashes

 * Support in principle. However, the article should be expanded with more content on the actual clashes and consequences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now based on quality. The article has a "timeline" section that only has one event.  That's... not right.  If this is a series and not an event, it should, you know, actually cover the whole series.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality way short of a substantial enough article for the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose still tagged as a stub, although it's probably just beyond that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "The article has a timeline section that only has one event" because it is only one isolated event. No evidence of lasting significance. Notable enough for an article but not for an ITN. Tradedia talk 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Joseph Kofi Adda

 * Oppose Source is of suspicious quality. TootsieRollsAddict   (talk to me pls I am lonely)  09:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:TootsieRollsAddict, could you elaborate, please? I'm not familiar with the source materials. If parts of the article are "suspicious", they should be taken off the wiki and replaced. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, let me explain. I looked at the source, and it seems to be from a syndicated publication. Syndicated publications are not exactly reliable, are they> That is what I meant. TootsieRollsAddict   (talk to me pls I am lonely)  11:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation, TootsieRollsAddict. I am not sure how bad, how unreliable those references are. They can't be worse than weblogs. If I can find alternate references soon, I can stick them in. I don't think I can make it before this nom runs out its eligibility, though. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lee Wan-koo

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support' Looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Despite a lengthy political career, limited to no depth of coverage about what he did in those positions. I understand his PM term was short so don't need much there, but for his earlier political career more is needed.  Spencer T• C 00:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Spencer. It would be nice if his few years as governor can be elaborated. Too bad I do not have anything useful in English at this time. It would be great if someone who knows the Korean language can bring more materials in, perhaps from ko:이완구. --PFHLai (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I disagree with Spencer and believes it meets minimum RD standards. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diane Weyermann

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Kaohsiung tower fire

 * Support – in principle. The basics are there. Something on what materials fueled the fire would be appropriate, and of course its cause. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support beyond your basic disaster stub. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is better than a stub, and 46+ people dying is ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At 450 words it's on the thin side yet for MP use, though. – Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3185 characters is longer than many similar articles are when they get posted. It's good enough, and can be expanded once more information is available. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely a notable event. Start class article on the lower end should still be able to appear on the main page. --CactusTaron (Nopen't) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article seems to be minimally sufficient and should be expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Unusual event, high death toll which seems likely to rise further, similar to Grenfell Tower fire which was posted. The article is not hugely informative but long enough and adequately referenced. Weak !vote as I'm getting a bit tired of disasters with mediocre articles, but this is postable and keeps the blurbs ticking over. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we have to recognize that such disasters in non-Western countries have language-barrier issues that make it hard for typical en.wiki editors to find sources to expand (not that foreign language sources aren't usable, just that knowing how to use those requires language familiarity). In addition to the difference of attention due to systematic bias that the media would give to a fire in downtown London versus somewhere in Taiwan. Just a point of consideration of expectations on length we should keep in mind. --M asem (t) 16:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasn't expecting it to have as good an article as Grenfell did (that one developed amazingly over the first 24 hours). The current length is adequate. But I take your point. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient length and quality, well referenced, and the topic is being covered by major news outlets. Checks all of the requirements.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is actual news, unlike the space flight of 10 minutes. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remove tower from the blurb - the damaged building isn't a tower, which is why the article's title is under discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More likely to get a response at WP:ERRORS.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Timuel Black

 * Oppose Orange tag, CNs, Career has a 47 year gap (1963-2000) in coverage.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gary Paulsen

 * Support Sad to see the author of Hatchet go. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Several unsourced and personal chunks. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – three paragraphs still unsourced. Removing ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only does this wikibio needs a few more refs, Gary Paulsen bibliography, created shortly before this ITN nomination, needs more refs, too. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose because the SPLIT article is now referenced. It's a proseless single-reference list, about the worst possible arrangement, but at least it's cited.130.233.213.141 (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I read through the article and was struck by the incident of his mother beating a man to death. This sounded implausible and so I found that the NYT has a different version, "kicking the assailant into unconsciousness".  As such anecdotes are autobiographical and from childhood, they seem unreliable.  It's not enough to have a citation; the fact has to be correct too. More work is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as no paragraphs in this article are unsourced, and the split makes sense, because it's just not feasible to have all the works in the main articleJackattack1597 (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is incomplete without some kind of bibliography (preferably a selected biography list of most important works). And people shouldn't be creating bibliography articles just to get rid of the unsourced content. This is a clearly invalid WP:CONTENTFORK, as the article was not too long with the bibliography in it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302. The bibliography may have been somewhat too long in its complete form, but WP:SPLITting out content doesn't mean removing it altogether. The forked content should be replaced by a summarised version of the same thing. I have labelled the rump section with any empty section template. As an aside, the bibliography appears to be referenced by fantasticfiction.com. Is that a reliable source? It seems to be maintained by one guy and a few family members, albeit that it's his full-time job. I'd probably want to see some evidence that other RSs use this for referencing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has reverted the "empty section" maintenance tag which I placed on the Bibliography section, but that tag should still be there as that section is plainly still empty, and requires actual content to be added, not just a link to a child article, per WP:Summary style. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Fosse

 * Support Good depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 06:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Kongsberg attack

 * Weak Support Although the article is a stub, I still feel that the topic is notable enough. I hope it can be improved on further, though. TootsieRollsAddict  (talk)  00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait but leaning oppose. While they are presently considering a potential terror angle, this reads like the hallmarks of domestic violence and with the small numbers involved, the type of crime we shouldn't cover at ITN. But if there was a serious terrorist angle here, that would be potential angle for posting, just that this seems really far from that. --M asem (t) 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Domestic violence? The attacker is said to have launched the assault inside a supermarket and then moved over a large area.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the best phrase I used, but right now, it is a localized crime that may involve ties to terrorism (due to the suspect's recent Islam conversion), types of crime that happen everywhere across the globe that don't get reported because they don't have international impact. It is the weapon of choice that caught media's eye here as to why it got widespread attention. --M asem (t) 13:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support if expanded beyond stub Low death count for a mass casualty event, but the bizarre weapon choice makes this far more notable than a typical shooting. Mlb96 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This won't stop until we have meaningful wood stick and string control. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. 1,329,000 (or 25 per 100 people) registered firearms, but not sure we have any figures for bows and arrows. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- a bizarre weapon choice, but I don't think there's any inherent notability beyond that. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  01:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - article is a stub currently, too early for posting and needs further development. - Indefensible (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is a microstub. If that's all that can be said about it, then it's not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as of now, article is not long enough to qualify for the main page. Once it is expanded to sufficient length, I would support its posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the minimum size for Start class? How much more would be needed? WP:STUB says: "AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was ec'd there to mention that anything that surpasses stub is at least a Start class. Note that is based on readable prose, so no infobox/references/template, etc. --M asem (t) 13:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And currently I'm getting 1583 characters which is also just above the general requirements for stub as well as DYK, so this should be okay for size. --M asem (t) 13:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now count 1829. But can we post stubs or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Schwede66 has now moved all project tags to Start class. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like the perfect thing for DYK (if it ever meets the requirements). Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Heavily covered due to the peculiar nature of the attack, but a lone perp. and a comparatively small death toll don't equate to general significance, regardless of the assailant's presumed motives. Don't see the EV. – Sca (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Tabloid interest item, no long-term encyclopedic value.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, The Times, BBC News, etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ephemeral spot news. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are car crashes that kill 5 people every day. List of mass shootings in the United States has a murder with that many victims every couple of months, and that's just one country with one weapon. The unusual choice of a bow here is attracting headlines, but isn't a significant enough detail to justify ITN. PS. could be nominated for DYK instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, arguably significant news seems below the radar. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support if ties to a known terrorist group is confirmed. That's the criteria I generally use for developed countries. For conflict zones, where these events are unfortunately common,it gets more complicated Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca, GCG etc. Small-scale attack and no lasting significance likely. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability we had some people suggest they'd support if it was a terrorist attack; it now appears to be so. It was the number one global headline when it happened and it's still the number one global headline a day later.  The purpose of ITN is to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news, and this event fits that criteria.  I would prefer if the article was a bit longer first but everything already in there is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One addled terrorist acting alone is not a movement, and this one's no Brevik. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Article at 335 words is barely over a stub. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment requested it for DYK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kongsberg_attack Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Does the unusual method make it more notable than if the attacker had killed same number of people using a gun, knife or bomb? Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, a bow is an interesting weapon of choice. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crossbows are more usual e.g. . I see that some sources are erroneously saying this incident involved a crossbow. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Kongsberg attack. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Swedish sources also add that he had other weapons as well, a knife is mentioned. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So: "Knife-wielding, unnamed Danish-Norwegian man slays five people and injures three others in a bow-and-arrow rampage" – ?? – Sca (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that...that is a funny hook for DYK. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Per confirmed terrorist act. Per expansion from stub to start class. Terrorism is very unusual in Norway posting this definitely makes sense.BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per BabbaQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bow-and-arrow is propelling the story into the limelight, and I'm very surprised that even CNN has this as a top story like any muck-raking tabloid. Aside from the unusual weapon, it's a minor terrorist attack by today's standards (can't believe I'm writing that phrase), and terrorists have always proved crafty when it comes to weapons for attacks. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  19:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Norway has had no terrorist attack for ten years. And there are 5 deaths which is notable for the Scandinavia region. BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's notable in Scandinavia and should be a main page event on all Nordic Wikipedias, but I don't think it's big enough for this ITN. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's not in French, German or Dutch Wikis' versions of ITN, either. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Norway is an unlikely place for Islamic terrorism in Europe. It's a major pro-Islamic terrorist incident in the country, and the impact is the police officers now carry firearms on duty (normally they don't). STSC (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It has not be definitively ruled as Islamic terrorism yet. There is a possible link and police are keeping that in mind, but we absolutely cannot label it terrorism yet. --M asem (t) 21:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The case is now being treated as an act of terrorism. STSC (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Best I'm finding in the few updated sources is that they are still treating the incident as an act of terror due to the Islam conversion, but that given the suspect was already a known person of interest and is now under mental evaluation (as per Sca below) gives me pause to think they're treating this guy as a wacko that went off the cuff and they had plenty of warnings they didn't heed. This is unlike incidents like the Manchester Arena bombing or 2017 London Bridge attack of quietly planned and far deadlier results that absolutely were terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that this being a terrorist attack has been ruled out, but it seems very much unlikely given all that's there this was tied to an actual terrorist cell (like this other ones) and more like just a guy broke down mentally and went crazy. I will add that the fact that looking for sources, there's almost no new English-based news fresher than 18-24hr ago outside a couple BBC articles tells me that unless some major revelation about a terrorist connection is made here, most of the world press appears to be treating this as a random attack and not a world-shaking terrorist one. --M asem (t) 13:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight support per STSC and BabbaQ. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing mine to "Slight support" because it isn't super notable outside of the Nordic countries, but still notable due to the weapon used. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; a terrorist attack that killed five people in Britain, New Zealand, Canada etc will almost always be "ITN" (See Lindt Cafe siege and 2017 London Bridge attack) for comparable events) - the fact that this happened outside the Anglosphere shouldn't change that. Further, given the rarity of such events in Norway, I suspect that this one will be long-term significance in Norway. I would note though that the proposed text will have to be changed to reflect the fact that it is now considered a terror attack. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2017 London Bridge attack killed 11, including the 3 perpetrators. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We would likely have posted the Plymouth shooting had it been proved to have been motivated by an ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This has been nominated to appear at DYK. It can't run as the bolded item in an ITN blurb and as the subject of a DYK nomination so if this is posted the DYK nomination should be withdrawn, or if it's approved at DYK this should be closed, but having both open at once is not ideal. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's only half true: if it's posted at ITN, it isn't DYK eligible anymore. The converse is not true- even if it appears on DYK (which it wouldn't do for a while anyway, as there's at least 10 days of hooks already queued up), it would still e eligible for ITN. Articles have run on DYK and ITN simultaneously before (2020 and 2021 London Marathons were added to ITN whilst also on DYK), and there is no actually rule against it that way round. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At the current rate of promotion it would be too stale to post at ITN after DYK, but if it's approved and added to the long, slow queue, it would be a shame to have to pull it in a few days if it finally gets posted here; there's no likelihood of it appearing at DYK before ITN but a decision should probably be made sooner rather than later. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree it's probably a moot point for this nomination, but it's still worth correcting them, as if people read this thread in the archives, don't want people thinking that's actually a rule, when it's not. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A terrorist attack in a Scandinavian country carried out with a bizarre weapon is clearly significant, and I don't think this can be omitted just because there's an ongoing DYK nomination (while the converse is true, it's not in the case with ITN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's the next day and world media has already lost interest in this. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  08:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the Nobel Prize in Economics is still on everyone's front page? Well, at some internet backwaters perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but then again, I think the Nobel Prize receives a disproportionate amount of attention these days. When it was instituted, it was as a way to help important research get published and shared. We hardly have the same issues these days. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Perp., still unnamed, sent for psychiatric evaluation.    – Sca (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is getting stale, and a consensus will not form any time soon. Time to close? Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see any consensus, albeit that I'm involved as I !voted. Suggest it be closed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is well down the media's coverage today, suggesting they don't see it as having any sort of lasting impact. The suspect is being treated for mental health problems, apparently so it seems unlikely it's part of some huge radical terror plot. And we're not a news ticker as you well know. Today's story is the knife attack on David Amess it would seem. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant attack and the article has been expanded sufficiently.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I can't see this ever getting blurbed unless/until the perp. is ID'd. Also, hohum aftermath section lacks his being slated for psychiatric evaluation. (Thus, not ready for 'attention' yet.) – Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As of now, the article is in decent shape, considering this is still developing. Obviously more info will emerge later, but what's there is sufficient. Brandmeistertalk  14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Support, as it's a significant attack and the article is decent.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is more than good enough. And this is a more than significant event, that is still in the news e.g. BBC (new article 5 hours ago about it). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's a terrorist attack with multiple fatalities in a part of the world where such is exceeding rare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Clearly notable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The killing of David Amess was posted before this. Attention has moved on from this incident. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Over 7 Support !votes have been added within less than 24 hours. So what is your point really. No one ”has moved on”. BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: it seems as if the rate of new votes has slowed down. Note the last vote being over 4 hours ago, as compared to earlier on, when there was around 30 minutes between votes. I apologize for my earlier statement. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment; while I am not a neutral party in this matter, I believe we can now close this with a consensus towards inclusion. While noting that this is not a !vote, a significant majority support inclusion, while the majority of the opposes were earlier in the articles lifespan before the article was expanded and the terror-related nature of incident became known. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – The Scandinavian spelling of the perp's last name, Bråthen, used in our article, may be problematic for some readers as å is not a letter in English. Some Eng.-lang. sources are transliterating it as Braathen, which to me seems advisable in terms of pronunciation, while others ignore the issue by using Brathen. – Sca (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles in this WP has names etc. written in with the original letters. But in case it's altered it might be best to just drop the ring over the "å" (like Skanska did with Skånska) since Braathen is a different surname in Norwegian, example: Ludvig G. Braathen. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, the Kongsberg police just held a press conference, and they are now leaning towards this just being a disturbed person and not terrorist activity. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly provide a source at the article Talk page at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, I was listening to the police press conference on the radio, but I'll see if I can dig up a written source. (No luck so far, only video and audio files, too fresh.) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That Braathen is a different name than Bråthen in Norwegian is arguably immaterial to English Wiki, as presumably few Norwegians (and Danes) would be reading our article in preference to those in their own Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias, or in local/national news media. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: An auto-translation of this article in the Norwegian Aftenposten today quotes Police Inspector Per Thomas Omholt as saying: "The hypothesis that has been strengthened so far is that he has done this all by himself." Ergo, not organized terrorism. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When the "å" is clearly working in so many other en-WP articles some examples) why should we change it in this? Isn't this a discussion more suited for the article talk page since the perp's name is not mentioned in the ITN blurb. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see these articles as relevant to the present discussion. Where, for example, is the å in Ulrich Marten? – Sca (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to scroll down a bit in the list to get to the articles where "å" is used in names of people. They are on the same page as the "a"s on this WP. The spelling of foreign names in articles is relevant to this. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic here is the readability of this article, not whether å appears in any others among English Wikipedia's 6 million articles. Let's leave it at that. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing the Aftenpost report, I think the Omholt 'quote' is more likely the newspaper's paraphrase of what he said, to wit: The hypothesis that has been strengthened so far is that he has done this all by himself, Omholt said. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want the exact wording, this is a transcript (by me, pardon the spelling) from the police press conference: Omholt: Etterforskningen så langt styrker hypotesen om att han kanske inte gjort detta väldigt seriöst. Så altså hypotesen om att han har konverterat till Islam är svekked. I'm sure this will be in print in a reliable source and quoted correctly if we just wait a while. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Bing translates that as: "The investigation so far reinforces the hypothesis that he may have done so. So the hypothesis that he has converted to Islam is weakened." Confusing. (I don't speak Norwegian.) – Sca (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DW (Deutsche Welle) translates a quote from Omholt this way: "The thinking is that he did not take (the conversion) very seriously. By this we mean that he did not follow or practice the traditions that are common in this [Islam] culture and religion." – Sca (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Myriam Sarachik

 * Comment. Edits done. Very nice work as always by AP. They are still making a few edits, but, the article is good to go. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Fully sourced and ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like all that needs to be there is there JW 1961 Talk 07:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) William Shatner in space

 * Oppose not important enough to justify a substantial update to any article. I expect the humor crew to come by soon with more amusing opposes. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 14:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We have no posted the other "space tourists" this isn't the time to start. --M asem (t) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is very much in the news and the opposes above are just personal opinions contrary to WP:NPOV. The only issue is that it hasn't happened yet but it's T-11 so not long to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that there is just one paragraph in the Shatner article which just says "he went to space today" my "personal opinion contrary to NPOV"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 14:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The supposed fact is bogus because the dust has barely settled on the event and so it's too soon to rush to judgement. There's obviously more than one article to be considered.  Blue Origin is a big part of this and I also liked the way that Jeff Bezos acted as the doorman.  We can wait on the full details, reception, news coverage and resulting updates. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic event. For ITN in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced even tabloid/clickbait coverage would be particularly interested in age alone if this weren't Captain Kirk, and as Masem points out, we've not been posting space tourism before—without any notable firsts, I'm not sold on "oldest" as the metric that gets us to start. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose just like we opposed all the other space tourism nominations. The content about it is about 3 sentences in his article, and that's all that can be said about it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is perfect WP:TOP25 material, i.e. the sort of thing that we'd see just for clickbait. But it's much better suited for DYK than ITN, it's a factoid, of literally zero encyclopedic value.  We could post the youngest person in space.  The richest person it space.  The hairiest person in space.  It's all rather embarrassing.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The hairiest person in space: Sorry to disappoint but I'm afraid of flying. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're begging for somebody to make a Shatner's toupee joke. p  b  p  15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: There's clearly enough sourcing here for it to meet the criteria.  p  b  p  14:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sourcing isn't an issue, goodness me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I assume it's the same Shatner who's legendary musical career included the best cover of a Beatles song ever. Has he done anything else before or since?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He did a great song with Lemon Jelly actually. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support not because it is Shatner, but because it is the oldest person in space. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is an article about the flight, that should be linked to(don't know the name of the flight). 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blue Origin NS-18 is the flight. JRHorse (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When Wally Funk flew into space on the first Blue Origin space flight and became the then-oldest person in space, we didn't post that. This is even less notable because it's not a "first".  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No space tourists please, we haven't posted any yet (basically because they're effectively all trivia more suited to DYK) and we really don't want to see "b-b-b-but Shatner was posted, so...". Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is so tragic. Bezos handing out "astronaut badges".  Seriously.  "absolutely amazing" apparently.  This is not ITN.  Shatner's voice, that's the only redeeming feature here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything, suggest a reference to the Blue Origin NS-18 mission itself (which may or may not be suitable for ITN) instead of the subject in question. JRHorse (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrote an altblurb deemphasizing Shatner. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still just highly paid space tourists doing something that is now just every day stuff. Shatner on board?  Factoid.  See WP:DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment fails WP:ADVERT as well. This is just free advertising for Bezos.  No thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Likely confusing to a lot of readers who aren't familiar with Star Trek fandom.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shatner has appeared in many non-Star Trek productions over a long career. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will also point out that the first stated purpose of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." I don't see where it says we don't post things because we don't like Jeff Bezos or rich people, or that this isn't important. 90 year olds going to space is not common and won't be as most are not physically fit enough to do so(even as tourists). 331dot (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are lots of pages that routine hit the top 25 most-viewed for a day, that include topics in the news, but aren't the type of topics that meet the type of encyclopedic coverage that ITN tries to balance to avoid media's systematic bias. For example, I'll bring up Squid Game again, as big news of it being Netflix's most-watched show yesterday and still one of our most viewed pages. But is that an ITN type blurb? Heck no. It means little in the overall nature of the world. We rarely post superlative events on their own, only if they are tied to other critical events, such as the recent tennis one, an ITNR but in addition where the first qualifier won the grand slam. If this was a first such flight for Blue Origin (hint, its not) as an ITNR, and so happened that Shatner being the oldest passenger to low-orbit was part of that, that might have been appropriate, but by itself, its more trivial in nature, and while it may be TOP25 right now, its not reflecting on what ITN generally covers. --M asem (t) 16:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will furthermore note that many TV networks interrupted their regular programming to broadcast about this event with a special report. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting that we are now at the point in society where 90 year olds in space is "ho-hum". 331dot (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was 82-year-old woman and long-time actual contributor to this technology Wally Funk posted? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That a mistake was made before should not preclude correcting it in the future. I don't have a DeLorean handy to go back to July and change people's minds. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Yet it's clear that we don't need to suddenly start posting age-related space tourist records at ITN. I imagine DYK would be the perfect venue for such trivia.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, pretty obviously. If this flight crashes, I suspect there might be a few changed !votes. Might change to Support if it comes back full of Tribbles. Wow, he looks good for 90. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC) look..... no jokes about Shatner his pants.
 * Reluctant oppose. Probably not carbon neutral. I honestly thought Jeff was gonna kiss him. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The flight is already back down. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, might change my !vote, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was very much an "up-and-down" flight, nothing to write home about in any sense, technically, encyclopedically or otherwise. Just a "famous" old person surviving a two-hour ride which cost millions and millions of dollars to achieve literally nothing.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What a let down. So not the final frontier after all. If only we could get Tyson Fury up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was ten minutes at altitude in total. And no, Tyson Fury in space as a tourist would be equally, even less, interesting.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about tourism. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite a few people. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On the balance, I'm going to go with Oppose. Understand the additional interest given who it is but a 10 minutes straight up and down is a bit meh. -- KTC (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have well-established criteria for the notability of space flights and this does not meet them. --LukeSurlt c 16:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We have criteria for automatic notability of a space flight, at WP:ITNR, which does not preclude other flights from being nominated if conditions warrant, such as a 90 year old going to space. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support and a brave admin should put it up per WP:IAR if the opposers succeed and bring him down to Earth. The flight was so psychologically important to human spaceflight in the 2020s, and equally or moreso for the highlight - Shatner's conversation with Bezos, words which should be quoted and honored with a monument somewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense was the "flight so psychologically important to human spaceflight in the 2020s"?? Space tourists are now just meh.  What makes Shatner more important than an individual who recovered from bone cancer and who actually spent three days in actual space?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. All I know is that with every nomination like this that is not posted I am further pushed towards the ITN-is-broken camp. I'm not there yet, but it's getting closer. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So make a proposal.  We've had a recent slew of people suggesting that ITN should mimic WP:TOP25, that it's all about pageviews.  I have literally no objection if that becomes the new mission of ITN.  But in the meantime, endless moaning about the current ITN methodology and endless, pointless nominations isn't the way to solve a "purported" issue. Wikinews and other projects are available for those who wish to just continually publish clickbait. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN isn't for media hype like this. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Joseph, TRM. Lifestyles of the rich & famous. Sure, we liked Star'Trek a lot back in the day, but this $tunt is completely without general significance. – Sca (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blue Origin NS-18 doesn't even tell us how much it cost him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WSJ, he did not have to pay as he was a guest of the company. Ktin (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shucks. So not even a real tourist, as he didn't get overcharged. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Useful post" (TM). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agnes Jebet Tirop ​

 * Support - Ready for RD as far as I can see.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The results in the International Competitions section are all verifiable from her World Athletics profile which is given as an external link, except for the 2012 African Cross Country Championships which doesn't seem to be listed there.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2012 African Cross Country Championships was sourced in text, so added same source to the table. And put the World Athletics profile as a source below the table (as this seems easier than repeating it for every line of the table). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was also mentioned in her World Athletics obituary which I must have added the same time as you.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fully sourced now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Adequate. – Sca (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Pretty grim news. I assume she's the first competitor from Tokyo 2020 to die?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Kennedy (advertising)

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Goldner

 * Comment he's just died, we shouldn't be using a non-free portrait yet. I doubt anyone has actually checked properly whether a freely available image exists. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be good for RD, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 10:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein

 * The article says "It will not be visible to the naked eye because it will not enter the inner Solar System", so it will not be a "Great comet", just a large comet by size and not by tail. Probably not a story for ITN, except if one wants to highlight that it is large. But too many ifs at the moment. --Tone 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not actually a great comet, as Tone pointed out. Also, wasn't this announced several months ago? Ionmars10 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also a very stale story. We knew earlier this year (not this week) about what the nature of this comet's orbit would be. --M asem (t) 00:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tony DeMarco

 * Support as nom-obviously, otherwise I would not have nominated him! Antonio DC Superhero Martin (decime) 17:49, 12 October, 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Career - unsourced. Legacy - half unsourced. Record - unsourced. How can anyone consider this is "good to go"? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wayyyy undersourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry people, but it's far from ready to go. Several paragraphs are unsourced. Due to the extensive lack of sources, this could be easily orange tagged.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still too many footnote-free paragraphs. Even things like using someone else's ID, winning a boxing title, getting a street named after him, ... have no footnotes? Come on.... Time is running out for this RD nom.--PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marie Wilcox

 * Support, as nom: has brought it up to the mark. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support quality meets minimum requirements for RD. If the language had gone extinct, I'd consider it blurbable, but fortunately the article suggests that this lady managed to teach it to a few others before she passed away. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enamul Haque (actor)

 * Support In good order. 2,2 kb of prose, a general description of his (surprisingly disparate) careers leaving only minor gaps, WP:N demonstrated in lede, reference spot check turned up no problems. Boldly marking READY to save this from staleness before it rolls off.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emiliano Aguirre

 * Long enough and has enough refs for the prose. However, the Works section could use some more sourcing, and the final item appears to require fixing (why is the "subst:" appearing there twice?). --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a bit busy, so I'm not sure I'll be able to add more references before this nomination is archived, so I think this wikibio can be ready. Thanks for your improvements, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be easier to show only a short list of "selected works", including only a few verifiable items. BTW, the 3rd last item in the Journal of Human Ecology got my attention. I went to https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rhue20/3/3?nav=tocList but could not find Aguirre's paper. Is it really "Ecology"? --PFHLai (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've worked more on the "Works" section (I've also changed the title) and I've deleted the publication you mention because I haven't been able to verify it either. I think that now the article is nicer. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alsoriano97. This wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paddy Maloney

 * Oppose orange tagged for more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * orange tag now addressed and removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems fine now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – as per Bloom6132. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: David H. DePatie

 * Comments: This wikibio is long enough and has enough footnotes, except for the 2nd paragraph in the Career section. Perhaps this paragraph should be cleaned before getting the link onto RD. Furthermore, it seems a bit odd that there was no mention of The Pink Phink, which won DePatie the producer an Oscar, and his 3 Emmys (per IMDb). These things seem to be big deals for his profession and IMO should be covered in his wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deon Estus

 * Support well sourced and enough text for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Boston Marathon

 * I know this came up in the last marathon item so I would ask, is it possible (given how the event is usually covered) to put the women's winner before the men's? Would we be skewing anything inappropriately? --M asem (t) 00:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, it's ok. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't we list the last marathon winners in Tokyo alphabetically? Stephen 04:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The faster one should get whichever position feels like the better reward, per the point of competitive racing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The women's and men's events are different races. They are run simultaneously, but are not ranked against each other.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical seems fine to me, and is what we've done (either deliberately, or coincidentally) in most marathon noms that I've seen. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get that they ran separately in Boston, but here, they're both contenders for first place billing. One is objectively the more impressive athlete, by whole minutes. Alphabetical order is fair enough, too, just not based on any actual relevant accomplishment. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs prose summary of race.  Spencer T• C 05:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs a race summary, see 2021 London Marathon for an example. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. No prose summary of race.  Consider this a full support if anyone fixes that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment also, they were called the elite races, not the foot races. Calling them foot races makes no sense, as it's made up terminology. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated I have added a race summary for each event, and also added an alt blurb, which matches the wording of the 2021 London Marathon ITN from a few weeks ago (and avoids the use of "foot race"). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Already 2 complaints on WP:ERRORS (one of which is my ignored complaint above about "foot races"). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stewart Murray Wilson

 * Support - Yes, they do. And, in this particular case, I think the article is good enough for a RD. It's fully sourced, so I think it meets RD criteria.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 08:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nedumudi Venu

 * Oppose - article in general does not meet the quality standard. - Indefensible (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. I agree with you. Will require some hard work. Ktin (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too many footnote-free paragraphs. More refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Economics Prize

 * Comment: Conversely, I think Angrist's has much more depth of coverage than a CV and is a model article for a Nobel winner because it has very solid depth of coverage on the subject's work. Doesn't appear to have COI; the main contributor Arbraxan has edited other economists' articles.  Spencer T• C 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Its depth is good - but something just seems off to me, but if others find no issue, then hey, it seems ready to go. Just caught my eye in how its written rather in a means I've seen common in CVs or self-written bios, but I could be completely wrong. --M asem (t) 19:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have referenced Card's bio and added additional information. Imbens' article still needs some more work.  Spencer T• C 20:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work by in referencing David Card's article. Imbens' article seems referenced and passes minimal hygiene expectations imo for the homepage. Ideally, I would have loved to spend some time in expanding Card and Imbens' articles. Unfortunately, off-wiki commitments means that I would not be able to do so in a timely manner. But, this news article is good to go to the homepage in its current state. Ktin (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the labour economics article has an orange banner currently. The difference in article content between co-winners Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens is interesting to note as well. - Indefensible (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Found an orange banner on the article for causality too. Probably not going to meet the quality standard for the front page. - Indefensible (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-target articles linked are not required to have the same quality as bolded, targetted articles. --M asem (t) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty sketchy policy and doesn't mean that bad articles should be let through on a lower standard. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much standard policy for the sections of the main page: any bolded internal link is expected to point to an article that demonstrates the quality that WP can be, but all other non-bolded links to support that entry (such as those in TFA or DYK) are not required to be of any type of quality, though why they should be linked should be germane to the topic. Now, we can talk about a non-bold linked that is completely in bad shape, but that's not the same thing as a few orange tags. --M asem (t) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - per the Literature Nobel, added generic altblurb2 with the non-bio articles removed. - Indefensible (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Imo posting was a little premature. I have no idea what work Imbens specifically does related to causal relationships (or really, anything in economics) based on his article, which is mostly a list of educational history, positions, and awards.  Spencer T• C 01:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Expanded Guido Imbens with his econometrics work. I feel it looks good for homepage. Please have a read. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thank you.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 60th Anniversary Additional Commemorative Non-Aligned Meeting

 * Neutral But sign your nomination, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unorganised stub. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  04:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is just an anniversary with no clear significance, and it's not reported by BBC, CNN (can't add a link thanks to the site's search results being blacklisted), The Guardian (TG uses Google to show search results so there is no link to the results), Reuters, and AFP. Tube·of·Light 04:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above comments. --Tataral (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis de Pablo

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. Do the 2 writings have a ref? Seem to be the only items not covered. - Indefensible (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I found refs for the 2, which would be good for a larger bibliography if someone has the time. The first one was translated to French, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support refs done by Gerda. Article seems to be fine now. Grimes2 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Great job, Gerda. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we still require footnotes for every bullet point under "Discography"? --PFHLai (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I commented the few out, - no time today sorry, - these are recordings, they exist ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did what I could, even found a discography --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Evelyn Richter

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruthie Tompson

 * Comment - As usual, the filmography is unreferenced.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will just delete that section if the rest of the article is good and blocked from that. - Indefensible (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN; filmography now referenced after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bloom6132 Thanks for updating the filmography section. - Indefensible (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Article was improved and looks fine now. She made the films I grew up on. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramon Barba

 * Support - Start-class article and fully sourced. So, I guess it meets the criteria for RDs.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both Refs. #1 & #2, re-used multiple times in this article, appear to be deadlinks. Replacement refs are in order. --PFHLai (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Second ref is available on the Wayback Machine archive at . Not sure how to best format that into the existing ref.  Spencer T• C 04:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. My bad. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 05:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored the 2 refs with archived copies, should have caught that earlier; thanks for providing the Wayback Machine link for the 2nd ref. Hopefully the article is covered now, there also seem to be 5 external links not used as refs that can be used to provide extra coverage if needed. - Indefensible (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spencer & Indefensible, for the links to the web archives. However, it doesn't look like either refs support too much of the details in the wikibio, and more refs will be needed. Yes, materials listed in the external links section are indeed potential replacements/supplements. --PFHLai (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: Thanks for taking care of the refs. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Indefensible. Glad that I could help. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 12:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian plane crash

 * Oppose literally "the third deadly crash involving an L-410 in Russia this year.". I don't know when fatal plane crashes became ITN/R. A chartered regional turbo prop operated in a remote part of Russia is going to have no impact on aviation safety. List of accidents and incidents involving the Let L-410 Turbolet --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If three aircraft of the same type crash in one year, doesn't that suggest a possible pattern that may have some "impact on aviation safety"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. --Tataral (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We generally do not post private or military aviation disasters unless there is something of a larger scope involved (eg Kobe Bryant's death). That's not to say that outright eliminates this from posting. --M asem (t) 05:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - we do post military accidents. Sixteen is a death toll high enough to add some weight to the case for posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Military accidents are occasionally posted, but the bar is higher because military personnel are in a risky and dangerous business. I'm not convinced this rises to that level. As noted, this is the third such incident for this type of aircraft this year. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the article isn't too good, it certainly is notable. 16 people dying from a plane crash, even if it is a military one, is definitely a notable event. Heythereimaguy (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 331dot. Toll isn't huge for plane crashes, and military aviation accidents seem fairly common in RU. Not broadly significant. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We do occasionally post military accidents, but not this kind, where the death toll is low and the impact marginal.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Czech legislative election

 * Oppose blurb 1 unless a government is formed, in which case it can be cut down. Support altblurb 1 but would prefer we didn't pipe "SPOLU" to "Together", considering the article is titled SPOLU. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/wait. It's too early; wait until a government is formed. --Tataral (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Czech President in intensive care after holding talks on dramatic election. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Must have been really intense talks Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * President Zeman, 77, "receiving treatment in ... intensive care" Sunday for an undisclosed illness. The Czech president would play a role in formation of a new govt. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. The election is the news, the new government can take some time to be formed.  Sandstein   17:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for more developments and the new administration to be in office. - Indefensible (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, we don't usually wait until government is formed; we posted the German election well before a government was formed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either alts. The election is ITN/R so now is the time to post. Defeated guy already conceded. Article is fine, decent reactions section, one CN tag not worth holding up. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll go with the first one. --Tone 07:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - "SPOLU agree to a coalition with Pirates and Mayors" - this sounds like some kind of cross between a villainous organisation in a James Bond film and rival boats in an Arthur Ransome novel... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Abdul Qadeer Khan

 * Support blurb - He was considered as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. Moreover, as a person who was embroiled in controversy there's bound to be some neutrality issues in the article which shouldn't stop it from getting posted. - Depressed Desi (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb too. His role in nuclear proliferation has shaped post-cold war Asia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The orange neutrality tag in the Proliferation controversy section must be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Can someone familiar with the subject review that section and remove the orange tag (if appropriate), please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC) The tag has been removed. --PFHLai (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for RD, oppose blurb. He doesn't warrant a blurb, but an RD is fine if the quality-related problems (there are several tags highlighting various problems) are resolved. --Tataral (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb –  Sudden death of a very well known personality warrants blurb. I don't see any neutrality issue with Abdul Qadeer Khan section, everything is well referenced. Radioactive  (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per Tataral. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality and neutrality. The subject's main point of notoriety is his involvement in nuclear proliferation and that being tagged as POV should be a no go. I will note other areas where information is lacking or missing. While he is known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb it should be noted that he is a metallurgist not a nuclear physicist (there the credit goes to Munir Khan), his main area of expertise being in his acquisition of centrifugal tech and his organizational capabilities (the AQ Khan network through which he transferred nuclear tech). His life in the Netherlands is lacking with the major Urenco "espionage" episode sidelined in the article with no mention of Frits Veerman (the whistleblower who uncovered it). His Dutch wife is not mentioned at all. The major overlaps come in the proliferation episode especially the dealings with Iran and N. Korea, with Iran no mention of the Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (through which the proliferation happened) is made, with N. Korea (and China) the proliferation happened through Japanese companies which is missing. A look at the Britannica, SNL, and the nl/ko/ja/de/fr wikis should make it clear where the info is lacking/slanted. I have tried fixing some technical issues but the ones mentioned remain. Gotitbro (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - An Important figure in Pakistan who was embodied in controversy at home (considered a hero, then a traitor then at death a hero) and abroad. As the BBC says 'AQ Khan: The most dangerous man in the world?'
 * Support, as he was a major metallurgist involved in Pakistan's nuclear program.Jackattack1597 (talk)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - article seems to meet requirements for normal RD posting but does not meet the threshold for a blurb entry. - Indefensible (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Blurbs for recent deaths are supposed to be rare. This individual does not come close to the significance required. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The global attention his death has received and the fact that he was given a state-funeral definitely warrants a blurb. (See: The Guardian, BBC, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, AJ, The Hindu, Reuters, France24, DW) - Depressed Desi (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's standard long-form obit we see for any generally well notable figure in international history, but doesn't speak to blurb-level here. --M asem (t) 04:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, there is no consensus likely to emerge for a blurb. Stephen 04:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Removed from Ongoing, Restored) 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption

 * Only commenting that the actual event is still going on at least as of yesterday's news, so the lack of updates is a problem. --M asem (t) 01:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * . It can return when the article gets updated. --PFHLai (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's the fresh Reuters report from just an hour ago: Lava blocks the size of buildings falling from La Palma volcano. As PFHLai is so quick to act on this, we look forward to their update. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was removed not because the event hadn't stopped, but because no updates had been made to the article for numerous days, which is an expectation of something in ongoing. --M asem (t) 18:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep the wikipage updated. This story should appear on ITN, but the lack of updates on the wikipage means that it has no business being on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has had over 100 edits so far this month, with multiple edits today, yesterday and the day before; so the claims that it is static seem to be false. It is true that the article isn't getting many readers but it's still doing better than the Baluchistan earthquake blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've heard this before somewhere, along the line of "never mind the quality, feel the width"!!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is not static, but looking at the prose, I can find one sentence about the lava flow on October 4th, but nothing about what happened between that and today. --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This: The only serious update (ignoring wikignoming, reversions of unsourced claims, vandalism, etc.) is this bit about the comments about using it for tourism. That's not the type of updates we expect of an ongoing article, particularly if the ongoing is the disaster aspect. --M asem (t) 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Polite reminder for those posting news articles etc here, please don't misunderstand this removal: it was removed because of scant update on the page itself, not because nothing is happening with the eruption. Those posting such articles could help the situation by actually making substantive updates to the page rather than fill up this place with links. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment content diffs since 2021-10-01. Good pull. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RESTORED There are now 2 new paragraphs of new materials on what happened the past four days. If anyone has any more to add, please go ahead to keep this article updated. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove one paragraph in nearly two weeks is not "continuously updated" as stipulated by the guidelines. In_the_news --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hosea Macharinyang

 * Oppose Needs a few more details; there's nothing about how he died (or indeed, anything about his personal life).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple refs dated 2011 are deadlinks. Please update or replace them. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farooq Feroze Khan

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sikandar Hayat Khan

 * Comment - Some cn tags and unsourced sentences, but it seems possible to fix. Ping me if these issues are addressed.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Need to address the missing citations and explain/describe in more details in the Career section (what he did in each post? Accomplishments? Failures? Reasons to quit?, etc.) --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Sebastian Kurz, Austrian Chancellor, resigns, succeeded by Alexander Schallenberg

 * Wait - the inauguration of a new incumbent is usually blurbed, not the resignation of an exiting officeholder. The most recent example is probably Yoshihide Suga who resigned as Prime Minister of Japan; the appropriate entry did not get onto the front page until Fumio Kishida officially became his successor last week. - Indefensible (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/wait. I agree that we should wait for the appointment of his successor. --Tataral (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news now, and if a replacement is appointed soon we can just update the blurb. This is not ITN/R. The orange tag for "ad" is silly, the section is fully referenced. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update – Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg sworn in Monday as the new chancellor of Austria.  (Pic avail.) – Sca (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Kurz's article is in good enough shape, but the ITN/R would have to include Schallenburg as the change of officeholder. That article is very short and needs some referencing too. I've added an altblurb &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably would need some BG & reorg re Schallenberg, as he's now top dog. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support – Alt1  when article revised per previous. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: German Wiki adds that Michael Linhart, hitherto ambassador to France, has been sworn in as Schallenberg's successor as foreign minister. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment reorganizing the nomination. Schallenberg is now the protagonist, and his article is pretty bad... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb but article(s) could use improvement; the Kurz corruption probe article is just a stub and probably not worth linking on the front page currently. - Indefensible (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per others. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks acceptable. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Posting alt2 since it seems best. The article has been expanded to the level that it is passable, though still short. --Tone 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest we replace David Card pic in the box with one of Schallenberg. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder III

 * Question: The blurb's boldlinked article Tyson Fury has a seven-word sentence about him winning this bout. The article Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder III does not have a link in the proposed blurb and does not have a bout recap or aftermath section. Where is the updating that qualifies this for ITN? --PFHLai (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sufficiently significant for a broader audience. --Tataral (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, this was on the new on my side of the ocean as compared to 50% of the ITNR items. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - If we don't post this match, we're not posting boxing on ITN, period.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An undisputed heavyweight champion might get posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We didn't post Joshua vs Usyk recently, and that one was for multiple heavyweight titles at once, I don't see how we could then say that the WBC title supercedes all of those. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - An altblurb has been added to the nomination and a recap section has been added to the article. Andise1 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are so many boxing titles. I would only support a reunification fight. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news. To deny it isn't well... it doesn't serve our readers. Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder III is updated and is better than most disaster stubs we post. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic third episode of this money-making exercise. Limited sports notability let alone encyclopedic value.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What, they make money? We wouldn't want to post stuff where people make money, would we. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM and PK3 Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's certainly in the news and the media seem to think this was a "fight for the ages". Tyson Fury has managed to knock Squid Game off the top slot which even James Bond couldn't manage. And nobody but nobody is reading about the small earthquake in Balochistan. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't deny that this match has some importance and it's in the news, but it'd be unjust to post this after we didn't post Joshua vs Usyk.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please come back next year when Usyk and Fury defend their titles in the respective events, and we can re-evaluate the importance from the beginning. And, frankly speaking, this one is the less significant of the two matches because it was held under the auspices of only one out of four professional boxing organisations, while the other one was under the other three.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind the quality, feel the clicks. This isn't about encyclopedic value, it's about pageviews, and trying to apply some kind of understanding of sporting significance doesn't fit the TOP25 narrative.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see boxing events on the main page, but you seem to have a very good point. Then we should probably wait until the championships unify and argue that it's worth posting because the event has determined the undisputed world champion. Shouldn't we?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:ITN is not WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed – there are only three blurbs currently. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For main page balance. This is so tiring. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of our readers use the mobile view which does not require any balancing. I suppose TRM is talking about the desktop multi-column view and that ITN is being balanced to match the TFA blurb.  Currently, that's about an episode of the X-Files which was broadcast 25 years ago.  Apparently this is an important anniversary and the news of the day must give way to it.  Quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Most of our readers use the mobile view " [citation needed] and yet I note you're now onto passive aggression about TFA.  This, once again, isn't the venue.  Do try to focus.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose can't post every time a boxer wins a fight. Polyamorph (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What a very bizarre arguement. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * huh? Its broad global significance is not great. Looking at major international news webpages there are many more significant news stories than this. Polyamorph (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The UEFA Nations League Final took place last night, much more historically notable than this, but it's never going to be nominated, let alone posted.  The difference here is that there appears to be a few individuals continually attempting to convert the main page of an encyclopedia to a tabloid newspaper.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure anyone is arguing "we post every time a boxer wins a fight." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Recent history here seems to indicate that a certain group of people are in favour of posting these one-off bouts (or in this case, a third-off...) As you well know.  Thankfully common sense has prevailed each time, despite the drive to turn ITN into a red-top. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha. How about the pink-tops? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and individual football matches get column inches in all such newspapers. Doesn't mean we post them all.  But I think we're done here for today, the obligatory "trying to make ITN into TOP25" and the inevitable associated peanut gallery.  Bingo!  Can't wait to do it all again tomorrow.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yossi Maiman

 * Support - Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted RD/not Blurb) Abolhassan Banisadr dies

 * Support blurb The first president of a regional power with a rich history of the past 25 centuries as a monarchy is notable. Some may argue that he was in Khomeini's shadow, but he did play an important role in the Iranian Revolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Iran had a Supreme Leader (Khomeini) and the office of president was not the highest or most powerful office of the country, and not even the head of state. Many countries have had an office known as president (or similar) that was of secondary importance compared to the actual ruler of the country (for instance, the Soviet Union had a mostly powerless titular head of state when Stalin was the real leader of the country). Abolhassan Banisadr held the office that could at best be described as Iran's number two for only a year, forty years ago. --Tataral (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. The president of Iran is the figure who represents the country in international relations and has much greater power than many other subordinated office-holders in the world. The Supreme Leader has concentrated power mostly in domestic affairs and is relatively absent from world politics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that he only held the office for a year, he didn't really have a very great impact on the world stage. He's not at all comparable to later presidents who held the office for years and became more widely known. That, and the fact that the position ranks below the Supreme Leader and is not the head of state, is why I believe an RD is more appropriate than a blurb. To illustrate the difference between him and his Supreme Leader counterpart: Everyone have heard of Khomeini who was an extremely well known political leader, but very, very few people outside Iran today have heard of Abolhassan Banisadr. --Tataral (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb The shortness of the article (well beyond sufficient for an RD) shows why this isn't anywhere close to the type of world leader that we would normally blurb. There's almost nothing in the article about his contributions to Iran during his time as its President, so it is impossible to judge importance as a major world figure here from that, compared to other world leaders that we have posted as blurbs with long detailed articles on their impact on their country and the world. RD is perfectly fine. --M asem (t) 12:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I understand, it seems that it's his impeachment that has historical significance rather than his presidency as his impeachment cleared the path for the clerics to consolidate their control of the government. I think he's more comparable to Kasa-Vubu's presidency between Mobutu's first and second coups in Congo Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Out of office 43 years, died age 88. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – per above, Egeymi (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD. I do not mind this in a blurb, but there isn't enough support for it at this time. We can upgrade this to a blurb later when more support appears on this page here. --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin J. Sherwin

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - in the nick of time. Very nice. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mordechai Geldman

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Budge Patty

 * Support - Looks decent enough. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond T. Odierno

 * No {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

 * Comment Muratov's article needs dividing into sections (someone has tagged it), other than that looks ok. Brandmeistertalk  13:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, good to go now. Brandmeistertalk  16:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I in general oppose nominating each Nobel Prize as a separate ITN piece for the same reasons we don't do the same for the winners of the Olympic Games. We can simply reduce that to an ongoing event (3-5 days) about giving out Nobel Prizes. I don't think we need a separate blurb for each Nobel Prize laureate unless a good reason can be provided to make an exception for this particular person/these particular people (same applies to all other nominations of Nobel laureates). An absolutely notable event, but not worthy of six separate news bits (which anyway won't normally fit in the ITN template, as it normally houses 4-5). Comment struck due to the issue being discussed at talk. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually the most common criticism here is not enough turnover, not too much. That said, this issue is under discussion at WT:ITN 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - articles seem to meet the requirements, but specifying which countries or simply ending the blurb with "safeguard freedom of speech" might be preferable. - Indefensible (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and comment I think we should mention The Philippines and Russia are their home countries.-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is historic for the Philippines, their first Nobel Prize. Showiecz (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This was not the first time a Filipino won a Nobel Peace Prize. In 2007, Jose Ramon Villarin of Ateneo de Manila University was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that won the Nobel; and as Muratov will tell you, the award wasn't for him. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if the home countries (Philippines, Russia) would be mentioned. Simply saying "home countries" leaves it on an awkward ending.
 * Comment - they may be working to improve free speech in their home countries of the Philippines and Russia, but really in principle they are improving worldwide human rights access. It would be preferable to link freedom of speech in the blurb than draw attention to the 2 countries, and the article seems to meet quality requirements for the front page too. - Indefensible (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggested altblurb to this effect. - Indefensible (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting concern. … for their efforts to improve freedom of speech sounds like they're engaged in legal or constitutional reform. Maybe "preserve", or, as the official rationale has it, "safeguard"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched to "safeguard" as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Kunduz mosque bombing

 * Oppose on quality not a good article, it's a stub of length 1,000 characters. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's certainly notable enough. It's being rapidly improved & expanded. Jim Michael (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 247 WORDS (as of 15:30 ) rather stubby and thin. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub and bombings in Afghanistan are as frequent as other things which are perceived as routine and consistently derided as non-notable at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True enough, but another factor is the death toll, in this case reported as "at least 50." Just sayin'. – Sca (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight support - It isn't fantastic, but it is big news. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No more stubby than that earthquake in Balochistan, with far more death and international intrigue. Widely covered, too. While bombings in Afghanistan were common during the war, they usually involved military/police forces; blowing up a mosque is rare in all contexts, and I can't recall any such atrocity used in relation to the Uyghur plight. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient article quality. --Tataral (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still less than 500 words – rather thin for MP promotion. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Global minimum corporate tax

 * Oppose. Regardless of whether it's significant enough (I'm not sure), the article has numerous quality-related problems and includes no less than six maintenance tags highlighting various problems with the article, and would need a major rewrite and cleanup. --Tataral (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps corporate haven is a better article? the blurb could be changed to "136 nations agree on a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% in an agreement orchestrated by the OECD as a measure to stop the use of corporate havens"? The corporate havens article is in sore need of splits and summarizing due to its large size. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - can this tax rule even be enforced? It's just an agreement and even if it were broken, we can't say for sure whether any action would be taken against whichever country breaks it (if America broke it, I doubt any country (barring a couple of countries) would stand up against them). An agreement over nuclear weapons would be more worthy of inclusion as breaking it has much more serious consequences. Tube·of·Light 13:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * corporate tax havens are an incredibly consequential aspect of the modern financial world, as evident by economic importance of tax inversion and BEPS.


 * Comment - The most significant part of this tax agreement is the fact that tax haven countries like Ireland also signed onto the agreement.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Presumably the 136 countries each would have to legislate this minimum into effect. Also, the target is a general article about corporate taxes, and doesn't mention this agreement – which AFAIK has generally been absent from prime RS sites . – Sca (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - Here are some more links: The Guardian, CNBC, Washington Post. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, found three RS articles, added above. Changing opsn to comment for now. – Sca (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, but support in principle for the subject eventually getting a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I nominated this back in June when the G7 proposed this In the news/Candidates/June 2021 though then it was agreed posted then would be premature due to the need for support by more nations. That support seems to be this point in time. --M asem (t) 22:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment per above: the article unfortunately needs a major scrub before it will be able to meet the guidelines and get posted on the front page, it might be easier to create a standalone article dedicated to this new deal and then cross-link it with the broader article. But we may also have to wait until further details come out and have more reliable sources available to write that content. Because of that, guessing it will probably miss the window again here, but if a draft is started now then it may be ready for posting at whatever the next milestone related to this subject is. - Indefensible (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reminder This only applies to big corporations, grossing 20 billion Euros or more a year. Not as universal as the blurb suggests. Also not taking effect for at least a couple of years, in theory, with ten years of exemption for some (maybe most). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not 20B Euro, its about 750M Euro/yr. Further, as stated "It is estimated to generate around $150 billion in additional global tax revenues annually" which is nothing to sneeze at either. There's a separate, higher tier in the policy but that has to do with the redistribution of their taxes, and applies to those over $125B in profit/yr (which is very few) --M asem  (t) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, 20 billion is the other part (these companies combined sell $125B), was just about to correct myself. Finance is complicated! Thanks for advising. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chen Wenxin

 * Posted Stephen 00:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clement Bowman

 * Comment - Only two cn tags. The article seems close to be ready.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready. Added 1 ref and removed 1 unreferenceable statement.  Spencer T• C 05:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reggie Parks

 * Support Good to go. Always wondered why the wrestling belts of my youth were so much better than the boxing ones. TIL something!  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Brokenshire

 * Weak oppose some of the "Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary" section unreferenced and a [by whom?] tag, but generally not too shoddy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already taken care of some of those things actually. If there are any other matters of urgency, let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, well-written and well-sourced article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Frances Haugen

 * Oppose A congressional hearing is not the same as a conviction or similar official legislative action by Congress to prevent such actions in the future, so mostly just more on the long-term picture of the conflict between Big Tech and the US Govt. --M asem (t) 13:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Someone talking doesn't seem to worthy of ITN. Especially when someone plans to do a lot more talking in the future. You can re-nominate when she appears on my podcast.Nohomersryan (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People testify before Congress all the time. No indication that the testimony itself, besides generating buzz, is important. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Close Congressional revelations about Facebook have been going on for years now. None of them have qualified as being particularly notable, much less encyclopedic content, and very few of them have yielded any tangible results. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

 * There's one cn to address but otherwise support. It's a bit odd that the article spends most of its time describing his academic career, rather than his novels, but I don't think that's fatal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cut that portion because it didn't seem sourceable anyway. As for the latter point: lit crit is harder to summarize than a career chronology, a problem that plagues many articles about writers, I think. (Not a defence, just an explanation.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think in a few hours, with news of the Nobel, that a bit of commentary about his non-academic writings will be available from news reports covering the Nobel, even if that's only going to end up as 2-3 sentences for us. BBC tends to be more blunt, but I'd look for NYTimes' coverage as a starting point. --M asem (t) 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t have the time to edit the article myself, but the Guardian’s coverage seemed to hone in more on his literary career. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, the article has been considerably improved since the last time I had a look. --Tone 09:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Balochistan earthquake

 * Support - Great work! Sherenk1 (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable earthquake, article well-developed. Hanami-Sakura (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article looks very good, but the story doesn't receive front-page coverage, and the casualties of 20 dead and 300 injured are minor compared to those in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes with the so-called "minor" fatality figures have made it to the news (2020 Petrinja earthquake(7), 2015 Sabah earthquake(18)) as well so I don't get the point. CactusTaron (Nopen't) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is a "Small earthquake ... not many dead" which is famously dull. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comparison is legit at all. Petrinja and its surrounding area have never been hit by a disastrous earthquake that left dozens of thousands dead or injured in the recent history. So, you can't compare this with earthquakes elsewhere in the world. The thing is that Pakistan lies in a convergence zone between the Eurasian and Indian plates, which causes higher tectonic motion and thus more earthquakes hit the region. I've checked the list of earthquakes in Pakistan in the most recent decade, and this one's magnitude is clearly in the lower half (note that we've posted four stronger earthquakes with much greater damage from the list in the last eight years).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. And please note that my main point is not the number of fatalities (that's only a side fact that puts this in relation to the other earthquakes in the region), but the very fact that this doesn't receive front-page coverage in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN doesn't care about "front page" coverage, just that there's reasonable coverage in multiple outlets. --M asem (t) 13:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that explicitly forbids it and it's widely applied by other users as well. My reasoning is that, unless the news pertains to a story of high encyclopedic value (e.g. scientific discovery, record-setting event, national symbol change etc.), front-page coverage should be relevant. Earthquakes in the same vein as shootings, attacks and aeroplane crashes are a fairly frequent type of event, so it's very logical to take into account how much attention do the media pay to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the metric of "front page coverage" biases certain types of stories that are not encyclopedic or tend to be news blips or more regional/national in their scope and not the type of information that otherwise works well in how we are to be summarizing sources compared to isolated/individual events (such as natural disasters or currently the Nobel awards). US media tends to focus too heavily on day to day politics on the front of the fold and tends to bury stories that represent actual events or topics appropriate for an encyclopedia below it (though obviously things like 9/11 or Jan 6 are exceptions). Further, with newspapers waning and online coverage more predominant, defining what is "the front page" is far harder to do. Thus why we give where a news story is being covered any heed in assessing it for ITN, as long as it has that news coverage. --M asem (t) 14:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't claim it's a decisive criterion but it sometimes is one to consider. A sub-6.0-Mwb earthquake in a region with high seismic activity that doesn't leave a large portion of the affected population homeless or destroy cultural heritage and parts of important cities implies that the blurb will be of the simplest possible form "An earthquake kills X and injures Y people.". In such a case, front-page coverage and death toll are relevant criteria to check. And dismissing a nomination because of no front-page coverage doesn't mean accepting nominations that appear on the front page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree that where there is a common/regular/frequent occurrence of disasters - such as hurricane season, typhoon season, tornado season, or an earthquake-prone country - that we shouldn't ITN every single one of these events that have minimal death tolls (on the order of single digits) even if we can create articles about them (lack of ITN doesn't mean lack of notability for a standalone article) And while there's no such thing as MINIMUMDEATHS, when these start going into double digits with the potential to rise, regardless of the above consideration, that's still more notable for ITN's purposes. Its just that we really don't consider where an article appears in a newspaper or website as to judge its importance, as long as it appears somewhere in the paper and is something of in-depth coverage. --M asem  (t) 14:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I oftentimes argue that death toll is irrelevant and even supported 2020 Zagreb earthquake with no deaths at the time when the nomination was open, but it was the largest quake that hit the city since 1880, it severely damaged buildings of historical importance in the old town, it resulted in a relocation of an entire hospital and made large disruptions in the entire country. But when there's nothing significant other than the casualty figures, then you realise that death toll and coverage should be given importance. I have nothing against anything or anyone here, but I don't think a quake with a well-written article and two-digit death toll should be a standard for posting, especially because we've already posted four quakes that hit the region in the last eight years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment There was a quake of this magnitude recently in Crete. According to List of earthquakes in 2021, there have been 1,698 of magnitude 5–5.9 so far this year.  The largest earthquake of the year was magnitude 8.2 and in the USA but doesn't seem to have had much attention because it was "the wrong type" and didn't make waves. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - A job well done for such a recent earthquake. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Article title should be changed to 2021 Pakistan earthquake, as Balochistan is not a headline place name, i.e. not familiar to most native speakers of English. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. AP put toll at 23. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support- Makes sense. It will be good to bring this issue to the main page so that the 15 million people who look at it daily can know that it is a thing taht happened. TootsieRollsAddict   (talk)  13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently updated and sourced, even with numbers expected to increase now. --M asem (t) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support – It's OK for now – but I definitely would take the bit about "one day before the anniversary of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake" out of the lead and move it down somewhere. The important thing is, the quake occurred and killed XX (number) people. The almost-anniversary is a footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Looks like it may be quite a while before we see updates in RS-land, hence changed my vote to weak support. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Definitely worth noting.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yesudasan

 * This wikibio is long enough (>2000 characters). The longest paragraph has two footnotes, but one of the two refs is actually the subject's own website. Are there independent sources? Also, would things like place of birth and parents (refs needed, btw) fit better in the personal life section, leaving the rest of the biography section to focus on his career? --PFHLai (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edits done. Decent start class biography. Meets basic hygiene for homepage / RD. Please have a look . Ktin (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response, Ktin. The re-arrangement of text and footnote works for me. The career section could use more refs from sources other than his own website but it's good enough for now. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Koichi Sugiyama

 * Still a few refs missing; almost ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems good enough for RD, the few remaining items missing refs can just be removed if needed. - Indefensible (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it time to remove the few unreferenced items in the table? Time is running out for your nom here. All {cn} tags are gone. --PFHLai (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was able to source one of the four missing, but the other 3 remained elusive to RSes, so commented them out for the time being. --M asem (t) 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Masem. And Spencer, too, for the last few footnotes. I don't see any other problems with this wikibio that would disqualify it from RD. Posting --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * comment: the list article seems pretty decent for an article that was started a few hours ago. unfortunately, it seems the macmillan article was started in 2007 by an editor  contained no citations, though it did contain a link to macmillan's web site.  much of this text has remained unchanged in the intervening 14 years, and still makes up the bulk of the current article's prose, which explains why Masem has stated that it needs references.  perhaps it would benefit from some of the tnt that was being reserved for manabe's article.  is it a coincidence that we are suggesting blowing up articles on ... nobel laureates?also, i've taken the liberty of replacing the redirect for macmillan with a direct link.  feel free to revert if including the initials was deliberate.  dying (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No cn tag anymore in both articles. Sufficient quality. Grimes2 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: List's article looks adequate; MacMillan's only includes 2 sentences about his research and needs further expansion.  Spencer T• C 20:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 09:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Malaria vaccine

 * I've added the altblurb, which is more the actual story (WHO is recommending that it be used immediately across Africa, but the news is the approval of the vaccine in the first place). --M asem (t) 17:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Support - though I would recommend adding one paragraph in the History section to spell out this approval (the lede has it) and explain the WHO's recommended immediate rollout to Africa and their estimates of potential lifes-savings. --M asem (t) 17:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb (have updated article); landmark in medical history. Blythwood (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb this is more ground-breaking than a COVID jab. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...)
 * Support altblurb Article ok, well referenced. Important. Grimes2 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Finally some great news. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb, the original is also big news. BD2412  T 20:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting altblurb – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has an orange tag in it; that's usually a blocker for ITN isn't it? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at the time of posting though? What happens after that is outside the remit of ITN usually. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would caveat that by saying that if it is a serious concern, then we would consider pulling it. But that probably doesn't apply here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that it could be pulled for a newly tagged reason, even after a post. In this case, however, the tag is for missing information.  Being that most pages are a work in progress, it would only be justified if it was considered core content for ITN posting, which I also agree does not seem to apply in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I don't remember anything being pulled from ITN post-posting as a result of a subsequent tag and a complaint here. Perhaps this needs to be added to our ruleset. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nadia Chaudhri

 * Support Good coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pat Fish

 * There are too many footnote-free paragraphs at this time. Please add more REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siran Upendra Deraniyagala

 * Support Article is well written and sourced. Looks ready to go! Pyramids09 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Nobel Prize in Physics

 * PS. The template apparently doesn't have an 'article3' parameter and I can't work out how to modify it without breaking things. Could someone more familiar with template syntax take a look? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Doubt it's worth the effort. Three bolded items are so infrequent. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It never had 3 target support in the past (we've had this problem on past Nobels but its such an infrequent thing that its better not to break it for that reason) We'll just have to make due w/ recognizing three articles to review for this. --M asem (t) 12:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose two of the targets missing refs, none of them have updates beyond "physical modeling of earth's climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.". Climate model and Complex system are too generic to suffice the way it did with the physiology award. The targets need a paragraph about what work the individuals did that was so significant to the scientific community that they warranted a Nobel Prize or it's just minimally comprehensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

All articles have been improved and should be adequate by now. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The first section of Manabe feels like it is pulled from some published CV or bio or something like that, it doesn't have that Wikipedia "flavor". Parisi is missing any type of discussion of their work (listing papers is not the same as discussing it). --M asem (t) 12:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, I just discovered that has edited the article, as has the single-purpose  which geo-locates to the town where he works and signed many of their edit summaries as 'Syukuro Manabe'. The IP wrote a large fraction of the content. This could be a real mess to sort out. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're telling me somebody wrote an article about himself? Scaramouche33 (talk)


 * Manabe's has the issue I pointed out yesterday, which I have to agree with Modest Genius, has potential COI issues by Manabe or someone likely associated with them. Some TNT needs to be applied to that article. --M asem (t) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I'm a little bit surprised that the Nobel Prize for Physics hasn't been posted yet. In case you all forgot 89.95.204.219 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now too old to displace any existing bullet points on ITN. It's not going to MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I'm still disappointed with you all! This must be the first time that the Physics Nobel Prize didn't make it to ITN 2001:861:3286:170:4CC9:F3F5:E506:FF3A (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumbly, "you all" includes yourself. The nominated articles failed to get ready fast enough and failed to garner support votes here fast enough. Work faster next year! --65.94.214.60 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in France

 * Comment I'd certainly support this as the disclosure is really shocking, but the proposed article in its current shape is unfortunate. McLaren Report can be considered a proper standard for what the article should look like.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I can only apologise for not being in a position to write a suitable target article... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article is a proseline disaster. Oppose posting some summary from an arbitrary date going back 70 years. Why not 60? Why not 80? Oppose singling out sexual assault committed by members of a specific club. Oppose posting something that's been posted in one form or another again and again and again and again: catholic priests rape kids. Other stories which are perceived as "common" are routinely derided why should the fact that catholic priests rape kids get a "goodness this is shocking and important news". It's not. So, really, I guess oppose literally everything about this tabloid trash non-story. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A "specific club" of over a billion people? Or even just among French Catholics, several million? 331dot (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The membership number is irrelevant. Be it French Catholics, American Catholics, Australian Catholics they seem to have two things in common: passing the plate and raping the boys. Unless there is something unique about Catholic Priests raping kids, it's not especially noteworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant, that's a billion potential readers here. Your religious views or lack thereof are not relevant to this nomination. It's certainly noteworthy to the victims- and there does seem to be something unique about it as other religions don't seem to have as extensive a problem like this. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a private club like any other and there is no reason to single out the non-specific crimes of it's membership. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That could be said about almost every posting we make. I think the moral and ethical system of a billion people is not "a private club". 331dot (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The very small subset of Catholics that become priests or higher is a private club. And within that bunch, there's a secret club of perverts. Most in the first two levels don't believe sexually abusing kids is morally or ethically OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note my comment "almost certainly needs a proper article rather than the general list of abusers", cheers. And when did we post the abuse of around a quarter of a million children?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but in the same boat as TRM - the one sentence in the target article isn't going to work for this as ITN, and really this would need a proper standalone. It may take a day or two for the weight of this report to have its analysis in European and some US RSes to help build that. --M asem (t) 12:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * select count(*) from tblCrime where religion = 'catholic' doesn't seem like a news item at all. These weren't uncovered in some vault. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We get it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Support in principle but not until this godawful article is cleaned up a bit This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, Masem – The laundry-list approach to RC abuse cases is inappropriate and in this instance not helpful. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle but oppose the article presently-nominated. We need an article dedicated to this French report or inquiry. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as is, but would support if there was some manner of outcome as a result--charges, defrocking, civil cases even. I know the scope is immense but it's also veering into the abstract if there isn't an actual follow-up from it, to me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose For a victim list of almost a quarter million people, the hook to an article linking to Europe doesn't cut it. At least a detailed article is needed for France or even the report itself. Gotitbro (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Facebook outage
Major geek news. Article is a stub as I write this, but expect that to change rapidly. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Outages aren't especially uncommon. If this one persists for an exceptionally long period of time, or otherwise has an unusual and significant impact, then maybe it will be ITN worthy. At the moment, it seems comparatively minor. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance (no comment on quality, as I'm not familiar enough with ITN standards). It's been down for hours and this affects 3 billion people around the world. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ritchie beat me to it.  I thought that William Shatner going boldly was today's big story but this is really big.  The edit conflicts are telling. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major social media outlets being out for a long period of time and affecting a huge number of people should be notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait outages are regular. The key thing here is whether or not the sites are recoverable (I'm hearing that some of the routing has been utterly buggered).  If we are without these websites at this time tomorrow, I'd say it's a story.  If it's recovered before, then it's just another outage, and we dealt with it. And the claims of how much it's "affecting" people are a little wild, it's just social media for the love of everything sane.  If it had been a global outage of electricity or running water or daylight I'd buy it, but I can't post a photo of my cat to Insta?  Seriously?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are already reliable sources that say it might not be a co-incidence the downtime happened after this whistleblowing job. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get it. But of course we're not here for crystal ball moments. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple apps affected and many people use apps like WhatsApp as their primary means of communication. Also, Facebook ids are commonly used for single sign-on to other services and so there may be considerable collateral damage. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're ALWAYS told never to use WhatsApp etc as your primary means of communication. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got a good mind to write a very strongly-worded letter to my MP about this frightful mess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "considerable collateral damage" - "pile the bodies high"!!!! Get. A. Grip. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose If anything, the news that we should be posting about Facebook is the story that was talked about on 60 Minutes last night, that Facebook profited from hate speech and misinformation on its site.  (That said, I would not be surprised to learn this downtime is a result of that story, a DDOS by people reacting to that story). But outages even of major social providers is not news. This isn't a major ISP backbone or something like Cloudflare that affects numerous of websites. --M asem  (t) 21:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "But outages even of major social providers is not news." Agreed. But outages of major social providers right after a whistleblowing job exposing them to a serious negative reputation is a bit different. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get it. But of course we're not here for crystal ball moments. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The connection right now is 100% speculative by all sources, so it would not be appropriate to post due to that speculation. --M asem (t) 21:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Its large enough to be noteable for ITN. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 21:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I will actually support posting for this major outage of major social media platforms. BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major impact. Mapillary and Oculus don't work either. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant, global outage of not just Facebook, but Instagram and WhatsApp as well for over six hours. I don't think many Americans realize how many billions of people rely on WhatsApp as a utility for daily communication. As fun as the Twitter memes are, this will have significant impacts once it eventually gets restored (if ever).  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 21:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So use Skype? Or Zoom?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Or Teams? Or Signal?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This affects about one third of the world population, and it's undoubtedly top news in the media. That being said, its inclusion should be a no-brainer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Unclear that this is anything more than a typical outage, and article quality is not great as it's barely above a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, yes we admit it. Me and Frances Haugen broke the internet. Wait, at least a few more hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu and Masem. Sure, this is affecting a lot of people, but it's unlikely to have any lasting impact, and given that we regularly don't post hurricanes which displace thousands of people from their very homes, it would seem a bit odd to post this minor social networking inconvenience. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This does not effect a few million people but most likely up to a billion or more members of these social media platforms. We should not speculate in lasting impact in the first hours of a major event or in this case outage.BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not post a regular occurrence in the first few hours until we have a clearer picture of the reasons and real impact. This isn't a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Several major social media platforms completely collapsing at the same time for hours are not a regular occurence. BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Oh noes people can't check the status of their friends" is not earth shattering news. There absolutely may be news-worthy motives behind it as noted above, but that's the news part, not a hours-long outage. --M asem  (t) 21:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Billion dollar losses for the company itself, worldwide problems to log onto several other websites connected to these three sites, this is a global problem and not a "teen issue".BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AH, well if the blurb said "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (muhhahahahah) have been wiped off Facebook as they fail to find the on/off switch", then I might be behind it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clive Myrie said the value of Facebook shares had "plummeted" by 5%. So that must be true.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And they'll recover in the next week or two. That also must be true.  So is this a blurb about an inability to post more cat memes, or Facebook's share value?  Either way, this is a non-story. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, cat memes?? that's YT. Thank god we can all still all send 30-second videos of Nuns doing competitive tweerking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When they're all run by the same company? Yes, I think I can wait for next cat meme while they reboot.  If they don't reboot by tomorrow, then I'd agree it's noteworthy.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was YouTube a few months ago. Same with AWS, which is relied upon for many business-sensitive applications. These things happen, it's unfortunate but there it is. Not that remarkable really, and we're not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Wait  - per TRM. Also, the linked article is weak, as of my posting. We dont need to rush this. Jusdafax (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC) ((Move to Oppose per other opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC))
 * Oppose unless there is evidence this was a deliberate attack of some kind. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Impact from the NYT"More than 3.5 billion people around the world use Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp to communicate with friends and family, distribute political messaging, and expand their businesses through advertising and outreach. ... The fallout also cascaded, because Facebook is used to sign in to many other apps and services. That led to unexpected domino effects such as people not being able to log into shopping websites or sign into their smart TVs, thermostats and other internet-connected devices."
 * Just the best post ever. People can't use their phones to adjust their thermostats!  CALL THE COPS!  Other messaging services are available.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of a government ad I heard on the radio in 1999 regarding the imminent Year 2000 problem. It said something along the lines of "you may have heard stories about planes falling out of the sky and toasters not working". A rather odd pair of "disasters" to pair together really... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All of my musical contacts and work happens through Facebook and WhatsApp. Don't blame me, blame the thousands of other people that mandate I have to use it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We are all literally on Wikipedia right now, a website. If this website went offline for that amount of hours with no one knowing when or if it would return.. I know more than one editor that would throw fits. So please let us not pretend like we are above Facebook users.BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming anyone for anything. If anyone really gave a shit about anyone or anything, and it was important, they'd just CALL THEM ON THE PHONE.  Presumably global telephone networks are still working?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also wouldn't expect us to post on ITN about a Wikipedia outage. (Although for obvious reasons that wouldn't be possible anyway, at least until it was back online). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. While Facebook is now back online, the outage has done enormous damage, facebook has lost 5% of its value. Count Iblis (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bit of a technical glitch, fixed now, not important in the scheme of things. S**t happens, and will continue to do so. The fact it happened to Facebook is, well, one of those things. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Facebook is back online. As usual, a glitch.  It has not done "enormous damage", indeed most people could have used their thermostat or made calls using myriad other technologies, like a telephone.  Storm in a teacup.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that we're unlikely to be able to post anything on this sort of a topic that would have a much bigger and lasting impact. If e.g. a massive solar storm like the Carrington Event or the much larger Solar superstorm of the year AD 774 were to take out the Internet for e few months, then Wikipedia would go offline as well. Count Iblis (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the lasting impact? Facebook is back already.  It's a glitch, downtime was longer than usual but it's happened before and will happen again.  Comparing not being able to tell the world you're taking a shit versus solar superstorms is a bit of a stretch for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well Facebook is back now. Let's all go and post some pictures of our dinners and put a few "care" emotes on people's posts. But I think this non-story here is about done. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It lasted a few hours, we all survived. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did we though? Judging by the hysteria above, perhaps millions didn't make it through the few hours of social media blackout? They couldn't adjust their thermostat, nor could they (potentially) order new pants.  I'm just glad it's over.  Or at least we're at the end of the beginning.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing particularly unique or impactful happening here. The world will keep moving and I'd bet a good portion of the world population didn't notice or didn't care even when it was happening. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we should demand Facebook stay down for at least 3 days before we promote them on the Wikipedia home page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support we have an article, and this is certainly In The News. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this attracted significant media and public attention and has been correlated with a significant decrease in the price of Facebook stock. Billions of people were impacted by the outage. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- I was wondering why everyone seemed happier today! But seriously, this was a big deal, and Facebook's billions of users certainly did notice. It's news when it's just for a few minutes, at 6 hours, it's unprecedented. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So apparently it was all just backend misconfiguration on Facebook's part, not a hack or DDOS. Just a bad Border Gateway Protocol that wiped their DNS info. So nothing to see here, this is not a news story. . --M asem (t) 02:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it being caused by Facebook's incompetence makes it "not a news story". Should I expect various news agencies to retract their articles? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a news story for the media that need space to fill 24/7, but for a global encyclopedia, that this was a blip due to misconfiguration means this likely will have no enduring effects (If it were the result of the 60 Minutes story, that might be different), and thus not the type of news that WP should be covering in depth as a summary of enduring coverage per NOTNEWS. Further, trying to place this as a plight that millions of people couldn't access Facebook for six hours is decidely a first world inconvenience, compared to actual serious news that affect the well-being of people. We need to avoid the type of media systematic bias that these type of stories draw. --M asem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Claiming this is a "first world inconvenience" is funny when Facebook (including WhatsApp) is the primary way billions of people in developing nations communicate, and the only access many of them have to the internet. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters reported only about 35,000 users of Whatsapp were affected so.. yeah. It's still an inconvenience. --M asem  (t) 03:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's... not what was reported. 35,000 users reported the outage on downdetector. Those who know about downdetector and bothered to report it are a very small fraction of total users. The platform was down for everyone. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article that will not have sustained coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Chrisclear (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To put things in perspective, this was in the news, both CNN and BBC World started their news bulletins with these stories also after the sites came back online. But suppose if I had nominated this event, then you could have said that this is only headline news on Twitter, therefore not a major story. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. C'mon. Not the end of the world. Minor event in the scheme of things, and its literally no different from 2d ago now. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  06:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment everything back as it was less than six hours later, following a "configuration issue", so not even malevolent forces at work, just a mistake. This is such a non-event, it almost isn't worthy of an article.  I do feel really sorry for all those people who had to actually walk to their thermostat to adjust the temperature rather than use their phones.  What a disaster for them.  Perhaps we could set up a helpline, get them some counselling.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose On a number of procedural problems. The proposed blurb has too many bold links, and it does not include the proposed article. Facebook is orange tagged for both proposed blurbs. The event article in the nomination is short and like noted above, will fail WP:SUSTAINED. This information, at least that which is WP:N, would be best folded into the parent Facebook article (which has started to happen already). Even if RS coverage is demonstrated (it is) and if editors want it posted (some do), these problems must be resolved first.130.233.213.141 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The alt blurb has just one bold link which is the proposed article;
 * The Facebook article does not have an orange tag, is a former good article and now generally rated B-class;
 * The event article is unlikely to fail sustained because it's the largest incident of the sort to date. And it's certainly in the news currently, which is what we are here to report.
 * So, there are no blockers there. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the event is over, it was a glitch, nothing nefarious, nothing long-lasting, nothing remarkable in any sense. Almost six hours without cat memes and hi-tech thermostat usage....  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

 * Support Important. Article Ardem Patapoutian needs some attention. Grimes2 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - oh Lord, not this time of year again... I wish they'd space these things out! Julius's article looks fine, the Patapoutian one has an orange tag, it needs more cites. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment neither article does a good job of explaining what these two actually accomplished. Of the two, Julius is probably better. This isn't an RD nom where the minimum wikibio will suffice and a one-liner "discoveries of receptors for temperature and touch" without actually explaining what that means is not minimally comprehensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We have the article nociception (and sub-article thermoception) which describes the general concept, so would be an easy non-bold link to add to the blurb [edit:I've done so]. They don't specifically mention the contributions of Julius & Patapoutian, but that detail would be better explained in the biographies. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That'll work. Thanks. We endeavor to do this for the other nobel prize blurbs as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Taking into account LL's comment about the lack of what each did towards this Nobel, both articles now seem to have this, and are both sourced and of course updated with the Nobel. Outside of the linkage recommended by Modest Genius for the blurb, this looks ready to go (Only Julius has an image unfortunately.) --M asem (t) 13:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Neither biography is particularly impressive, but they do meet our minimum standards and give a basic explanation of their research. Good enough to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Seems like the problematic issues have been resolved. As MG says, not impressive articles but just about acceptable for main page standard. I'm usually not fussed about yellow-level tags either, so happy to pass that one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Amakuru. Good(ish) to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is certainly in the news and the use of chilli peppers in this work is a common highlight. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is what we should be routinely posting. I think	Zuckerberg's probably scuppered his chances of ever getting a Nobel Prize. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on significance and quality. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anarchyte ( talk ) 06:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Chilcot

 * Support It's rather short but what's there seems ok. As a career servant there probably isn't a lot more that can be said about his life prior to the enquiry. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Todd Akin

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jorge Medina

 * Support - Fully sourced and ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Lars Vilks

 * Support as soon as the citation needed tag at the end of the last sentence in the Early life and academic career section has been dealt with. Good coverage of a controversial artist. Yakikaki (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support definitely RD, perhaps a blurb might be in order since he was internationally noted for his Muhammad drawings and living under protection. He died in an accident that also killed two police officers, so this is not "old man dying". <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a blurb would be appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposed blurb is better for "old man dying", though. Instead of mentioning his age, the blurb may be better with his drawings and something along the lines of "dies with the policemen charged with protecting him" (some shorter version, of course). --PFHLai (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True, I've proposed an alt blurb that might be more attention grabbing. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RD Only There is no need to blurb this individual. The death is barely a story. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The story has only begun to filter out to the big news outlets. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  22:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RD only No need for blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD as article is good enough for RD. Not ITN-worthy though in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. No consensus for a blurb, though discussing it may continue. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Question - Why is Vilks placed after Eberhard Jüngel who died on 28 September for example in the RD section?. He should be placed after Jorge Medina.  BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I placed this nom. at the beginning when I posted because the instructions in the edit window say "New items go on top, remove the last one when posting". 331dot (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_80, where it was decided that the death date is now not used for determining the position of the item in the RD list, as long as the item is posted within seven days. The order is therefore purely based on posting order. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Pandora Papers

 * I will oppose for now as the article is still a stub and has a yellow tag to be dealt with JW 1961 Talk 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the current basis that this appears aimed more at individual persons rather than the previous two leaks that were focused on corporate affirms - meaning that BLP issues are going to be a factor here. That is, whether these are legitimate means of investment or unethical or whatever problematic aspect needs to be given some time to be evaluated as named BLP are at the center of these leaks. --M asem  (t) 18:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see that BLP concerns would be any more of an issue at ITN than in the article itself; if we have content that breaches BLP policies then it doesn't belong in the article whether it's posted on the main page or not, and if the article does comply with BLP policies then it will be just as compliant on the main page as off. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The BLP issue (which should be reflected in the article in terms of appropriate wikivoice around assertions being made, given that the figures names do meet PUBLICFIGURE) is that no one yet seems to have validated the legitimacy of these papers as well as if they are any signs of actual wrongdoing. It would be reasonable that our article at this time can same "Among those named in the leak include X, Y, and Z." but there's no need to go into any depth yet about those claims until they have had time for collaboration and validation by other sources. We'd do the same if Wikileaks or something doing a FOIA request leaked similar "revelation" documents that lacked collaboration related to BLP. --M asem (t) 22:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would suggest hold - clearly newsworthy, but The Guardian promises that it will name "35 current and former heads of state and more than 300 public officials". The names will clearly be rolled out over a period of time to maintain interest. We should consider holding until the rollout is complete and the article is fully populated, and (less likely) in case of BLP issues like that the documents turn out to have been edited or partially forged. Blythwood (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending improvement per nom. Per article, these even surpass the Panama Papers. Brandmeistertalk  19:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – With a text of about 500 words, the article is rather thin at this point. Developing. – Sca (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article's length is satisfactory, and it's currently one of the top news stories globally. People are going to be looking for our article, we should post it now. Mlb96 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If people are coming to Wikipedia to read about breaking news, they are at the wrong site. --M asem (t) 22:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The purpose of ITN is to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that really only works best for existing content where the article has been developed either as an item that only recently has come into the news but otherwise has been the subject of sources before, or as an event that long-knew was coming and thus has had an article in preparation for that event, and thus has a reasonable evaluation for quality can be made. Breaking news that requires a brand new article takes time for that article to be developed, and that means there are metrics we will need to consider due to the freshly made article such as BLP impact here. That's why ITN does not worry about timeliness (posting within the same day) and thus we we're not worried about trying to match what the news is talking about immediately. We want the articles to reflect what WP's quality can be rather than the speed of 24/7 news networks. --M asem (t) 23:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. 2021 Guinea coup d'état was an event that has not been the subject of sources because, well, it happened right on the eyes of the world. The article was promoted to ITN the day following the coup. So no, Pawnkingthree is right here. We can post it even right now, and in fact, the sooner the better, BUT that shouldn't be done at the expense of quality. I think some more info might be warranted there, because for almost 3TB of data, the scope seems rather inadequate so far. So hold the nomination for now, and I'm looking forward to see it posted once it's expanded. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that WP doesn't have the capacity to make decent articles on breaking news, just that these often take more time and effort to be of minimal quality to be ready for posting at ITN. Hence why trying to equate ITN to having to cover "breaking news" is the wrong approach. If editors are able to make a decent quality article about an event within a few hours of that event happening (it has been done!) then great. But in this specific case, this is a news event that has several potential BLP potholes that we should be wary of rushing to post even if the article is being worked on. There is a way to write about this to avoid the BLP aspects and thus make it appropriate for posting but that's not being done from what I've seen so far. --M asem (t) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Though it is a quickly expanding article that is being smoothed out, this is to be expected because it is in the news. This news is very significant and should be included into the in the news project immediately.--WMrapids (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the time being, largely per the concerns raised by Masem. The article at present is a bit of a dump of the main individual targets of the Pandora Papers, but without any critical analysis or secondary sourcing discussing the evidence and reliability etc of linking those names to the alleged offenses. As such, and with the authenticity of the Pandora Papers not yet attested in independent reliable sources, I think the page currently lacks WP:BALANCE from a BLP standpoint. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered, leads many RS sites Monday. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We walk a dangerous road trying to get out in front with some serious WP:BLP claims on the front page of an online encyclopedia. With the claims in these documents being as of yet unverified, there are legal matters at play here.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A BLP briar patch, maybe. OTOH, U.S. libel law requires public officials figures claiming libel to prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant(s), and Wikipedia is sited in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so much the reporting, but whether any of those names did anything illegal or not, with the current reporting clearly weighing on "they did a baaaad thing" side for this and prejudging those named. That's what we have to be careful about repeating ourselves at this point until there's the type of analysis that suggests there is actual civil or criminal offenses to be sought here, or that there's a significant impact on those named. --M asem (t) 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe if some of those named respond publicly to the allegations (or even file lawsuits) we could eventually hang our hat on such responses? – Sca (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But WP cares not if any allegations are true. The news item is the leak of such a huge amount of sensitive financial material and the furore this has caused? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP absolutely does care about truthfulness of allegations (thus waiting for some type of corroboration in other sources), or the impact of those allegations (say, one of these people was let go due to the issue) if we are naming people (per BLP, RECENTISM, and NOTNEWS). We are not supposed to rush to include every bit of news about a person just becuase it was reported, we need to judge in terms of enduring coverage about this. That's not to say we can talk about this leak absent names or without excessive specifics on names, but we should not be presuming right now that any of the named individuals have done anything wrong-hence why this is just a BLP landmind but not an impossible article to write about or feature as ITN. The previous leaked mentioned were only about companies and there, there's zero BLP issues to worry about though we still needed to make sure that Wikivoice did not say the companies were immediately at fault. --M asem (t) 16:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has not made the headlines because it's "all true", but because it has happened at all? If it was all proved to be fake news tomorrow, the impact would still have happened. I don't think anyone's proposing a blurb with a few juicy names sprinkled through it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the blurb or its "being in the news" factor, it is the article quality wrt to BLP. It names people in depth (heck there is now List of people named in the Pandora Papers which to me is far too early given the lack of verification/corroboration on this leak). I realize that this was a work by 650+ journalists and so its not like these are not likely to be falsified or the like, but we really should be careful around the BLP due to first publication - this is like a primary source rather than secondary. If the article briefly touched on names without specific mention of what the papers "accuse" them of at this time, that would be far more appropriate in terms of quality. That's my concern. --M asem  (t) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that this merits posting but we need to figure out how to do so and work within BLP. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as we don't qualify those activities as illegal or legal in own wikivoice and merely describe what reliable sources state, then there are no BLP issues. The current blurb in that regard look ok and neutral to me. Brandmeistertalk  18:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think we should wait to see of some of those named respond publicly. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly in the news and of worldwide interest. The coverage is indeed extensive. Since we are not judging the validity of these documents but merely reporting on their notable release, this blurb is a natural for ITN, in my view. Article is now of sufficient length and well-referenced. Jusdafax (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Jusdafax, this is definitively something worth posting, and BLP concerns should (as with every single other article on the project) be addressed in the way they are addressed normally. This has been headline news, multiple articles simultaneously on my news feeds. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In the news worldwide, BLP concerns are not a major enough issue to keep us from posting, we just need to be careful with what the page says. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment what are we now, three days in? Still the tip-top news report.  This is in the news, something a LOT of people are interested in learning about, absolute classic ITN material.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Shaheen

 * Wait Three deaths, even from a rare weather event, isn't that significant yet to post, but it is still a ongoing weather event and could get worse. --M asem (t) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has a total of 18 from the entire event listed, but it's definitely too early to post. <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 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait – Meteorologically unusual but need to wait and see the impacts when it makes landfall. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added altblurb. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – until more impact is known.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question what makes this rare? Seems tropical storms hit Oman fairly often? 2019, 2018, 2011, 2010. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Passing north of Arabia for any amount of time is very unusual according to File:North Indian cyclone tracks 1970-2005.jpg. The fat north part of the subcontinental peninsula seems to provide shielding. Comparing that map to File:Gulab-Shaheen 2021 track.png shows the whole path is pretty weird including going all the way to an Omani seaport which is deeper into the gulf than the Oman capital on the north coast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose as Hurricane Noah is too early  HurricaneEdgar    01:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too early to post. Story hasn't developed yet since another landfall is imminent. <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 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Might be the first hurricane-strength Gulf of Oman landfall in many decades, see what happens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait The article still needs to be updated (Meteorological history and impacts). I'll be in charge in impacts. Met history needs to be updated, especially in its reintensification as a Category 1 system, its landfall in Oman and weakening. 🌀  Hurricane  Parrot🐦  08:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Death toll put at 12 by the Guardian. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 26 in the article counting them together. In the North Atlantic the name wouldn't change from crossing the Indian peninsula then becoming a nameable storm again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - It looks ready to be posted. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 38 deaths. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Death toll in all proposed blurbs is now updated to 38. Should both "Gulab" and "Shaheen" be mentioned in the blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes because Gulab killed some in India, became remnant low and "retropicalized" in the West Indian Ocean. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is basically a single cyclone that received two names. But I think that the second iteration of the storm (Shaheen) had much more severe impacts than the first iteration.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless for whatever reason deaths seem to be about equal which could be any combination of luck, total population affected differences, population who didn't know it was coming differences, building quality differences, how many on each side took less precaution than wise etc. Damage-wise I don't doubt a hurricane dropping years of rain on a populous desert caused more severe impacts than a TS in a place that gets frequent TCs and yearly monsoons. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – It is unusual for a cyclone to make landfall around Oman, especially one at that intensity. This storm also produced a sizeable death toll, and it did hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the region.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A tropical cyclone batters parts of India, Pakistan, Iran and Oman, resulting in at least 38 deaths.. --PFHLai (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 London Marathon

 * Support There have been several marathons lately such as the Great North Run and my local Ealing Half Marathon. But the London marathon is especially high profile and I'm still watching the coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Image done, adding it to prot queue now. --M asem (t) 14:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - It seems good to go, except for a cn tag, but it seems easy to fix.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * CN tag fixed, and added more on the mass-participation event too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bernard Tapie

 * One of the most under-referenced BLPs I’ve seen in a long while. Stephen 10:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The article is orange-tagged and has barely any sources. It'll require a lot of work to be published on the Main Page.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more references. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Wes Townley

 * Comment: Close but a handful of CN tags to address. Almost ready.  Spencer T• C 20:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still about 5 {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more refs before eligibility runs out. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sidney Walton

 * Oppose stub. Currently a bit less than 1 kb of prose.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still only 1133 characters long. Please expand it. Stubs are not eligible here. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ziauddin Ahmed Bablu

 * Support - Good enough for a RD.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Umer Shareef

 * Oppose - Filmography is not cited Sherenk1 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still lacking refs in the Filmography section. Please add more. --PFHLai (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the Filmography section remains unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eberhard Panitz

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes across, this wikibio seems READY for RD. A couple of awards still need refs, though -- minor issues that imo should not get in the way of this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I left them there in case someone can find refs. The (2?) awards can be commented out when posted if neccessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD Slim but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 20:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Dennis Walters

 * Comment: Served as MP for 28 years but minimal information about what he accomplished in the role.  Spencer T• C 20:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And I thought this is typical for backbenchers. No? --PFHLai (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lissy Jarvik

 * Comment: Academic career is mostly a list of positions (resume in prose format) and would benefit from added detail about what she accomplished in those roles.  Spencer T• C 19:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Doumbouya sworn in as Guinean president

 * Comment Seems ITN/R. Doumbouya was a coup leader so no question about his authority. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So flick the switch in the nom. One issue is that image of Doumbouya, it appears to have been nominated for deletion for three weeks at Commons but has no comments at all.  I guess it's either busy over there or something's gone wrong.  Either way, needs fixing should we wish to intend to feature this as a target article from the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That image is too poor quality to be posted on the main page in any case. Stephen 22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised. I participated in a deletion discussion in Commons nearly six weeks ago and no action has been taken yet... –FlyingAce✈hello 00:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doumbouya does not seem to have international recognition, being condemned by the African Union, European Union, UN and just about everyone else. It would therefore not be appropriate for Wikipedia to formally recognise him.  We posted the coup recently and that seems enough for now.  If the interim administration sticks and holds elections, then we can pick it up from there. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * International recognition is not required. Doumbouya is running the country. Period. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Scant coverage, from what I've seen. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support clearly ITNR, so there's no debate. His wikibio isn't in bad shape, so it meets the minimum quality requirement. We will hardly have a photo of him because the only one that is not nominated for deletion looks a bit suspicious to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being deleted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For quality, we should have more than one RS. – Sca (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've added one more source, it seems to be well covered, and it looks like ITN/R. The pic doesn't seem an issue, as it was lifted from a YouTube video that was published under a CC licence. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)