Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2020

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

(Posted) RD: Pia Juul

 * Well, the bibliography has now been sourced. I also noticed that the German article looks to be even better than the Danish one, so we could try to use that one for expanding the article. TompaDompa (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done . Good to go now. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose A translation of the German page will result in a basic page, however Pia Juul has very little relevance outside of Denmark. I checked the national libraries in Auth Ctrl, and there is one English translation, one Dutch translation, and two German translations. That cannot be considered an international break-through. KittenKlub (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, RD bios don't need to be notable only the article needs to be up to the mark for main page linking. Gotitbro (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd recommend translating the German version.KittenKlub (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which itself is only 220 words. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I expanded it quite a bit using some sources I found at the German and Danish articles (translating the text itself wouldn't have cut it as there were some sourcing issues) as well as a few other ones. I think it should be up to snuff now, short though it is. What do you say? TompaDompa (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It seems ready. Good job. Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is recently expanded and well sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emyr Humphreys

 * Support May need some touching up, needs some more formal language and less POV, but almost RD ready. Gex4pls (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Writings section could use expansion about the topics of his work, not just a list of novels ("Resume in prose format").  Spencer T• C 15:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support if you fix Spencer's concerns. KittenKlub (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but well referenced JW 1961   Talk  18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support support as article is now expanded and well-referenced. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has morphed well into a good start class biography. Nice job and  in working the expansion. This is ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Quino
*Support - On relevance. Oppose for now per article quality. Ping me when completed. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Relevant, work prominent in Latin America and Europe. Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quino was very popular and sources are easy to find. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * all "citation needed" tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - All problems fixed. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No where close to front page ready. We need to bring back the RD template boilerplate.  75.188.224.208 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Went in and filled some of the tags and also made a round of copy-edits . Three more  tags still remain. If someone can fill those tags, this article is ready to go to homepage / RD. Meets all other hygiene requirements to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * all "citation needed" tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Meets hygiene levels to go to homepage / RD based on above edits. Ready to go. Ktin (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well referenced now JW 1961   Talk  07:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mac Davis

 * Oppose many missing in-text citations and tables appear unsourced. Dan the Animator 00:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now still too many CN's JW 1961   Talk  07:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Over 440 thousand views here. Oh well.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , people are finding the article without it being on the template, that's a good thing. If the article's quality was better, it could get posted still. Page views are not a metric considered here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Timothy Ray Brown

 * Support On skimming, appears fully referenced. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is short but great. Ready for RD. Dan the Animator 00:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Clean article. Well sourced. Meets hygiene requirements for the homepage. There are a couple of sentences "This means that the procedure should not be..." or "so it appears that when a transplant recipient has..." which read like WP:OR. If someone here is knowledgeable about medicine, it would be good to examine these sentences and fix them if needed prior to posting. Ktin (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready JW 1961   Talk  07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helen Reddy

 * Support - Article seems well sourced and subject seems significant. The Image Editor (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - This one looks ready to go for RD Gex4pls (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Posted.  -- Jayron 32 13:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article requires extensive sourcing and is / was not ready to be posted. Multiple paragraphs are entirely unsourced! Did we check this before posting? Courtesy ping: . I would go in and add tags, but, that would make it appear like vandalism on an article that is on homepage. I would recommend that we remove this article asap from homepage and fix it before reintroducing to homepage. Ktin (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not vandalism, or won't even semm like vandalism. After seeing your comment, I went in and added a lot of tags, along with . :) ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , -- Thanks folks.
 * Request -- If someone has a few cycles during the day, please can you try giving some of the tags a go? The article is definitely worth investing effort to fix and get it to homepage levels and to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled for now. Needs more references before it's ready, per Ktin. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots of orange tags. I just went in and added some more. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It just wasn't ready yet. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Admins posting RDs are supposed to check if an article is actually ready before posting it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My ineptitude has already been acknowledged. I'm surprised it took you this long to figure that out.  Everyone else here already knew how terrible I am.  -- Jayron 32 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hey! It is not such a big mistake. The article visually looked clean! It is alright. Such things happen. Ktin (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So is Reddy ready? – Sca (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So is Reddy ready? – Sca (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - In numbers too big to ignore. CoatCheck (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready? Every citation needed tag has now been addressed except for one on a list of her "notable stage roles". I seek advice on how to tackle that. Otherwise, this is now well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eeek, thanks for the good work there. I've managed to source all the stage entries in that list you mention (while removing a couple of references to specific theatres, which I couldn't locate cites for). However... unfortunately there were a few other statements further up that lacked cites and hadn't been tagged yet, so those will need fixing too unfortunately. Also, the Filmography section needs referencing. I will try to muck in on some of this a bit later on today if I can, but hopefully we can get this one over the line! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The filmography is now fully cited. Ackatsis (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Hurry up and post this before it gets stale. 1779Days (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion. Please can you have a look at this one and help post? Thanks Ktin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) My bad. Missed the CN tags. Thanks for the catch Amakuru. Ktin (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I still see seven citation needed tags in the article. I will try to fix them if I get some time later on, but for now until someone fixes them this still has to wait I'm afraid, it isn't Reddy yet. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now eliminated all remaining citation needed tags. Is Reddy ready to roar on the front page? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Belarusian protests

 * We did not post Lukashenko getting sworn in, an event that caused much controversy in Europe. So we should probably remove this since there are only people marching and holding signs. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Only people marching and holding signs"...unbelievable. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Still all over social media and in the news, article is still being updated. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trending on Youtube, Twitter, etc. Not even close to trending. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It may not be as prominent, but definitely still ongoing worthy. Heres some recent articles from: The New York Post, The Gaurdian , Reuters , Al Jazeera , and the Associated Press have all reported on it in the past two days. There are still protests, too; there was a march of around 100,000 people just two days ago, along with recent sanctions being imposed by Britain and Canada. The article may not be updated all the time, but the story still seems to be developing. Gex4pls (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still newsworthy. The wildfires, on the other hand... WaltCip- (talk)  22:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Didn't we just discuss this? Still newsworthy and being updated. P-K3 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , why did you close that discussion and then immediately open up a new one? P-K3 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is getting annoying.  – Sca (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support yes this garbage article festering in the box is getting annoying. Linking to some WP:RS from an WP:ITNC discussion is so exceptionally pointless I can't imagine why an experienced editor would even do it. Look at the actual article in the box. There is a weekly protest. This weeks on the 27th, the 20th before that. A one-liner update about 100k people with 3 refs each of them citing protest organizers is a crap update. What happened in between the weekly protests? Some controversy about a childrens program? Come on. Get this rubbish off the main page already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. Article is still receiving substantive updates.  Most recent significant protest on 27 September was widely reported and is covered in the article.  There are also smaller updates being made.  -- Jayron 32 13:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This story is already stale and the article's quality is regressing as time goes by. This might regain significance if 1) Lukashenko resigns, which is hardly going to happen and 2) the international community recognises Tikhanovskaya as a new president in a Venezuelan style, which is also unlikely to happen (I deliberately avoid outright negation because of WP:CRYSTALBALL). All in all, we may keep this story on the main page forever but that's not what it is in reality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Comment Neither opposed or supporting removal, but I think how we're judging ongoing entries (via updates) particularly in large articles with segmented parts like this is directly tied to how poorly we write with PROSELINE and the "hyperreporting" (in terms that people are writing about daily events and not, as we should be, talking the encyclopedic picture, though a timeline article is not inappropriate). I'm not saying here this meets the removal or retention goals, but I can see why its a question, because if we were writing this more encyclopedically, the small updates would be trivial on this event (even though it was still "ongoing"). --M asem (t) 18:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The new sanctions were literally the lead story internationally today. However, I agree with that we need to re-evaluate our ongoing criteria to allow stories like this to remain in the template without POINTy opposition from  and others over not enough proseline, which is a bad standard for an encyclopedia article. B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the one-sentence flawed grammar update with the POV term "regime"? Lead story all day and it one one poor quality bullet point. I'm just following the guidelines which I even proposed to change but no one was interested. If you have a problem with that take it to WP:ANI because if there is one thing I'm certain of it's that I don't need to be personally attacked by someone who hasn't even bothered to evaluate the article we're featuring on the main page instead of the story. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn’t mean that as a personal attack, more of an attack on the guideline and overzealous applications of it. But saying that you’re “just following the guidelines” when you agree that they are sometimes

problematic is unambiguous WP:POINT. B zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you mistook Masem's point. The issue here is people want ongoing items to stay posted forever, so they make negligible updates documenting the "events of the day" in order to meet the ongoing criteria. These events are too minor to be listed in a proper encyclopedia article. So in trying to manipulate the ITN process, we are subverting it's intent - to write and promote good articles.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point if not the intention. Editors shouldn’t have to add micro-updates to keep an article in ongoing. If the topic is still getting major international coverage, as this one is (see recent stories on sanctions), it should be kept regardless. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "it should be kept regardless" that is the exact opposite of what the guidelines for ongoing stipulate and "Keep" !votes based on that logic should be ignored (they won't be, consensus around here is a vote count). Change the criteria if that's what you want, right now your argument has no basis in the existing guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support removal. I would like to remind everyone of the guidelines for ongoing events at WP:ITN. "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." So, while it is in the news, it should be removed if it is not being updated. -- Calidum  23:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Close this is the 3rd time that the ongoing has been nominated for removal. Although I agree with the removal, there is a strong consensus to keep this. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. Dan the Animator 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Enough supports now not to justify a snow close. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 11:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first nom was closed with a consensus for keeping and the last nom you closed. The last nom was less than 2 weeks ago. I don't think the consensus has changed that much since then to justify reposting this this soon. Maybe wait a few more weeks? Dan the Animator 20:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support There are definitely not major pertinent updates to this article. Nor can we keep an article endlessly on ITN in "anticipation" of whatever event people are hoping for. I see no reason for this inclusion that is so much different from other protests going on, such as 2020 United States racial unrest. Albertaont (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per Calidum. Understanding the protests and reactions will continue for some time, the level of events happening now don't justify keeping this among the six events happening worldwide that we have room to spotlight.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – EU on Oct. 2 voted sanctions after late-night haggling with Cyprus. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so not a protest, and not in the article at all. Thanks for highlighting how stale and neglected the target article (about protests) has gotten. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Countries posting sanctions isn't much, and the article still isn't well updated. If the EU declares war, then we can post.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "If the EU declares war"… Ridiculously uninformed/misleading comment. EU cannot declare war. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This is still very much ongoing. YouTube, Farcebook and Twatter are not newsworthy media, not to mention that Internet was closed down at least partially and now foreign reporters are thrown out. OP seems biased. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Emir Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah

 * Should we not combine this with the fact that his brother has/will succeed him? That's ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Page is sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Given the general status of Kuwait, and the advanced age of the deceased, this seems more appropriate to RD. - Sca (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - We posted RBG’s death, so the death of a head of state, especially a monarch, seems like a no brainer. The Image Editor (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Article is sufficient quality, coverage in reliable news sources is at a level that indicates this is appropriate for RD rather than a blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb only if it includes the succession, per 331dot. It isn't the death of a head of state that is ITNR, but rather a new head of state coming to power; but we can certainly mention the person the new head of state is succeeding. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb - if succession is included. Otherwise RD is sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality - going off the BBC, we knew he had health problems before this, so I think a bit of expansion of this and that there were already plans of succession in place should be included (the article is rather short otherwise). But I would otherwise Support blurb since he was still the sitting leader of Kuwait for all purposes. --M asem (t) 16:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - The death of a sitting head of state. This is particularly notable because the Emir of Kuwait is the most powerful person in the country. The succession should also be mentioned. Kurtis (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Death of a head of state always get posted as a blurb. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Kurtis. Maybe a pic of him would be fine. Alsoriano97 (talk)
 * Support for blurb and pic per ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only The article has a good quality and have a multiple source. However the person who died as a head of state of nations with only minor influence make it more appropriated to be posting in RD rather than Blurb. But i still support for posting the picture 36.65.35.154 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor influence? He has been one of the most important diplomats in Arabia, especially during his reign for his role as a mediator during disputes between neighboring countries. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, but it gets a blurb when updated.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: the new guy has quality issues. Support RD for the old guy; heads of state do not get blurbs automatically (WTH?). However, support blurb mention both when the new guy's article is up to scratch.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both articles look full sourced now. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If a sitting monarch of a universally recognised independent country with great power in internal political affairs doesn't merit a death blurb, then it's highly legit to wonder who would. I notice extreme inconsistency in evaluating death nominations for a blurb, which casts doubt of whether allowing them is a good idea at all (for instance, there are no death blurbs on the German Wikipedia in favour of a neatly organised RD section).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Death of serving head of state and replacement. Gotitbro (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. --Tone 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) MS Estonia

 * Comment – Unsee general RS coveraqe. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the main pages of newspapers in Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaOneLove (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait to see what the governments of affected countries are going to do about it. Currently just an unfounded claim made by a TV show.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait - Until a verdict is reached, then this could make main page. For now, though interesting, this doesn't seem ITN worthy. Gex4pls (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – "Colluding" with a submarine, was it? Zounds. – Sca (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - Until official investigation and findings.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanna say that it's looking to be THE biggest conspiracy theory turned out to be true in... history, really. Not only did they cover up (ostensibly) accidentally sinking a whole ship killing more than 850 people by the military, but it also raises questions why Swedish submarine was even there and what kind of cargo could the ship have secretly been transporting that it required an escort of a freaking submarine. CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until independent confirmation of this finding (this being from the govts that are looking into this). The claim is being made by a Discovery channel documentary, which, while a reliable source, still is a claim and should have some additional confirmation and backup. If confirmed, it would definitely be an ITN story. -- M asem (t) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. According to Euronews, this is nothing more than an unverified claim made by "documentary makers" on a Discovery Channel programme. I understand the interest, but where is the news? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If we are to post this, can someone propose an altblurb, the current one appears sensationalist without signifying its impact. Gotitbro (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we ought to close this discussion until the official results of the investigation is released. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit of closing discussions? I notice John J. Myers down there aging off, with no one calling for closure. Why not just let noms sit, unless things are getting acrimonious?  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's become an obsession around here to snow close a discussion after a few hours. Totally unnecessary. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per all. While interesting, I think that this is still too tentative to post here right now. Also, the blurb is suboptimally written, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting adverb. Did you coin that one yrself? – Sca (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, but with the rationale that there have emerged new significant facts that might change the current established cause of the sinking in light of that the original investigation was faulty, not some conspiracy theory claims of cover ups and such. Footage have been broadcast. Estonian Safety Investigation Bureau (if I got that right, was unclear, some Estonian authority at least) have just yesterday, 2 October, officially launched a case of preliminary assessment of the new findings, aided by the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority and the Safety Investigation Authority of Finland, to see if they should open an investigation again. https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/estoniauppgifter-ska-granskas-i-estland-1.34979177 https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/en-preliminar-bedomning-gors-av-nya-estoniafyndet/ Slightly older news in English: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54338170 https://www.thelocal.se/20200929/ms-estonia-disaster-hole-discovered-in-hull-of-ferry-that-claimed-852-lives https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/estonia-ferry-disaster-documentary.html On a side not I just found this https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/569686, a new investigation started in 2005, which was news to me, and it seems to not be mentioned in the article. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Stanley Cup

 * Support has a decent amount of prose, sourced, overall decent article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN/R sure, i guess This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Expected amount of prose coverage of the finales and individual games for this type of event, so appears ready. --M asem (t) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a decent article that is ITN/R JW 1961   Talk  17:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor feedback - can we clarify what Conn Smythe Trophy is on the blurb? Currently, as a lay reader, I came out confused as to what this was, until I clicked the link for the award. A simple "Conn Smythe Trophy MVP awardee Victor Hedman pictured" or in the spirit of decluttering -- "MVP awardee Victor Hedman pictured". Updated Altblurb. Ktin (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now we need someone to claim that "MVP" is an Americanism that shouldn't be on the Main Page. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even as a non-American, I think most people know what "MVP" means (we're not at the level of "winningest" here). On the other hand, you could always pipe Conn Smythe Trophy to "Most Valuable Player". Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't know what the Conn Smythe Trophy is, they can click the link. That is what the link is for. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine, a decent amount of prose. P-K3 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article still has some unreferenced claims and last two sections are unreferenced. This foreigner had no idea that the Stanley Cup was held this late in the year. I'd always thought of ice hockey as being a winter sport. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The season is usually October to April, with playoffs lasting into June. The season was interrupted in March this year due to COVID and then resumed in August. Under normal circumstances, the 2020-21 season would have started a few days from now, but the opening has been pushed back to December. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is of good quality and there are prose summaries of every game. Yes the list of engravings is uncited, but I don't think it's worth holding up the blurb for such a minor part of the article - simply delete it if necessary. Marking ready. The term 'MVP' is completely unknown outside North America, so please stick to the original blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not true about “MVP“. Browse through the entries at Category:Most valuable player awards. Maybe the term is not commonly used in the UK. It may be used more often in certain sports. Zagal e jo^^^ 15:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Europe-wide basketball, Korean baseball, Belgian basketball, Estonian basketball, Japanese baseball, Norwegian ice hockey, heck even the Indian Premier League has an MVP award. (We do have to get rid of awards that are not explicitly named as "MVP" like the NHL award there, though.) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indian here. Those of us who read the news (especially sports news) regularly know what an MVP is. Though I agree that the term is not common outside the United States. 45.251.33.82 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still some remaining CN issues in the last 2 sections in the article.  Spencer T• C 17:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Added some refs and removed uncited statements I was unable to find a source for.  Spencer T• C 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump Tax Returns

 * Comment of course this good faith nom is going to be snow closed well before people on the east coast of the USA wake up in the morning so just let me pile on a quick ROTFLMFAO before this section gets an atop. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Trash human is trash and his tax returns are not notable for ITN purposes. Suggest SNOW close. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick, let's post this while the Europeans are asleep. -- Calidum  02:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not blurb-worthy news. BD2412  T 02:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Why is even a discussion? Relevation Animations (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trumpticking This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not even going to buffer this comment with some trite OMB swipe; Good on Trump for playing by the rules and his tax preparer should give a hearty thanks to the Democrats for all the free advertising.130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Waddy

 * Support I think this article looks ready to go. KittenKlub (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks adequate, well sourced and a good length. Gex4pls (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I think this one is ready for RD  JW 1961   Talk  10:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PP Comment – Fascinating life story. Kudos – Sca (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mahbubey Alam

 * Oppose Referencing issues; professional section lacks depth of coverage (essentially a "resume in prose format").  Spencer T• C 14:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some tonal issues, and probably needs more and better sources. (I mean, the entire proffesional career section is unsourced and tonaly odd) Easily RD worthy though, so if it gets cleaned up I'll support. Gex4pls (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still references issues as far as I can see.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support ref issues taken care of. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Clement

 *  Conditional support Still needs quite a lot of referencing, because it is translation of a huge document on :de which is mainly unsourced... Clement is important enough for the front page. KittenKlub (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. I went in and did some content streamlining / copy-editing on the front end of the article in the meantime. Ktin (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We will be done soon. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I came to nominate him after I saw the amazing job of referencing of you two, and now you did even that. Great work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * bedtime for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. All three categories of edits have been completed i.e. references, content streamlining, copy-edits. Article has shaped up as a solid B-class biography. Want to thank the partnership with in getting this done. We got on each others nerves with the edit conflicts. But, we (and hopefully the article) emerged much the stronger. Ktin (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Nagorno-Karabakh clashes
What does that mean? I also went to cascade last night and got my booze. No cops around. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC) There's not going to be a war (yes overnight and this morning continued). Turkey is not going to go against the Russians and Iran too.37.186.97.171 (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC) It literally is Artsakh. Armenia was not attacked stepenakart and the area around is administrativelu a part of Artsakh, which is its own jurisdiction from Yerevan run Armenia. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) It's total mobilization. I know many, many men due to report in the coming days (not including volunteers).37.186.97.171 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. Details unclear. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post – Armenia and Artsakh declared marital law and total mobilization. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, added altblurb Obvious notability, dozens of dead already. Some say a major war is coming. 212.74.201.241 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  comment Azeri parliament is discussing introduction of martial law as well right now. The ruling party (and de-facto the only real party) is in favour 212.74.201.241 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  comment Yep, they just declared martial law as well. Someone should amend the blurb212.74.201.241 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support, major escalation. Though the article needs copyediting/updates for the lay reader not familiar with the conflict, for e.g., the lead says "Both sides reported military and civilian casualties" but lists the three Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh in the lead sentence. The alt-blurb is definitely a no-go, none of the sources refer to Artsakh and the primary conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Gotitbro (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait Updated blurb. I think a few users are still copy-editing, but should be ready soon. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article now to include martial law and curfew in Azerbaijan. Suggest original blurb. Brandmeistertalk  16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article seems quite good and the escalation does appear to be notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Increased RS coverage, some of it conflicting. ("Dozens" of dead not corroborated.) In view of decades of armed strife between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, let's wait to see whether this is just another flare-up or something more significant. – Sca (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Major escalation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The event primarily remains classified as particularly geopolitically primary; this primarily serves to support a case for nomination, in addition to recent reports of alleged civilian and military casualties and the introduction of legal mobilisation and martial law. Primarily resulting from the previous circumstances, barring particularly improbable extenuating events resulting within deescalation, I support the nomination; the article should remain placed within the section immediately. SurenGrig07 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think the fact that Armenia has declared total mobilization really sets this apart, "both sides described the clash as war" per the NYTimes. Not opposed to waiting a bit however, as the news is still fragmentary and a bit of a "he said they said". CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting, the article is developing in a comprehensible one. --Tone 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we now have an orange tagged article in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb contains "total mobilization", but what does it mean? The linked mobilization article does not explain the term. I think we should not include such an ill-defined term in the blurb (it can be understood both as total war and that all military personnel should be ready to be deployed, or something in between). There might also be NPOV-issues with it, as it might be a part of Armenia's information warfare campaign to send the signal that they are ready to do anything to defend Nagorno-Karabakh. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Orange tag is for expansion, which I don't find problematic. Good point for total, I will remove it from the blurb. --Tone 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – RS casualty reports continue to conflict.     – Sca (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well good then that this was not included in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaswant Singh

 * Support. Article will require some work, including multiple citations (across sections) and copy edits.'Positions held' segment might be challenging to source. But, overall - definitely worth putting in the effort to get the article ready. All referencing done. Round of copy edits done. Article meets hygiene checks for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated the 'positions held' segment and the books segment with citations. Might have to look at the other segments as well. Done. Article is now referenced through out and a round of copy edits done too. If folks want any other edit done, I can have this covered in the morning. Calling it a night. I think the article is ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I was going to nominate this one myself, glad to see I was beat to it. Chetsford (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Susan Ryan

 *  Comment. Support. Nice article. Went in and added a few CN tags. If you can get started at filling those in, that will get the article ready. I can lend a hand in a couple of hours. Ktin (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks like has added some content and taken care of the cn tags; I have added him as an updater.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Just added a couple of clarifying tags and someone there should be fixing them soon. I support once those tags are removed. Ktin (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the citation required tags. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Looks good! Thanks! Ktin (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in excellent shape. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Isher Judge Ahluwalia

 * Oppose for now on quality, entire unreferenced section. Can reassess later. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  23:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Apologies -- you caught me as I was in the middle of my edits. Fully referenced now. Continuing to work on expanding the article. Edits done. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. As noted above. Edits have been done. Clean article, meets all hygiene checks (including references) to go to homepage / RD. I came across a story when trying to expand this article that I thought I should share here. Dr Ahluwalia's husband Montek Singh Ahluwalia is also an economist (and was the Deputy chairperson of India's planning commission. Arguably amongst the top 2-3 finance portfolio functions in the Indian cabinet). A journalist calling home:“Can I speak to Dr Ahluwalia?”; IJA:“Speaking”; Journalist (puzzled): “Can I speak to the other Dr Ahluwalia?”. IJA:“There is only one Dr Ahluwalia in this house”, and put down the phone down. Here's to Dr IJA, and to everyone who break these glass ceilings! Ktin (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this article. I think the article meets homepage / RD requirements and can go there in this state.
 * Support, but suggest toning down the "she was a published author" part. It's not unusual for academics to write books after all. I don't think you can really expect an admin to post an article with just one supporting vote from the nom! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree, and done! Edited.
 * Apologies -- my messages were not aimed at the Admins. I was looking for more editors such as yourself to chime in on the homepage readiness. Agree w/ your statement entirely. Ktin (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted on the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Chuhuiv An-26 crash

 * Support plane crash with high body count; should make it to the front Chetsford (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Military training accident. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As tragic as it is, it is a plane crash during a training flight. No global significance. KittenKlub (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. Tragic but also non-ITN worthy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a tragic military accident, as military activity carries inherent risk. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Hampton

 * Support Neat little article, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  10:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. All sourcing in place, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone post this please? It's been sitting ready for nearly a day. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) New president in Mali

 * Support change of head of state. Hope this will continue to be peaceful. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R as a head of state change This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is a little bare-bones and lacks a picture, but everything there is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose article isn't very good, and we posted the coup. The inauguration of the person who took power by force is an inevitable formality. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Still a transfer of power, but article concerns are accurate. Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now Support - a reference for actually being sworn in was added after my !vote, it's sufficient now, just. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Marking as ITNR. Banedon (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a head of state change. Article was recently expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, significant development after the coup. Gotitbro (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R. And the article is a triumph compared to many of our other African political biography articles! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support automatically listed as ITN/R. Not comment about this nomination. 36.68.187.70 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment marking as ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support ITNR and per above. Dan the Animator 01:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Object to this being considered as ITNR. ITNR is specifically for naturally reoccurring events. E.g. "The results of the elections for head of state" or "The succession of a head of state...in those countries where head of state is not an elected position." This nom doesn't exactly fit either. Mali is a country where the head of state is elected, and Ndaw was not elected. I'm not saying we can't post it, but the nom should be considered on it's merits.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose With the preceding in mind, the appointment of a leader by a single person, where such leader is naturally and completely beholden to the prior is plainly not significant, and not the sort of assumed significance we mean when we talk about heads of state.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the place. Go to the talk page This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Added alt-blurb to clarify that he is, at least in theory, a transitional leader This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment not WP:ITNR per the guidelines the succession of a head of state is only ITNR when it's not an elected position, and in Mali, it's an elected position. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Whether or not it is ITNR is immaterial. Mali is a very important country in the region. A destabilized Mali means a destabilized West Africa. The appointment of a new government and a new president is highly notable. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As to this being ITNR or not, I think a new head of state being sworn in after the previous one was overthrown fits with the spirit of the ITNR listing, especially if the new leader seems to be generally accepted as such. But this seems to have consensus even without ITNR. If users want to exclude the replacement of an overthrown head of state from ITNR, they may discuss such an idea. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

 * Support Despite some copy-edit issues, I support this to be nominated since the subject has been receiving wide coverage after the demise. The subject is well known in film industry. The article is well sourced but requires an official source from the authorities of Guinness World Records to verify whether he actually achieved the world record for recording most number of songs. I have seen mainly Indian sources covering about that and I hardly see any other sources depict about his Guinness World Record. The issue has been raised in talk page of the article. Abishe (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A high-profile subject who made an immense contribution to Indian cinema. The article is in decent shape. --Ab207 (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - He is notable singer in India. - Ravichandra (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1990s section missing refs. The discography and filmography "sub-articles" are totally unreferenced. We should be careful about featuring articles on the MP where the details about what makes a subject notable lack refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Citations seem to have been now added to the 1990s section. Other sections seem well referenced. If there are any other refs pending, please let know and I can give it a shot. Ktin (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marking as ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. On somewhat expected lines, this article is the top read article in en.wikipedia right now (yesterday and today). Everyone who contributed to editing this article -- nice job! RIP SPB. Ktin (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Italian constitutional referendum

 * Support Nicely written and thoroughly referenced article. I wish the ITNR election articles looked this good. One CN tagging what looks like a minor OR assertion, which could probably be removed without replacement. Added NYT source.130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting and unusual change in a parliamentary republic, a G7 member one of the largest countries in Europe. This is definitely notable for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems reasonable and, although Italian constitutional changes are admittedly fairly frequent, this seems more important than most. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Big development and very important. Cutting down the parliament by a third! It's like cutting down the HOR to 290 from 435.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Although, after this reduction, Italy's Parliament (400 + 200) is still larger the U.S. Congress (435 + 100), even though the U.S. has more than five times the population. Davey2116 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant development, and one that has enduring impact. Albertaont (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marking as ready since there is unanimous support. Dan the Animator 01:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Admin: since no one is answering at errors, please ensure the Cyclone is bumped when post this, as it ended prior to the other events listed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are 2 CNs in the article that should be addressed.  Spencer T• C 02:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * can you help with those? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, terribly busy today. Looks like this story isn't in the news anymore, sadly This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added in citations. It should be good now. Dan the Animator 00:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: John J. Myers

 * Comment. The structure needs real work. Equally, more sources would be helpful in the "Views" section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerhard Weber (designer)

 * Comment. Looks clean, and well cited. Nicely done in building the entire article from what was earlier a redirect. I am going to put on the Spencer Standard, and request for the coverage gap between 1990 and 2015 to be filled. Also, any more information on how did he 'lose it all'. Ktin (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking and copy-edit - not my typical topic. The loss seems more a topic for the company, no? Built too many small shops which were seen as unwanted competition by those who had bought retail. One sources says that the designs were suitable for ladies past 50, but I never know how much interpretation of a journalist is involved. Another source says the 2015 Logistic Center was too expensive. Bedtime for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did a round of copy-edits, added some content, with this I think the article is there. Ktin (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. No issues. Dan the Animator 01:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Based on above. Marking ready Ktin (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sekhar Basu

 * Comment. The tone needs some work per WP:EPSTYLE. There are several points at which it sounds a bit like a hagiography - "engaged", "contributed", "led efforts", "state-of-the-art", etc. The number of images (most of which do not add anything) should also be trimmed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. I will work on it tonight. Attempted a good amount last night, but, couldn't finish. Ktin (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC) This is completed i.e. additional content rewrite to meet WP:NPOV and WP:EPSTYLE. Also, removed a couple of images. Though it would be good to leave the INS Arihant image. But, I have removed it for now. With this, we should be good to go. Happy to make any additional edits. Ktin (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no outstanding issues. Dan the Animator 01:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Per the edits made above. With this, the article is ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, now that edits have been made as needed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted on the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Many thanks to Ktin for another excellent nomination. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Western United States wildfires

 * The criteria for Ongoing, summarised, are; regular updates to the original article; pertinent updates to the original article; does not mean the article has a featured status beyond its place in the Ongoing heading. If the wildfires nomination no longer meets these, then it should be removed. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The argument that "the world has moved on" is thankfully not a criterion we consider here. Yes, people get bored, and how much can you keep posting essentially the same story? But the size, breadth, and threat to densely populated areas remains substantial here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "The world has moved on" is not a criterion when posting at ITN. As much in the news as the Belarus protests, and updated too. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 11:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Still burning and still spewing smaze over half the country. Propose this again in another month. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still raging. Gotitbro (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I opposed this when it was (much to my displeasure) put up as a blurb, but for better or worse it is still happening and in the news, so it stays IMO This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the target article is getting infrequent one-liner updates. In the US, large fires are named and the August Complex fire is getting regular updates - but WP:ITN has no provision for "sub articles". I'm leaning towards support pulling it except that the "List of wildfires" makes it easy to find active fires which are being regularly updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still being regularly updated with pertinent information. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dean Jones

 * Strong support The article is in good shape and well sourced. There is a wide coverage about his demise amid being one of the commentators of the ongoing 2020 Indian Premier League. I was actually confused why the place of death was mentioned as Mumbai instead of UAE where the IPL is currently being held. Abishe (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a part of the IPL commentary team (along with Brett Lee) in Mumbai. Ktin (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait still being updated, and a number of citation needed tags need to be fixed. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has a few CN tags, once those are updated the Filled the last tag. Article should be good to go to the homepage / RD. Shocking news. RIP. Thanks for all the memories.   Ktin (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced now. 1 cn tag, but that can either be resolved, or that sentence can be removed- rest of article is well sourced. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , filled the last tag from Cricinfo. Should be good now. Ktin (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing looks good and article is good length. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Everything is now sourced, looks good to go.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready. Dan the Animator 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Alexander Lukashenko

 * Oppose & Comment — President of Belarus, not Ukraine. Cheers, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As discussed when we talked about removing the protests from ongoing This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a ongoing and blurb covering the same material? Sounds a bit much in my opinion. Dan the Animator 20:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment LOL we most certainly did not post the inauguration of Donald Trump as suggested by the nom and in fact the nom was snow closed in just 9 hours, much less than 24 and not even enough time for people in Asia to !vote on it --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted the election and the subsequent protests, and we don't normally then also blurb inaugurations. Trump was actually not initially blurbed on his inauguration day, but when the protests around his inauguration became headline news themselves, that's when we blurbed. I would think the entry in ongoing is enough to cover this story, unless something very dramatic or a large escalation flares up as a result. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the election and protests the inauguration was inevitable and ceremonial. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a significant step for Lukashenko as an attempt to discourage his opposition. Nothing more. IMO --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't post inaugurations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per precedent as noted above and inconsequential. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harold Evans

 * Support article seems well sourced. Relevation Animations (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose missing a few in-text refs. Will support once those are added. Dan the Animator 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support thanks Ktin for adding the refs, it looks good now. Sorry for not replying earlier and thanks Spencer for posting it. Dan the Animator 19:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , added a round of citations. Gave one more read - no major references remain pending. If someone spots one, and can add a few CN tags, I can give it a shot later this evening. Ktin (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Continuing from above, the article is clean, and well sourced. Ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Quite a good article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and, If it is alright I will mark this ready. Ktin (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suresh Angadi

 * Support although please do try to post on the right date This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Moving to the right date. My bad - been a long workday. Ktin (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support a bit short, but long enough for the main page. Adequately sourced too. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A bit more on his political views would be good, but it is adequate for posting as it stands. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As with many politician articles nominated at RD, there are some election results but minimal information about what he did in the position. Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 15:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you at the broadest level. I did give it some search last night -- but, there is hardly anything there from a secondary research standpoint. Will give it some more focus tonight. But, my fear is that this is the problem with this category of politicians from the subcontinent. i.e. lack of secondary sources detailing their work. So, the positions end up becoming the narrative. Ktin (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Alrightie -- I have significantly expanded on his role in the ministry. a) Suburban rail network b) connectivity with airport c) greening initiatives d) freight actions e) COVID-19 special trains. With this, I think the article should go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Dan the Animator 16:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Ianos

 * Support - it is very much in the news especially in Europe. News coverage did die down a bit though Greece is still suffering and requesting help. Article has after math section.108.35.187.79 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support rare for the region. Dan the Animator 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it though? Zorba (2018) killed at least 5 people in Tunisia and 3 were missing from Greece. Maybe its climate change but it seems to be happening more often. Not a !vote. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Zorbas did kill people, but an article wasn't created since most hurricane editors and met centers do not recognize the Mediterranean as a basin. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will bite. Can you try a blurb that names some notable cities? "Entire cities" seems a bit sensationalist. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added two - Karditsa (where flooding seems to be the worst - the city was underwater for some time), and Athens - where some street flooding is occuring. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Since I would hope we would give flooding and suffering in the Indian subcontinent as much attention. Rarity is not a big seller for me. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The argument for rarity is that we cannot possibly post all events of similar impact. Even localized rarity, a la "X may happen once a month somewhere, but it hasn't happened in Y for Z years" could be used to justify a dozen posts per week.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Article updated substantially. Now the Greek PM is going around speaking to people in the Aftermath section. One more death has been reported. Disastrous for Greece - we posted a bus plunging into a river, right? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Five times as many people died on that one bus than the whole of Greece here. If we post a rather ordinary weather event because it is substantial by local standards, that is all we'd ever post. No matter - I'm clearly in the minority here; no need to convince me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support sufficiently rare, in the news, and the article is decent (I would have liked a storm track). --LaserLegs (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The storm path hasn't been created yet. I'll speak with the storm track team. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment one more death. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think ALT is better, but clearly rare enough to be notable. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Never even heard of such a thing before. Definitely rare and ITN material. Support original blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just be aware that there is a discussion on the article's talk page for a page move. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted adjusted version of ALT blurb. Further suggestions for the blurb are welcome; please suggest at WP:ERRORS.  Spencer T• C 20:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Marginal significance, so far at least. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump considering measures to bypass election results

 * Oppose and likely Snow close. This is hypothetical conjecture, and unless there's an impeachment or we have the actual election results, we aren't posting blow-by-blow events running up to the election.  Spencer T• C 18:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose till it happens --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be getting close to time for ongoing for the US election. I know we wouldn't do it for Vanuatu but the US is a nuclear armed economic powerhouse that exerts unequal influence throughout the world. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gale Sayers

 * Support - article is GA. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above, listed on numerous 'Best of all-time' honors. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Not removed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Belarusian Protests

 * Strong oppose. I'm sure voices from certain quarters would really like this story to go away. But lets take a look at the headlines from just the last couple of days: March of 100,000 marks week 7 of Belarus protests, Belarus sees another massive Sunday protest after opposition leader detained, Belarus protesters keep pressure on Alexander Lukashenko with mass rallies and police data leak, Mass anti-Lukashenko rally starts after Belarus police crackdown. This story is far from over. It's still very much ongoing. Nsk92 (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To further quote from this sory of 2 days ago: "Although protests have taken place daily since the election, the Sunday gatherings in Minsk have been by far the largest, attracting crowds of as many as 200,000 people." Nsk92 (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The protests are still there but none of the recent events merits a blurb, which is decisive when discussing a developing story for ongoing. We can re-post this if new escalations follow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Ongoing is not the same as a blurb and there's no requirement that any recent events there be blurb worthy. In fact, the ITN rules for ongoing say precisely the opposite: "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." I'm sure that Putin and Lukashenko would like this story to go away, quietly. But with a march of over 100,000 people just this Sunday that's not going to happen. Nsk92 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Mass protests are still ongoing, the article is updated daily. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support there aren't updates about mass protests daily because there aren't daily protests. Last major one was the 20th, the 13th before that and the 6th before that. This as become a weekend affair and in between are long rambling paragraphs recording in detail every comment by protest organizers and every slight or perceived slight by the government. The symbols section (itself the focus of a simmering edit war in the article) is now orange tagged for undue. It's time to come down. If they unseat the government, blurb it. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The largest protest since the dispited election took place just this Sunday. Today, Sept 23, a few hours ago, Lukashenko has just been sworn in as President for another term in a semi-secret inauguration ceremony in Minsk. There's certain to be a reaction from the opposition. This story is not over, by far. Nsk92 (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, 3 protests in 4 weeks is not regularly updated with new, pertinent information. I'm just applying the actual criteria here. You should too. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just 3 protests in 4 weeks. There are smaller scale protests happening around the country every day. E.g. RFE/RL has a page about Belarus in English with many updates, and there are a lot more news-sources in Russian, with a lot more detailed info abour what's going on (e.g. Novaya Gazeta , as a smaple example). One needs to use common sense too. The fact that the largest protest was just 3 days ago certainly does not indicate that the situation is winding down, quite the opposite. Now that Lukashenko's secret inauguration has taken place today, there's almost certain to be escalation of some kind. Russia is there conducting paratrooper military exercises in Belarus in the last few days . Now is not the time to yank this story. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about RFE I care about the article we have linked on the main page and an "an access control scheme was introduced" at Minsk State University is not a protest. Lots of filler in an article which wasn't that great to begin with and is time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinda ridiculous to tear things out of context like that. The people of Belarus strongly oppose another term of Lukashenko, there are strikes ongoing, including mine and hunger strikes. Major events have all been called off by Belarusian celebrities. Your quote only reflects the means undertaken to suppress discontent coming it from students and professors of major state universities. Everything aforementioned "is a protest" in my opinion. And, matter of fact, Strong oppose the removal. Also, yes, I'm allowed to change my mind. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is being updated frequently with relevant information.  Sadly, it suffers from some WP:PROSELINE stylistic issues, but the article is otherwise well referenced, comprehensive, and most importantly, frequently updated with new information.  There is both new information AND it is being added, which is sufficient for keeping the article at Ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal – Still in the news,   still a serious political situation. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — Worth of a mention is the fact that in Russian Wikipedia, the timeline is still being updated on a daily basis. While most of those events are self-repeating, there is some interesting storywise development underway (e.g. sources mentioning the current EU debate on whom to consider the real head of state of Belarus). The problem is that I now seldom have time to update the timeline of the English article because it does take a considerable amount thereof to check Russian sources, translation, spelling etc. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lukashenko was sworn in today in a surprise inauguration and the opposition has called for new protests. It's one of the top stories on the BBC. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per above, very much still in the news and developing. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal per LaserLegs. "" Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Three protests in four weeks? How about ten protests per country (one in each major city) every day? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still in the news, still being updated.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't vote twice. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch, thanks! Have removed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal In addition to protests being ongoing, EU debates over sanctions are also ongoing with Cyprus being the lone holdout, last I checked. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove – The article quality has suffered significantly. The article has buckled under the weight of long-term exposure to the Main Page. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support As one wise editor once said, "this [is a] atrocious WP:POV WP:COATRACK of an article." Dan the Animator 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is wrong, but that quote seems to be by, as he usually uses WP:COATRACK when opposing long articles. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * it is LaserLegs and I agree, this article is a POV mess that gives undue weight to "crimes against humanity." I still stand with my support until article quality is improved. Dan the Animator 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I share the same opinion. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Mostly because I am becoming concerned about the article quality. While I'm not ready to call it a COATRACK, it is becoming bloated as every piece of anti-government news or claims seems to make it in. The photo gallery is also starting look a bit like a cheering section for the home team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Is it still happening, yes. But is it any more ITN than the crap going on in Thailand/US/Turkey/Greece right now, no. Albertaont (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Greece-Medicane Ianos.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. What was happenning during the last month aside, Lukashenko's inauguration yesterday has already led to a major escalation in protests, violence and tension. This BBC article, Belarus: Mass protests after Lukashenko secretly sworn in says as smuch. The article notes: "In the capital Minsk protesters were more confrontational, blocking roads and at times chasing the police vehicles away. In response, water cannon was used and masked riot police used tactics that haven't been seen since the violent days immediately after the disputed election in August." And it concludes with: "During his inaugural address, Mr Lukashenko spoke as if the protests that followed the election were over. That's clearly not the case." We do need to take these new developments into account. Nsk92 (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news.. The Belarusian protests article is getting punctuated updates with a lot of filler in between. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there is unrest still going on. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the article is inadequately updated for being featured on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except the article is being regularly updated every day or so, sometimes more often. See no true Scotsman and moving the goal posts.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Jayron32, but you and I disagree as to the pertinence of those updates to the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Still oppose, as this topic is still in the news today,   and still is a festering thorn in Товарищ Putin's side. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still support article is still stale over it's run in the box and still a coatrack. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support seems to have run its course Chetsford (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You really think so? How about what's been happening there since yesterday's inauguration of Lukashenko?    Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "How about what's been happening there since yesterday's inauguration of Lukashenko?" Protesters protesting? That happens every day all over the world. Nothing that warrants continued front page presence. In any case, the quality of the article isn't sufficient to appear on the front page. Chetsford (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still ongoing, don't seem to have scaled downed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still festering.   – Sca (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still stale (unless a childrens program is the same as a mass protest) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Road Warrior Animal

 * Support Article looks well-reffed and ready for RD. (I accidentally posted another RD submission for this under the September 24 banner, not realizing it was right here. To make up for that, I'll post this support right here.) DrewieStewie (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many missing in-text refs. Dan the Animator 19:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per still missing many refs  JW 1961   Talk  18:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy DeVito

 * Comment Career section needs a few more refs (tagged) will change to Support when those are fixed JW 1961   Talk  09:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support, thanks for the ping KittenKlub, yes it looks a lot better now thanks to Williamsdoritios JW 1961   Talk  21:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support . did a wonderful job adding the missing references, but left one. Anyway the article is now referenced, and I hope it's to your satisfaction. KittenKlub (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks clean and meets standards for WP:ITNRD. Nicely done. Ktin (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Article is ready. Dan the Animator 23:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Michael Lonsdale

 * Oppose The article is far from ready. The films, and television sections are completely unsourced. There is no prose about his film roles even though his James Bond and The Day of the Jackal roles were signature roles. There is also his work as voice actor, his literary career. Basically the article is still very much a start, and not ready for ITN. KittenKlub (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged, standard stuff here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose although significantly improved since yesterday, it is still missing many in-text refs per above. Dan the Animator 23:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Freeman Smith

 * Support Much better! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment citation tags gone and family info added/referenced. PotentPotables (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now that article has been fairly well sourced JW 1961   Talk  20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per JW 1961 . Article is ready for RD. Pinging  on update. Dan the Animator 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ang Rita Sherpa

 * Comment. Firstly, welcome to WP:ITNC and thanks for this nomination here. I see that the article is tagged as a stub-class article. One of the requirements for an article to be featured on the homepage is that it needs to be a non stub-class article. So, this article will need to be expanded (atleast to a start-class) to be considered for homepage (and for WP:ITNRD). Ktin (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Very nice to see how this article evolved. Nicely done everyone! Ktin (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not nearly important enough. Neutral on RD - it's close to well-enough sourced. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom - based on article quality. A stub article cannot be posted on the main page. In addition, I'm opposing the blurb because the subject is not nearly famous enough. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination – thanks for the nomination, but the article will have to be a little longer (per Ktin) in order for it to appear on the main page. RPS is only 162 words, a bit too short for ITN.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article has been upgraded to fit ITN standards. Well done . PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support-- It meets the minimum quality requirements for the main page; I will continue to work on it for the next hour. Regards! (P.S. I have updated the nominator and updater fields in the nomination template; nominator field was empty.) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Btw, seems like the article might need to be moved to Ang Rita, per this Articles_for_deletion/Sherpa_Ang_Rita Ktin (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the link that was referred to in the AFD looks neither an RS nor does it support removing Sherpa. Everything about that AFD, especially the title the article had at the time, suggests a possibility that people involved thought "sherpa" is the English word for porter. I am pretty sure the proper name is Ang Rita Sherpa and that's what RSes use. So, I would caution against moving back. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ang Rita Sherpa is also his COMMONNAME, according to Google Ngrams. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Microsoft purchasing ZeniMax Media

 * Oppose (and this from a VG editor). It is a major deal in the VG world, its what everyone in that field is talking about today, but in terms of world changing financial news, nope. It would take me more than one sentence to explain the significance and I feel that makes it beyond the scope of ITN (Also, this is the intent to buy, the deal not expected to close until second half of 2021). --M asem (t) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Added an altblurb to correct for my mistake there. Not sure if we need to explain the significance further for ITN, but let's see what other editors think. 212.74.201.241 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose the ZeniMax article is "meh" quality and MS acquiring a AAA game foundry seems like an incremental step in the console wars. Per Masem above though it's a big deal in the field. I'll support if it'll get TES 6 released some time before 2025. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It would take Microsoft buying Apple for an acquisition to make it to ITN. WaltCip- (talk)  00:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would take much more than that, even! A few months back US oil producers were willing to pay customers about $40k per truck to cart away crude, something that hasn't happened since the discovery of naphtha ca. 4000 BC. Still wasn't notable enough to post!130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: Above table is not to be MIS-interpreted as me making the case for a co-relation between the size of the deal and us posting or not. In fact just by the above data points, one could make the case that there is NO co-relation. Anyways, posted a search from the archives if it helps anyone. Happy to delete the table. I have no opinion for or against this article. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there any information re: significance of the deal? The nomination rationale hopefully is more than "we have precedents of posting major deals". That said, I did a quick and random search of the archives (non exhaustive, obviously) and here's a summary for anyone who wants a ready reckoner. Ktin (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:MINIMUMBUYOUT is the same as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, it's enlightening to look through these old nominations to see if one has been consistent. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason we are citing a nonexistent policy as policy? 331dot (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly because I don't see it in the news much. It's there if I look for it, but not otherwise; it's only featured on finance websites. The news articles that do cover it refer to the company being bought as "Bethesda" as well, which is not a good sign for linking ZeniMax Media. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the close not because I think this nomination shouldn't be closed, but because the close reason is naive. Microsoft cannot possibly buy Apple because Apple is bigger than Microsoft (Apple is currently worth ~$2 trillion, Microsoft ~$1.5 trillion). Similarly Microsoft buying Google is implausible, while Amazon buying Apple is impossible. Banedon (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping since it is your closure that I'm reverting. Banedon (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Topic is in the news (I have added a FT source to the nom), companies are apparently notable ones that would be familiar to readers, and contra above I feel that both articles are in good shape. The MSFT article needs to be updated, however.130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Some quality IPs involved in this takeover, including The Elder Scrolls and Fallout from Bethesda with 59 and 33 million lifetime sales, respectively, and Doom from id Software which jumpstarted the first-person shooter genre. The video game industry in general is not well-represented at ITN...e-sports aren't included at ITN/R even tho it has a wider audience than a certain boat race. I guess that one is a discussion for a diff place tho so I digress. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Though in the news, not much significance or impact on people except those in the affected companies and videogamers.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, Destroyeraa. Lacks broad significance. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Where's the Americans buy shit all the time argument? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This nomination is DOA. On the table above, only one M&A nom that was posted involved both American companies, and that had a larger value than this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then add your !vote if you are opposing. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No votes from me, just observation. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Inspiring contribution as usual. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Unless we are in the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney territory ... meh. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this isn't really ITN worthy. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – General opposition; suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Bob Nevin

 * Oppose. Could still use more sourcing. The lengthy career section is supported exclusively by a list of his career stats, which doesn't back up much of what's said. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Emmy Awards

 * Oppose on article quality. The lead is still written in the future tense and there is not much text below that. Most of the tables are unsourced. This is going to need some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunately, on quality "Winners and nominees" section is bare of references and has essentially no prose.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support updated. Ref for awards (though PLOT usually covers this) and hopefully sufficient prose. Kingsif (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems good to go. -- Calidum  04:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ideally we'd use a picture of Dan Levy, who won awards for acting, writing, directing and producing in a row, but our best picture of him isn't high quality enough for main page. This is a call for anyone who might have a commons-eligible photo of Dan Levy to please upload it? Kingsif (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Not great, but good enough. Paragraphs about the ceremony. A Canadian series swept the awards. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Some sections still need prose. Just a short paragraph summarizing the section is enough. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sections? Award articles (like all articles, really) don't use prose where the information is better presented in a table. So the awards are fine. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Winners and Nominees. See 71st Primetime Emmy Awards for an example of prose. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's about changing categories. That didn't happen this year. Last year there was something different about nominations that warranted prose. There was not this year, even with the pandemic. Do you want to write about something that didn't happen? Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support. The article is decent and up to date, though I would like to see some more prose.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm marking this as ready so an admin can check it. -- Calidum  18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above and Comment: Just a small question: why not put the photo of his profile, or one with glasses? For non-English users like me we can at least recognize him more. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just FYI (in regards to your initial comment) the Emmys are WP:ITN/R, just the article needs to be up to date and in good shape. Gotitbro (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * but I think I would prefer the blurb to simply say "Schitt's Creek wins seven major awards" and leave the hype for the article to explain. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I wrote an alt that excludes "first". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have changed to the alt blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) U.S. Open (golf)
*Oppose. At very least the "field" section needs to be stripped out and put into its own article, same as happened for the 2020 PGA Championship field after the ITN discussion on that article. And per the nom, this clearly can't be posted until the revdel has been dealt with. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once issues are dealt with This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Should be go to go once the tag on top is addressed. -- Calidum  04:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Field section has been split out (prose ok, but a work in progress) & revdel has been done. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Above issues addressed, thanks Wjemather --Bcp67 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Once Revdel is dealt with JW 1961   Talk  11:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Revdel dealt with. Article in good shape. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This just needs a REVDEL. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, revdel still needs to be be dealt with. Gotitbro (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Revdel attempted, but this was only my third time, so someone check my work. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you were close. Need to delete the two more recent revisions. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , by the same editor, you mean? —valereee (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OH. got it, because that's where it was deleted. —valereee (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support meets criteria. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with the field section again before it became a problem. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FinCEN Files

 * Wait. Currently not much impact - just some files released by some news site. As word spreads, governments may react. Then, we can post it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As regards reliability, FinCEN have not denied the documents authenticity. BBC report of it states "FinCEN said the leak could impact on US national security, compromise investigations, and threaten the safety of institutions and individuals who file the reports." -- KTC (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. I also must point out that this is BuzzFeed News and not Buzzfeed, which is agreed to be generally reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BuzzFeed_News TexanElite (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quite shocking and the story has been picked up by reliable sources. It seems ICIJ revealed this on September 20. Brandmeistertalk   22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This appears to be a significant leak with ramifications globally. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per others ~ AC5230  talk  00:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose Seems like a minor matter in relation to what is generally featured on ITN. This is of narrow interest. Natureium (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I work for one of the banks involved; my comments are my own. Is the postable event here the leak or the transactions themselves? If it's the former, I'd say this is ho hum. If it's the latter, I'm wondering WHOSE VOICE is characterizing the banks' actions as facilitating laundering. The fact that the linked info is coming from SARs would indicate the exact opposite: that the bank's suspected something was up and alerted the authorities.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Originally they were characterised as such by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, then other sources followed: BBC, DW, etc. Brandmeistertalk  11:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Question this is a list of Suspicious activity reports basically a package of allegations. We don't post allegations do we? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Interesting but as stated above, just allegations for now This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing much news coverage of this. Banedon (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – while not my area of expertise, we've got reporting from lots of sources (Reuters, Miami Herald, BBC, just to name a few not cited in the nom). Seems notable enough to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to hear a good response to the above question posed by LaserLegs:
 * this is [...] basically a package of allegations. We don't post allegations do we?
 * Is there a material impact of this release, apart from a generalized antipathy towards banks, regulators, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this shows there was money laundering, the authorities were alerted, and then did nothing about it. Especially when the money laundering is related to evading sanctions and bribery. The impact is that it has forced the financial regulator in the US to overhaul their procedures. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also take GreatCesaersGhost point that these SARs necessarily mean that "global financial institutions" actually hindered criminal activity, whereas our proposed blurb pointedly asserts the exact opposite. I feel that hiding a link to money laundering (an actual crime) behind a unassuming "processed transactions" (a perfectly legal action) text slants this beyond repair.130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very major story, implicating many banks around the world. There seems to be some confusion above. While SARs do show that the bank is filing suspicious reports, the banks themselves still have to investigate and do things about suspicious activity; filing a SAR is not the only thing they do. And billions of dollars have been able to make it through these large banks. TexanElite (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is from a bank lobbyist, but bear with me: “Clearly, there is more to this story, but unfortunately the reporting failed to unearth it, and the banks are legally prohibited from telling their side. In some cases, if the past is any guide, that story likely includes law enforcement asking a bank to keep open an account it has identified as suspicious so that law enforcement can track where the money is going and gather further evidence to support an arrest and conviction.” ~ That criminals launder money is not news. The leak may be news itself; I'd be be opposed anyway. But the big cymbal-crash here is that banks and regulators did nothing which is pure conjecture and not supported by the facts. The fact that these are SARs counters that conclusion. Manafort in particular is called out, which is illogical as he WAS prosecuted for financial crimes.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait, as their importance is currently hard to assess. The only basis for which this can be notable is as an event (leak) in its own right, rather than the magnitude of the allegations it purports to disclose. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks okay and this is a major report about financial handling globally. Gotitbro (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per coverage and importance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Cook

 * Support – article is very short (RPS is 337 words), but essentially every sentence is sourced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The lead needs to be expanded to comply with MOS:LEAD, otherwise it should be fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead has been updated to include a little more, does that look ok? Thanks JW 1961   Talk  18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: It's become a small decent article. KittenKlub (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed - stale) 2020 Tour de France

 * Comment The pre-race fave section needs work, and the lead needs to at least mention who won the race! The 2019 article is an excellent place to start, with it being a GA.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in okay shape for an ITNR sport. Gotitbro (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bulk of the prose in the article is made up of (1) a rambling pre-race favourites section which is still largely written in the future tense and insufficiently referenced, and (2) a lengthy explanation of the rules for the various classifications. The actual coverage of the 2020 race is limited to the lead. The race overview section is made up of two sentences, one about the third placed rider and the other a view expressed by Eddy Merckx but will be expanded as mentioned above. Article nowhere near good enough for ITN at present.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – still no summaries about the actual race. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed - stale) 2020 24 Hours of Le Mans

 * Oppose on article quality per nominator. Lots of grammar mistakes and bottom half of the article is all tables, no prose. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem to be more in the news than other routine sports. And the prose is quite ungrammatical so it hasn't been proof-read.  Here's a sample sentence from the lead "The event being held from 19 to 20 September 2020." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the lead's so many unnecessary commas . ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – article in need of sourcing in "Qualifying" section and prose in "Race" section. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – lacking on prose for the race summary. Just needs that and should be good to post ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Mary Pruitt

 * Support – short article but sourcing is adequate. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from controversies, there is essentially 0 information in the article about what Pruitt did in her position (e.g. positions held, legislation passed, etc.), even though she was a legislator for nearly 30 years.  Spencer T• C 03:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a few sentences of reflections by colleagues of her work. This should fix the issue. Dan the Animator 23:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Vague reflections doesn't really add much depth to the article (How did she advocate for education?). On the other hand, information like that she was a member of the Tennessee Black Caucus of State Legislators; served as Chair of the General Welfare and Health/Human Resources committees; etc. . I did some google searching and the amount of information available is admittedly disappointing, so I'll strike my oppose; there's probably more out there in local or book sources, which probably aren't easily accessible. Her House of Representatives bio also has additional information that could go in the article, such as that a library in Nashville is named after her ("Mary and Charles W. Pruitt Public Library").  Spencer T• C 00:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This source says she died Saturday which was the 19th &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meron Benvenisti

 * Weak oppose sourcing is a little spotty, and article could be formatted a bit better.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - improvements made by . PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This reads rather more like an obituary than a biography article. Can anything be done to make the structure more rational? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and, I separated the Career section into multiple other sections. Take a look, it might be better now. Dan the Animator 21:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , structuring is better but sourcing is still iffy. "Early life" and "career" each have only one citation apiece. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * added a source and content. It should be good now. Dan the Animator 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , looks fine now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shehu Idris

 * Support – article is short (RPS 300 words), but I have fixed up lots of awkward wording and sourcing gaps, so I believe this article is now appropriate for RD. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine now since updated JW 1961   Talk  11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs to make it clear where Zazzau is (the country) and if its emirate has any official political currency within its system; and also clarify terms such as Fulani in the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have made some edits to clarify some of the lead, does that look better? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's much better and as I suspected the emirate is not an official one. Gotitbro (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) TikTok and WeChat

 * Support. Very notable and possibly will cause international incident. Added altblurb for clarification based on my understanding of the current situation (could be wrong though) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a total ban. Impossible to enforce. Hyped up news for something basically meaningless - TikTok, like Vine and YikYak before it, was due its death soon anyway. Does anybody use WeChat in the U.S.? There will be no "international incident" - how much do you think China cares about such an impossible to enforce ban, when it's already got a lot of that data anyway? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Later today we'll see if it's "impossible to enforce". I'm pretty sure very soon we'll no longer see WeChat on the App Store. Considering the proportion of people using iOS (even if we exclude those minorities who owns a foreign phone number to be able to register a foreign Apple account in order to bypass this ban) in the United States, this ban makes no difference from China excluding Google Play Store in its mainland market. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is rather US-centric news, again, and the blurb is mislead, since WeChat is not really tied to ByteDance (that's Tencent). --M asem (t) 03:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is hardly world news. Natureium (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. However I may reconsider depending on how China responds. For now this is just another chapter in the ongoing spat between the US and Red China. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to reminds you the previous consensus over a similar content. Although WP:OTHERSTUFF does not count as a direct oppose yet still please list some reason (such as US market is less import than Chinese market or something) to show that our previous consensus that when a world's largest market bans a product it meets the ITN standard does not apply here. Thank you! --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose more grandstanding on Trump's part per Kingsif and Ad Orientem. (TikTok is still in my Play Store as I type this, although that might be since the ban hasn't gone into effect yet.) While not my sole reason per the "Please do not..." section, this is also too US-centric to immediately follow the RBG blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Google is several magnitudes more significant than TikTok or WeChat. --M asem (t) 05:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. This is largely rhetorical at this point, and may prove to be technologically unworkable. While not wholly unimportant, it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion here. BD2412  T 04:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides the U.S.-centrism (not even a nomination here occurred on 29 Jun when India banned sixty apps originated by mainland Chinese companies), requests for injunction for both TikTok and WeChat have already been filed. If a temporary restraining order is granted for either or both on 1st amendment and/or the communications clause under the IEEPA, this Trump / Ross Executive Order is toast. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the link you shared claiming it wasn't even nominated, there is in fact a nomination for "Ongoing: 2020 China–India skirmishes". Perhaps you should be outraged less and do more? You were free then to nominate the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - unless this international incident gets way out of hand. (can you imagine World War III starting because of an app? That sounds like the most 2020 thing ever) -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the precedent cited by the IP is from 10 years ago. The stuff that made ITN then would never be included today. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Trump administration bs that isn't worth posting. I don't think WeChat is even used that much in the US anyway. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support decent articles, and this has been brewing for a while with TikTok looking for buyers so they can operate in the US via a US company (which is also, ironically, one of the things Trump complains the most about US companies operating in China). Large tech company based in the worlds second largest and fastest growing economy is banned from the worlds largest economy as part of a trade war? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see this as "globally significant". --LaserLegs (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Know this is closed but to add, the ban has been blocked, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway. --M asem (t) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had a penny for every time a Trump executive order has been blocked by a judge... WaltCip- (talk)  16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Turner
I'd like to voice my support for this article's inclusion in the recent deaths category. R. J. Dockery (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support I see that somebody is hard at work on the article already. As it currently stands the article is under referenced especially "Leader of the Opposition" and "1988 federal election," so you have to upgrade the article to meet the minimum quality standards. And don't forget to credit the copy editor.KittenKlub (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment we posted as a blurb Helmut Kohl and George H. W. Bush so if we're really concerned about "systemic bias" we'll do Turner the same pending updates. (I'll still futilely oppose the blurb per NOTMANDELA) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Turner held the office of Prime Minister for 79 days (the second-shortest tenure in Canadian history after Sir Charles Tupper), as he advised the Governor General to dissolve Parliament immediately after being sworn in.  If Brian Mulroney died, we'd have the blurb conversation.  There's no discussion to be had here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah oh Turner was one of those weird care-taker PMs I guess we'd NOT have the blurb convo for Kim Campbell either. Withdrawn. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support without blurb, as a former head of government. – bradv  🍁  04:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Came here wondering why he's not listed already. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Vast portions of the article are unsourced. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the tags. Replaced a good number of them with sources. However, many still remain.
 * @all -- If anyone has a few spare cycles, please can you take a pass at referencing some of those tags. This will require some group effort. 7 more tags remain. Wow! Great team work! No citation needed tags remain. I am awake for the next hour, and can make any additional edits if required. Ktin (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much more work on referencing needed. The entire Leader of the Opposition section has barely any citations. P-K3 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good job.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , and : all cn tags have been taken care of. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my comment - I added some sources but a massive thanks to for adding the vast majority of them!  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! Great team work folks! Adding as well. Let know if any additional edits are required. Will be awake for next hour. Ktin (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work. I think it is ready to go. KittenKlub (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Great job getting this fully referenced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I hate the "honours" section which is pure WP:INDISCRIMINATE but no reason not to post. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Congratulations to all who helped with referencing the article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Congratulations to all who helped with referencing the article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen F. Cohen

 * Support Adequately sourced. Currently rated as start-class but decent enough for C class IMO. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 02:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted, Closed) Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 * Strong support RD at the very least. Would also support blurb. Very high profile figure. 192.196.218.222 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NPR also reporting NPR —valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - GA. And we should also consider a blurb.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - very high profile and article is GA. Added blurb nomination. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This year is cruel, man. Davey2116 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb it - good article. Damn. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - GA and updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD GA class. No opinion on blurb; what's the precedence for top judges? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * She was an incumbent also massively impactful in law, growth of US liberalism, and pop culture. There's also the fact that most likely whoever is elected President in November will have to replace her, and that will be crucial to American law going forward. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support Very important figure in US politics, support blurb as well, this will have a significant effect on the future of the USA. –DMartin 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. We already post confirmations to the Supreme Court because it is itself notable enough, but for an incumbent justice to pass (especially such a well-known one) is undoubtedly just as notable as a confirmation. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD because the article is top notch and there's no reason not to, unfortunately (meaning I wish she was still alive). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw consensus for a blurb but edit conflicted with you. I'm not a regular here so wanted to ask your thoughts before saving. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , her death was only just announced, I'd give it a little more time to determine if there really is a consensus for a blurb. In the meantime, it's posted as RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I see the ec you mean. We'll see if anyone wants it pulled. I don't object. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb One of the most notable jurists in history, whose loss at this moment in time could single-handedly alter the face of the USA. Top-line news across the world. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support, immediate promote with blurb to main page: This is a major event. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb due to her prominence on the US Supreme Court and the impact her death will have on the US election. P-K3 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would support blurb even if she died next February, but we really cannot exaggerate the gravity of it happening at this moment, especially in light of Garland.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted There appears to be overwhelming support for a full blurb, thus I have gone ahead and posted. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There really isn't the need to post it so quickly. Give a chance for people in other parts of the world to the subject matter (US) to voice their opinion and possibly disagree about the significance. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone else is free to remove it, should consensus emerge. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't really need to hear from the "it's not important if it didn't happen in the British Empire" crowd.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with GCG - massive ramifications for, well, how biased the SCOTUS gets in a time of political upheaval and pandemic that could have apocalyptic effects on US relations with the rest of the world, crisis management, upholding the constitution, and climate change. It's never good to see a legend like RBG go, but now is perhaps the worst time in human history, I mean this without hyperbole. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - arguably no single human life was more critical to the current state of United States constitutional law. Her death has the potential for sweeping ramifications on American jurisprudence in general. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull - As much as I support a blurb, I recognize the impact of systemic bias on this particular section of Wikipedia. We ought to wait a full 12 hours for Europe and Australia to weigh in.--WaltCip- (talk)  00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What? It's obvious it's going to be a huge news story. Front of the New York Times and the BBC already. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Europe yes, but it's midday here in Oceania. Agree that 20 mins is probably too quick to post something like this. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull At least wait for sometime for a more general consensus to appear than rushing with nominations like these. Don't blurbs for deaths require some global significance, that is not apparent here at all. As for posting 'confirmations' to the United States Supreme Court that is simply not true, all of the latest nominations were closed with no postings: 1, 2, 3. A lot of votes here also seem to be premised on WP:CRYSTALL. Also agree with User:KTC on letting more users vote in on this. Gotitbro (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not CRYSTAL when all of the potential outcomes are significant. Nominate or not, consider or not, confirm or not.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull Not a head of state or government. Not even the Chief Justice. Yes, she was a significant figure in the US mostly due to her being the dean of the left wing of the US Supreme Court. But we don't generally post domestic political news stories. If the Chief Justice of any other country's Supreme Court died, would we even consider posting it? It's significant news in the US and will throw a new issue into the forthcoming election. But in the end this is an 87 year old woman who has been dying for years. Her impact is nowhere near what we would normally look for in posting a blurb for someone who died at her age. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pray tell how one of the most influential members of the highest court of, for better or worse, the most important nation in the english-speaking world, and will also be a huge issue in the election, is not a "globally significant event"? I'd say it's one HELL of a lot more significant than Chadwick Boseman dying and he got a blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, a blurb was not posted for Boseman, only RD. Gotitbro (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you just described applied to Scalia's death as well, just on the opposite side of the US political spectrum. We didn't post a blurb then. -- KTC (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Scalia was a giant, an amazing intellect, and beloved by those on both sides of the aisle for his intellect and wit. But I bet more people recognize the Notorious RBG. —valereee (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb due to her indisputably high profile not to mention she died while serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. TJMSmith (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most well-known of modern justices. Possibly outstrips Scalia. Major ramifications. Huge news. —valereee (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I would go so far as to add Iconic to the beginning. Historically one of the few justices to break through to the popular consciousness. BD2412  T 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - post posting support. Per Mz7 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - very high-profile figure. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb the notability here comes not from Ginsburg but from who might be nominated in her place. Routine justice, routine death, this is what RD is for. Scalia got RD so this makes sense --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just read the reporting of her death and tell me that's routine coverage. P-K3 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Election speculation hysteria. Scalia 2.0. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ginsburg was not, by any conceivable standard, a "routine justice." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , lol...it doesn't actually matter why her death is being covered around the world -- and above the headline, in some cases. Yes, probably some people all over the world are very worred about what it means for the future of the world if Trump replaces her with another conservative justice and then wins four more years. What matters is that it's global news, and yes, that could influence the amount of coverage it gets, and yes, it may have been that people weren't as worred about Trump replacing Scalia with another conservative. But so what? That doesn't make the global coverage invalid for use as evidence that this death, this one and not Scalia's, probably needs a blurb. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you suggesting Trump might nominate Hannity? That seems...bizarre, at best, since from our article he doesn't seem to have graduated from college much less law school...? —valereee (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, ther eis no evidence that Trump graduated from college much less law school - everything the TV president does seems either bizarre or rational depending on which side of reality you're on. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is about global perspective. For this to be a blurb, it should be the top news story in South Korea, Italy, Congo, Ukraine, and Fiji. Michael Jackson met this threshold without question. No other figure save perhaps Nelson Mandela matched this since. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says nothing of "global perspective" that's a made up requirement. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It does: "Major figures: The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis". This does not fill that requirement and is clearly RD limited per the other criteria as well, i.e., "Life as the main story/Death as the main story". Seems political sensationalism and systemic bias at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SYSTEMIC BIAS KLAXON!!! The RD criteria says transformative world leaders in their fields may qualify for a blurb, it does not say blurb require a global perspective. Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my affirmation AND shrieking about bias in the same response. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, who's shrieking? —valereee (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nikkei —valereee (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Korea Times] —valereee (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * France24 —valereee (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is coverage in Korea, Italy, Ukraine...  Spencer T• C 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is coverage within literally an hour of the announcement. Not sure how much more we need to prove this is global news. —valereee (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot Congo.--WaltCip- (talk)  01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And where's Fiji? —valereee (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fiji! Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Le Figaro - France, El Comercio - Peru, O Globo - Brazil, The Sydney Morning Herald - Australia, Deutsche Welle - Germany, Haaretz - Israel, South China Morning Post - Hong Kong.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also see this section. Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance beyond two: The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. There is consensus to post the event.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am an avid follower of US politics so I appreciate that this is a huge story on the US political scene. My argument merely surrounds whether this should be a blurb or RD - and in my view, while this may be considered "news" in the places I named, they are not headline news. Granted, this was the top headline on the New York Times, and for some time, also on BBC, but I don't think you will find any newspaper outside of the Anglosphere that will treat it as the one top news story of the day. Again, Michael Jackson did in fact meet this threshold. It was literally the top headline everywhere. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb She was on her way out for the past several years, but this is especially notable given the implications of her vacancy for the upcoming election. RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From Dem senator Ed Markey "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Of course he has already said he will violate it. This is not CRYSTAL, folks.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to see Mitch is still a man of principle.--WaltCip- (talk)  01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * McConnell has put out a statement saying "President Trump's nominee will get a vote". And the WH says to expect a nominee in "the coming days". We will have a fight on our hands unless Democrats fold like a cheap suit again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support for blurb - probably the only news item I've been moved to actually comment on in ... well, ever. Unfortunately, due to POLEMIC, I can't fully explain why, but this has made a dangerous time for the entire world even more dangerous. If the goal of an ITN blurb is providing good content on timely subjects, then I cannot fathom not posting a blurb. On a less screechy note, this was kind of a "Death of Fred Rogers"-level gut punch.  I wish I had 10% of her integrity and 10% of her drive. Fuck you, 2020.  Fuck. You. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm expecting frogs myself —valereee (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly support retaining blurb. Ginsburg was an exceptionally important justice and for many years was almost surely the best-known judge in the entire world. Even apart from her significant personal accomplishments, her death at this particular time and the debate that will now follow over whether and with whom to fill the resulting vacancy will be a prominent news story both within and beyond the United States for weeks to come. Either of these grounds would be sufficient, in my mind, to justify a blurb; the combination of the two is compelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see McLachlin or Lady Hale get a blurb as well when it's their turn, thank you. Like it or not, some degree of systemic bias is at play here, as evidenced by the number of American editors here. feminist (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am somewhat confused by what appear to be conflicting standards here. We did not blurb the death of Justice Scalia four years ago, though he was certainly a far more significant figure on the court. Even his critics admit that Scalia profoundly affected legal jurisprudence and philosophy in ways that few justices have in the entire history of the court. I don't want to denigrate the memory of Justice Ginsburg, but her legacy is likely to be in her dissents. It is extremely difficult to look at the way these two nominations have been received without suspecting a certain level of ideological partisanship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Scalia was probably worthy of a blurb as well, but it's hard to define precise standards about something (the death of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice) that has happened just three times in the past 50 years. (I also think you err in placing Ginsburg's overall influence on a lower tier than Scalia's, in part because Ginsburg's pre-judicial work had a long-term impact that Scalia's did not, but this isn't the place for such a debate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, so far as I am aware, Scalia didn't have his own biopic. See On the Basis of Sex. For the record, I would have blurbed Scalia. BD2412  T 02:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we got it right with Scalia. He was a towering intellectual giant of the law in this country. But he was a US Supreme Court Justice. We don't post them for the same reason we don't post justices from other countries. I think we are demonstrating an absolutely breathtaking level of bias here, both US and ideological. If this stands, we are going to have a hard time saying no with anything resembling a straight face when distinguished jurists from other countries die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and if those distinguished jurists get their deaths announced the way this is being announced -- front page news with major headlines and top-of-page placement -- we absolutely should blurb them too. Bader Ginsburg was known for more than simply being a jurist. Have you looked at the 'in popular culture' section of the article? She wasn't just another distinguished jurist. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we would not have posted this even if it was a serving chief justice from another country. The way this was rushed in just minutes after the nom is a classic example of bias of both numbers and admin scrutiny (but we have people here coming at you for pointing that out). This is what RD is for. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We could establish a rule limiting blurbs to distinguished jurists with their own biopic (or Lego figure). BD2412  T 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb She the leading story on BBC.com (I'm accessing from outside of US). Seems some !votes want to rewrite the cultural impact of this female justice.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * She is most certainly not the lead story on BBC News; you might be outside the US but you presumably at some point set a cookie to prioritise US news. (Her death does get a one-line mention below the fold, but below "Stolen books found under Romanian floor".) I doubt one person in a hundred outside the US has ever heard of her, any more than a typical American could name even the most prominent member of the Chinese supreme court. &#8209; Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote BBC.com. You piped a link to bbc.co.uk.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This Northern Ontarian sees it, too, and has never Googled her name from any device. I do recognize it, though only as that of the short Jewish lady with the big glasses. I remain ignorant of her actual accomplishments, though appreciate her general hugeness to Democrats. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb's been up for a few hours now, we're getting to the point where enough people have seen the blurb for its removal to be seen as commentary. Either pull immediately and wait for further consensus, if the support for its blurb is waning, or keep it up until it rolls off. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 03:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Good on you to promote this to the main page in the record time of 23 minutes while most of the world outside of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I knew Wikipedia had a strong U.S. (and also U.S. Democrat) bias, but this is on a whole new level of r-tardation. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb It has been changed recently to include a note about her activism, without consensus. Call for it to go back to the simplified form. 198.48.143.196 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull I'm really not seeing the significance here—this seems to be a Prince-style railroading of the process by fans of the subject. As per everyone else, given that we wouldn't even consider posting the death of even the most prominent judge in any other country the onus is on those wanting to break precedent to explain why. &#8209; Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull Great woman with laudable accomplishments (and well written article too), but this is a local news only (not even on the frontpages in my country). Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Here in Russia even the business dailies (e.g. Kommersant) that generally follow the U.S. politics quite keenly (for obvious reasons) wrote 2-3 sentences (if any) about her death. Let alone posted the story on their main pages. --Anon
 * Strong support the inclusion of the note about her death on the main page. The event is causing undeniable worldwide repercussions. Even the speaker of the Brazilian parliament released an statement on her death, which is highly unusual. <font color="#1780AD">Érico  (talk)  06:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull 1) Procedural: blurbs shouldn't be posted after 20 minutes, and 2) local news, neither the subject nor her death is significant enough to rise to the level of a blurb. Isa (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I think this meets the two RD blurb criteria in that the death, because of its effects, is arguably the main story, and because RGB is a major, transformative figure in her field (and maybe beyond). I'm not sure Scalia is the best comparison here because his death was before the 2016 overhaul of RD to remove the requirement to meet some intermediate level of notability above the typical biography. Since then, both RDs and blurbs have become more common, which is a positive trend, and Scalia would much more likely be (correctly IMO) blurbed today than in 2016. I also don't think that this is necessarily opening the floodgates given the circumstances of the death and the uniqueness of RBG. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Per apparent reasons. Per global legal influence. Per the numerous citations in non-US court opinions. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull per Ad Orientem and Iridescent, mostly. This is just ridiculous. I recognise the ramifications this has for the USA but this is still just domestic stuff that has little to no global significance. How this made a blurb and will remain for the foreseeable future amounts to WP:FAIT IMO, and I would have expected the admin/s involved to know better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we pull this, we can never again justify posting a death. We would retire the practice of blurbing a death, once and for all. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider giving this article a read: Logical fallacy --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would include The Queen. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull and Oppose, US only.--Joseph (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull This is too much of a domestic issue. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull and oppose blurb. It is incredibly hard to believe that a Supreme Court judge in any other country would be blurbed if they were to die. This woman is no more special than a judge in other countries. The fact it was posted as a blurb after less than 30 minutes of the nomination is just ridiculous. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. "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) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull and move to RD. After some deliberation this morning I think I concur with the no-blurb arguments here. It is in the news, certainly, and yes, there may be ramifications beyond the usual Supreme Court deaths in terms of her succession. But such ramifications are not covered in the blurb, and furthermore it's hard to dodge accusations of partisanship, since we did not blurb Scalia and we also pulled the appointment of Kavanaugh to the court, both events of similar note to this one but affecting right-leaning justices. On a personal level I have immense respect for Ginsburg and everything she stood for, and I hope she can be replaced with a similar progressive justice. But as noted above she objectively spent much of her time fighting on the minority opinion, and ultimately her global influence was not of the Thatcher/Mandela level. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Could I kindly request that editors avoid using proper nouns and acronyms such as (but not limited to) "SCOTUS", "Scalia", "Kavanaugh" without providing the context/background/meaning of these terms? Chrisclear (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * People should keep in mind that this is a global website, but all of those terms lead to the proper articles in the Wikipedia search bar. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be true, however, it shouldn't be incumbent upon the average reader to do extra reading/research to understand what another editor is saying when they use regional jargon without explanation/clarification. Chrisclear (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As always this is "not a vote," but for the record as of now I count 25 editors supporting a blurb and 12 opposed. Having read through the comments made after mine, I stand by my thoughts above: either Ginsburg's life and work, or the controversy that will arise from her death, would justify a blurb; the combination of the two make a compelling case for one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Her life and work" were no more or less momentous than Scalia's. They were both passionate justices with a long history of fighting for the causes they believed in. (And, as an aside, they were also great personal friends, in one of the rare heartwarming stories of the poliarised political spectrum). Scalia's death also triggered intrigue and drama over his replacement. Perhaps we should post all such stories, I would have said so in 2016 or 2018, and I'm not an anti-US stories zealot. But we cannot be seen to be selective about which ones to post and which to reject, that violates the neutral point of view. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ginsburg was arguably more well known than Scalia was. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep posted, since there can easily be a stand-alone article on her death and funeral. That is the best metric. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very interesting metric; maybe that's been used before but I don't recall it at this moment. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull and shift to RD - US-centric news that has very little to no significance worldwide, it would be better off as an RD. Decision to post was done without adequate input from worldwide editors. Droodkin (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated 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." There is no requirement for worldwide significance, and no arbitrary minimum discussion time to allow for worldwide input. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it interesting how that is only ever applied to US stories? Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you that is the case. I personally support or oppose regardless of the nationality of the story. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support retaining blurb - Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most well known figures in American politics, and the most famous Supreme Court Justice on the bench. I would wager that even many non-Americans know who she is. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull deliberately prematurely posted in the middle of the night to avoid any real discussion. Not a head of state or similar, not an unexpected death, and domestic navel-gazing in the extreme. Systematic bias in action. This is why ITN is a joke. Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not "posted in the middle of the night" in some deceptive manner. I invite you to nominate what you see as under-posted subject matter; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what counts as "in the middle of the night", as it's always nighttime somewhere on Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't deliberately posted early; Ginsburg's death was announced around 7:30PM Eastern Daylight Time here in the US, or 30 minutes to midnight, UTC. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiki operates on UTC, so yes it was late at night. It was posted when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be. The correct procedure would be to wait till everyone would have had a chance to weigh in, rather than quickly posting it before any opposition would be around. Fgf10 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is an extreme failure to assume good faith. It was posted quickly because the death got immediate coverage all over the world and the article was in good shape. And FFS, do you understand how "night" works? The death was announced when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be, I'm sure in an intentional gaming of the ITN system. —valereee (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Combined your misplaced comments) No need to get personal, I didn't either. I'm merely stating facts, posting before people have had time to oppose is a common tactic on ITN to get contintious noms through. The time of announcement is entirely irrelevant, as it is good custom on ITN to allow sufficient time for everyone to weight in, as ITN is not a news ticker. This was clearly not done in this case, as I said in my post, which you conveniently entirely ignored in favour of a personal attack. Fgf10 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote deliberately prematurely posted in the middle of the night to avoid any real discussion. How is that not assuming bad faith? You literally are saying the poster was deliberately trying to avoid discussion. That's practically the definition of assuming bad faith. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep posted It's strange for me (in Britain) to see that so many in the US seem to think this isn't of world importance. Her death is reported above the main headline in the Guardian, and is at the top, but smaller photo and typeface, in the BBC and Times. In the Telegraph the report is further down. For me she was more significant than Scalia and most world political leaders – perhaps that is because I am older than most people here. I'm discounting the US political squabbles that are arising because I don't know how they'll pan out. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull and shift to RD This story about his death is relatively unknown outside the United States and other English-speaking countries. Apart from this, this article is relatively good shape and this is a one of many GA nominated articles to be posted in RD. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Without commenting on overall appropriateness (in regard to precedents etc.), "and advocate for women's rights" makes the blurb unwieldy. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 09:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull - She is just an unheard of judge that died of old age. No way near a world-transforming figure. --119.157.255.15 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull I fail to see any clear indication that she was a world-transformative figure in any field. There is no information in the article of any famous concepts and ideas that she has come up with and are now globally accepted or any works she wrote and are now considered seminal learning materials in any branch of law. She was definitely an excellent practitioner but blurbs are for people who change the world and impact a large number of people. This is a classical example of an "injustice" to all other famous people who recently died and did not get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, largely based on her "celebrity status" rather than her strictly legal importance and on article quality. However, I really hope that 30 minute nom-to-post discussions do not become the norm . We are an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Aside from the global implications, it does not provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be expressed as supporters will always rush into a nomination like this. Could we introduce a minimum 5 or 12 hour rule, or something? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very good suggestion. I'd let no minimum time only for ITNR items. For all other nominations, having a minimum time for discussion before posting is strongly required.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I don't think 30-minute nom-to-post is actually a problem when we've got an article in good shape. 30-minute-nom-to-blurb probably shouldn't be the norm; in this case we had coverage just that fast in major outlets around the world, including in places it was night lol, so we had evidence it was global news. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree - RD does not have the normative "significance" connotations of other ITN applications and does not need other safeguards. As for this kind of nom, there is a common phenomenon of people hearing of "Event Y" and heading straight here to nominate/support it. The same does not often apply to people who disagree, even though they are more numerous. How would this proposal be raised for discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There was never really any question that this would be global news. There are plenty of items we do not post dispite it being global news. The problem here is what has happened was sadly predictable. A well known subject matter related to the US (or even more generally the English speaking Western World), a few support resulting in posting soon after nomination, and then the rest of the world wake up / get home from work crying (not unfairly) systemic bias. There's rarely that many news item that's truly SNOWBALL post blurb. A few hours wait to make sure doesn't hurt the encyclopedia. -- KTC (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong pull per Kiril S. No clear indication of world transformation in the field in terms of technical/pedagogical contributions etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Ginsburg's importance had little to do with her "technical/pedagogical contributions". Particularly in the latter years of her life, she grew to be regarded as a feminist cultural icon, sombody who, by her life's example and her persona, transformed the relationship between men and women and changed women's place in modern society. Or at least made a damn good run at it. How many other people could we say the same about? True, she was much better known in the English speaking world, or perhaps the western world more broadly, than in places like Russia or China. But I don't think that for an ITN blurb we should require Jesus Christ like fame. Wikipedia is often accused, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, of not doing enough to attract  women editors, to promote topics of importance to women, of making them feel welcome here. Well, now is that chance, Let's not blow it. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the concerns raised regarding the speedy decision-making on nominations and Brigade Piron's suggestion, I have formally proposed the introduction of minimum time for discussing non-ITNR nominations before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was one of the first supports for a blurb, and generally oppose things for US bias. Like John Lewis, where there were quite a few quick opposes because people were thinking of that. That is to say, US bias in supporting a blurb here was considered (at least by me) before realizing it was worth blurbing anyway. And a lot of the opposes/pulls are either screaming US bias just because without realizing that her death (the news specifically to be blurbed, rather than the person) has significant international ramifications - not that such is truly required for ITN - or are asking where Scalia's blurb was. It seems he missed out because it wasn't a dangerous time nor did he have the notoriety in popular culture that The Notorious RBG did/does. And I might have supported Scalia, and I would probably support Lady Hale (but I know that she's barely known outside the UK and so a long shot). And, if you have social media, I assume you're seeing what I am: literally nobody is talking about anything else. Kingsif (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , also Scalia's death didn't represent a change to the balance of the court. As you say, there's apparently no need for an 'In popular culture' section in his article. :D —valereee (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't blame the rest of us for the poor fucntioning of your overly politcised judiciary. If a nom has to rely on knowledge of obscure legal minutiea of a domestic court system, I don't see why it's of sufficient importance to be posted here. Fgf10 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The nom doesn't rely on SCOTUS balance - that was an additional comment to an additional comment, nowhere near the main significance here and you know it. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, not following, whom am I blaming and what am I blaming them for? Oh, I see...you're talking about the fact Scalia didn't change the balance of the court. Well, you don't actually need to know obscure legal minutiae in order to understand that the most powerful person in the free world, who happens to thinks that because he believes something makes it true, unleashed because he no longer has to worry about re-election, unchecked because he has appointed half SCOTUS, is worrisome to many people outside the US. South Korea, for instance. Pretty much anyone in conflict-torn countries south of the US-Mexico border. Europe. Pretty sure he'll ignore Africa except to eliminate any foreign aid. But I don't blame anyone for that except maybe Newt Gingrich. —valereee (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll stress again that we need to hold back on rushing to post blurbs particularly on figures that are tied to a specific national interest; 20 minutes is far too short and ITN is not a news ticket. RD posting in that time was fine, the blurb can always be delayed. Cases where the nationality is not an issue and a SNOW-like agreement comes to fruition quickly eg like with Stephan Hawking), that's reasonable, but RBG is clearly something that would be of great import to USians but not necessarily to the rest of the world and we should have waited for some input from that side. Otherwise you create bad precedent. --M asem (t) 13:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - but people thinking that the blurb should have waited shouldn't be calling to completely oppose it based on that expedience. Just a lesson to learn. Maybe a time limit for all blurbs should be set, because there are other issues quick posting of any story can create. Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The death of a SCOTUS Justice in most other countries would not be important enough for us to post it. But the case of the US is different, as the SCOTUS has in practice much more power than the constitution courts in most other countries. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – for retention of blurb – Justice Ginsburg's passing portends the probable creation of a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by right-wing conservative juridical views, and thus is quite significant. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as a non-US editor. This death is critical, not only to the upcoming US election which has the whole world watching, but also to the civil rights movement in general. This is important stuff, worldwide. – bradv  🍁  15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb among other things, the sources on her life indicate a leader on women's rights reaching international proportions, confirmed in the statements by world leaders about the death. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the many excellent points raised above. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, working to expand. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Justice Ginsburg is not a typical national judge. As NYB points out, she very well may be (and almost certainly was) the most well-known judge in the world. She probably deserves a blurb for her accomplishments alone; her death and the political fight over her replacement will dominate the news cycle up to and through the U.S. election, and would most likely merit a blurb as well. Regardless of our personal views on the matter, U.S. politics is covered in-depth around the world, and this event is clearly highly significant within that confine.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Above - I had mentioned that for this to be "blurb-worthy" it ought to be top news in most places in the world. Then I said you'd hardly find any newspaper outside of the Anglosphere that treats it as "the" top news story. Today I checked Canada's national broadcaster CBC and Australia's most subscribed newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald. On CBC it is the ninth story and on SMH it shows up on the sidebar in a commentary article. It is easy for us to assume what this story means in terms of significance in other places around the world. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert W. Gore

 * Support RD. Article now looks suitable for posting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose has 2 missing in-text ref templates in Personal life section. Will change to support once those are fixed. Dan the Animator 23:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support refs were added by Coffeeandcrumbs. Thanks PCN02WPS  for messaging me and sorry for the late reply. Dan the Animator 01:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries! Thanks to for updating with all the refs.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you cn tag them so I can add references? Thanks. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Ruklick

 * Support seems fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clean and nice citations. Article doesn't have much details on the playing career other than that short paragraph. Can do with some additional player statistics - seasons records, personal performance, records. Seems like most basketball profiles have this information. Once this is added, the article is good for RD. This is completed, per the below thread. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I expanded on his college career and added a newspaper he worked at. His pro career numbers were already in the prose.  Understand, that he was a limited role player as a pro, only played three years, and it was in the 1960s. Coverage there is scarce, and not a core part of his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , greetings! I see some season by season stats at these links and . I don't know the game well enough to pick up the most relevant stats. Can we bring the best season by season stats into the article? Most the basketball player profile articles that I landed on had some of these season by season stats. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's already a link in the "External links". Do you think it's essential for ITN (as oppose to WP:GA) as it's more for basketball fans and will be inaccessible to the average reader.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , also my feeling is that picking stats from a primary source database to place into prose can lead into WP:UNDUE/WP:OR issues if they weren't mentioned by secondary sources as "important". Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will admit that I might not know the game as much as others here. But, when I posted my comment, I had checked a few links of basket ball players Chick Halbert, Paul Hoffman (basketball), and Ed Sadowski (basketball). Almost all of them had a season by season summary. It made sense -- I was able to follow along the last column (points per game) to get a good sense of their journey. So, I thought it was useful. Just my two cents. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Added to make it consistent with other articles (links above) which have a season by season summary. Should be good now. Give it a look to see that nothing is off. (PS: Editing Wikitables is harder than I thought.) Ktin (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed, stale) RD: Stanley Crouch

 * Comment: Could use a few more refs (i.e. there's some large paragraphs with multiple pieces of info with just 1 citation).  Spencer T• C 05:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose format seems a little strange IMO, and sourcing could be approved per above.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PCN02WPS . Dan the Animator 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed, stale) RD: Maxim Martsinkevich

 * Oppose whole paragraphs unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs a lot more sourcing. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, sadly, because the article is actually well written. A good reminder for editors to cite while you write.130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but Oppose on quality as above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - large gaps in sourcing. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Dan the Animator 23:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P. R. Krishna Kumar

 * Would need some updates regarding the death on the article. Juxlos (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Updated with details on death; segmented the article for readability. Well sourced / cited. Ktin (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the improvements. Juxlos (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Updates completed. Article meets hygiene checks and should be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is mediocre but I think covers the minimum and is referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @, @, @, and @ - Pardon the intrusion. This should be ready to go. Ktin (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMO a huge gap in coverage between the 1950s and 2000s in the article, which uses vague phrases like "was involved in the promotion of ayurveda as a medical science" or "was instrumental" without specifically stating what was done. Not enough to oppose but falls below the bar where I don't feel that this is ready for posting yet.  Spencer T• C 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Added details of his life between 1950s and 2000s. Removed the vague phrases and added additional content. Please have a look. With this, I think the article does meet the hygiene checks to go to the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pardon the tagging @, @, @, and @. Please can I request a pair of additional eyes on this one. Been on a wait for sometime now. I think this does meet the hygiene levels for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD I still think the article isn't enough depth of coverage but I'm not opposed, and outside of my comment there appears to be consensus to post.  Spencer T• C 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bahrain+UAE–Israel agreements

 * Comment – Strikes me as mainly political grandstanding. The UAE and Israel weren't at war, so how can they now proclaim 'peace'? – Sca (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not a Trump supporter, but these are the first peace agreements signed between Israel and an Arab country since 1994, and these are first Arab nations to recognize Israel without being under the pressure of securing their own border with Israel. It's also a significant diplomatic development as the Arab nations had previously committed to refusing to recognize Israel until Palestine was independent. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the UAE agreement already and rejected the Bahrain agreement already. Why are we discussing this again. The Bahrain agreement article is all background and reactions with very little detail on the actual agreement. Both are vassal states doing what they're told. Let me know when the 1948 partition is restored and Syria gets the Golan Heights back. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That rejection was because it was too early, not because are not notable. No wonder u think Bahrain and UAE are vassal states. You probably hate the fact that there is peace. 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * About half of the original opposes were because of length (current article is mostly filler). As for your aspersions, there was no conflict so there isn't any new peace. Let me know when a country like Lebanon that's been repeatedly invaded by Israel piles on. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose given that we've already posted related material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like ITN posts gay marriage-related material repeatedly. 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The first one is significant, and we posted it. Subsequent ones (especially those that are the same thing reheated) are less momentous. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean ITN has posted like 20+ gay marriage-related legalizations already. This is similarly official, and if you think the 4th such peace agreement is already not newsworthy... 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I easily found four which were nominated and not posted: no Germany no Denmark, no Pitcairn islands no UK perhaps you could cite the 20+ which were posted? Or find some other WP:OTHER to complain about. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose we seem to be repeating news stories here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not. It's another country from a region that has historically been bitterly opposed to normalizing relations with Israel. Saying "we only post the first" is silly, that would imply we should stop posting the Olympics because the 2021 Tokyo Olympics is like the 30th Summer Olympics ever, making it old news. Banedon (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's nonsense. We routinely post the Olympics because they're recurring globally significant events.  We don't post routine events which are hum-drum and have numerous precedents.  Comparing this to the Olympics is a borderline in absurdum comment.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Saefullah

 * Support just a single name? I wasn't expecting an Indonesian bureaucrat when I clicked, but the article is alright, decently sourced, a little brief but sufficient. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Some Indonesian names are single word, yeah. Juxlos (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lamine Diack conviction

 * There seems to be a larger story here, per the Guardian, "Several other senior figures in track and field, including the president’s son Papa Massata Diack and the sport’s former head of anti-doping Gabriel Dolle, were also given jail sentences for their part in a scheme in which 23 Russian athletes had their doping sanctions waived so they could compete at the London 2012 Olympics and 2013 world championships in Moscow." I'm not sure if just focusing on Diack here is the only story. --M asem (t) 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added 2nd altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any long-lasting impact of this news amidst country's four-year ban from all major international sport competitions and after having missed the latest Winter Olympics and the last two World Championships in Athletics. Four years after the McLaren Report was published and all the sanctions imposed, this is really run-of-the-mill news in the whole story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though I don't think Diack's article is good enough to be the target so Doping in Russia might be a better choice. This is anything but run-of-the-mill news. It's a conviction (which is what we usually post for legal stories) in a years-long story with major international coverage and importance. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if we covered Russia getting banned from the Olympics, but that was big news and I'm pretty sure we covered it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurbs make it sound like the trial was in Russia. The target link does not need to match the article name precisely.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Diack article makes clear that this is yet another conviction for corruption generally, and at least the second that concerns Russia and doping specifically. The article is not in great shape. The Russian article makes clear that the impact of this decisions is already in effect.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough to use Doping in Russia. Tradedia talk 08:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Fallout from old news. So Diack goes to the slammer for two years. So what? – Sca (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality – target article has gaps in sourcing and a yellow tag. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed, Stale) Human rights abuses in Venezuela

 * Weak support An improved article would be better, maybe even an article dedicated to the UN mission and report. However, the significance of the findings and evidence and the official crimes against humanity tag is a big development. If this misses out on being posted due to article concerns, the results of such a tag will likely lead to something newsworthy, though. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough content for a full article just on the mission report for the moment, but in a couple of days when we have international reactions maybe This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose one-liner update for "CAH" claims from the UN, some missing refs, and the entire article is a WP:COATRACK to complain about Chavez/Maduro. Killing pets is lame, it's not human rights. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LL, we know you have a thing for Maduro, but this is the UN you're trying to discredit. Just this once, you can step away from POINT. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "thing" for Maduro who seems equal parts corrupt and incompetent but I'm also rather sick of the hysteria. There is no "POINT" here. The article should summarize the findings in common across multiple NGOs and leave the hyper-reporting of "eye witness accounts" and "tweets" in the trash where they belong. The UN has also said that US sanctions against Venezuela amount to 'Crimes against humanity' but that doesn't fit the narrative now does it? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What? This is about the article being COATRACK, which it isn't, because human rights abuses in Venezuela certainly happen. Nobody disputes the US sanctions are CAH, but it's a different story when it's a systemic government against their own people, which makes this declaration significant. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Article long and messy. TBH, What can the UN do about it?  ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time but if someone wants to write a specific article about the report, we could make that the target This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but weak oppose on article quality. Article needs updating and has too many "section needs expansion" tags. On a side note, the article is not a COATRACK as claimed above. Sometimes governments, even leftwing governments, end up as repressive de-facto dictatorships. The article is well sourced and the accusations against the regime are not coming from fringe or far right entities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry but we all know that whatever the United Nations declares is usually summarily ignored by certain nations on this planet. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! We've been seeing Trump rejecting and blatantly ignoring everything the UN tells him to do (see Portland protests). ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we occasionally disregard an orange tag once in a while, there are too many in this case. The article structure is very poor, and seems to be a portal or scratchpad for Human Right abuses in Venezuela. On my quick read, there were two (2) sentences delineating the actual human rights of Venezuelans, and a couple links to International conventions. That's the extent of actual content apropos the article title. As for impact, this is the Nth+1 time that such a report has been made. The bar for getting this topic into ITN is and should be a little higher.130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if this was to go through the blurb is very vague and needs to detail the exact happenings in Venezuela. Gotitbro (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At 9,000 words, the article is overlong and diffuse. The occasional use of the present perfect continuous verb tense ("has been") is unencyclopedic. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: September 2020 Western United States wildfires

 * Support – definitely should stay ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITN & updated, above the fold coverage in major news media.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Who pulled the original blurb from the ITN box? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It dropped off due to new stories. --M asem (t) 13:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no brainer.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support yep. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support to keep it from getting renominated for a blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh that's not how it works. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't think so given how many times this was nominated This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna make your case about Americans burning all the time? LOL ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For better or worse he's right, wildfires are in fact common and there are world record wildfires every year. If we apparently care this much about fires, make them ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything happens in America all the time. It's the most boring country on Earth. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't post American mass shootings anymore. The same logic should apply to wildfires, unless wp:fires>murder is a new policy I missed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, mass murders, rioting, hurricanes, wildfares, snowstorms, elections, business mergers and acquisitions, everything you can think of except for cricket (the sport), it happens in America everyday. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Faith Alupo

 * Weak support Well sourced, needs some more info on career per nom's comments. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Small article, but well sourced. KittenKlub (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Gates Sr.

 * Comment. Went in and added a pass of citations and one round of copy edits. Article is good for RD / homepage. Ktin (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Gants

 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) United Kingdom’s Internal Market

 * Wait. Definitely in the news, but the UK Internal Market Bill is still a bill, not law. It can be reassessed if it is passed. ― Hebsen (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The United Kingdom’s Internal Market is the overall topic and you cant talk about one without the other, this is an ongoing topic that has been talked about since July 2020 and most likely to feature multiple times as it is something likely to need tweaking and therefore will fall into the news again in the future as well.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. The UK Internal Market Bill has not been passed as of yet (per Hebsen), and significant improvements need to be made on the benefits and criticisms, add more citations as well. ― Hornets fan 4 life (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose how is any of this news now, as opposed to something Brexit vaguely happening this year (or last, or next)? The linked article is from JULY. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I chose the June news article as it provided the greatest clarity and information available to ensure that people would be well informed, it is happening now with news providers talking about the United Kingdom’s Internal Market.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - many thanks to the nominator for nominating this item, and for your interest in the in-the-news section. Personally I don't quite see this as being noteworthy enough for us to post though. I'm seeing stuff about this in the news, and apparently the bill may break international law in some way, but we've posted quite a bit of Brexit stuff already and this is really just one more stepping stone on that path. If the bill is passed and it sets off an international incident, then sure. Similarly, if talks break down completely and no-deal Brexit is suddenly the only way forward then maybe? But those would be things to assess on their own merits. For now let's wait and see. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * United Kingdom’s Internal Market is mentioned in the news alongside UK Internal Market Bill, and is a significant change to the U.K. structure and the way intergovernmental relations work. The core of this is constitutional and an “internal matter” that is separate from Brexit, it has only recently been minutely connected to Brexit through 3 clauses deep in the schedules of the U.K. Internal Market Bill.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. If/when something concrete happens we can revisit this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a good faith nomination I suppose but a nonsense. Wait until any of this really happens. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is significantly under referenced and will need serious attention to go onto the main page. If it were up to scratch I'd have no issue posting now. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your feedback I will make the changes suggested to improve the article.


 * The UK Internal Market Bill specially covers the legislative process and the [UK Internal Market]covers the History, principles and governance of the UK Internal Market.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, make sure you sign your comments by adding  at the end!  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb - wait until more concrete information comes out of this. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. The blurb is ambiguous and has nothing linked. Also, it may be Britain-ticking or Brexit-ticking, because even though the whole Brexit itself is interesting and newsworthy, every single development is not newsworthy. Suggest close of the good-faith nom.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Phosphine detected on Venus

 * Oppose per now phosphine does'nt always have an organic origin, as it has been detected on planets like Jupiter and by an inorganic origin. In my opinion, there has to be more evidence that can confirm the finding as a possible biological origin.Alsoriano97 (talk)
 * Oppose per Alsorinao. Many possible sources for phosphine that do not require a biological origin, and the popular media is jumping on that link (similar to when we have discovery of water aspects on Mars, doesn't mean life is there, but there's conditions for possible, etc.). --M asem (t) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except this is different because that sort of thing happens all the time with Mars,but this is a first for Venus, and alters our perceptions of both Venus and the prospects for extraterrestrial life as a result. As such the media are right to hype it, and we are wrong to ignore it (at least in my view).Tlhslobus (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Wait until any significant impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is: the news is per publication of a Nature Astronomy article today: . (This is nearly a requirement for any sci or med study to be based on a peer-review publication to start. The impact is the question then...) ---M asem (t) 16:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And the new angle about waiting until an impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth is moving the goalposts. First, Joe Schmoe doesn't have to be directly affected by an astronomical event in order for it to be newsworthy. Second, there's no way to measure the actual scientific impact of what this means for humanity without sending probes to Venus, which won't happen in the window of time it takes for this blurb's newsworthiness to expire as far as Wikipedia is concerned.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is unexpected news that has just made Venus a much more interesting place, and altered many people's perceptions of where life might exist, which is why it's in the news, and that is presumably why I got to hear about it from RTE (here) and rushed here to find out more about it, even though I was well aware that it will likely be years before its true origin is known. (Incidentally, those who claim the acidity of Venus's clouds is some kind of insuperable problem for life might want to give some thought to extremophiles in general, and to the Nobel-Prize-winning discovery of Helicobacter pylori in the supposedly impossibly acidic environment of our stomachs in particular) Tlhslobus (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is interesting news. While it doesn't have to have a biological origin, it is known that microbes survive and reproduce in our atmosphere. Also it is known that impacts can cause rocks containing microbes to transfer microbes from one planet to another.S o, it's possible that microbes from Earth are alive in the Venusian atmosphere. Also it could be that life evolved on Venus and that Venus later became an inhospitable planet, bu with microbes still alive in the atmosphere.  Count Iblis (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is interesting news and excellent ITN material of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Fascinating news story and the article is FA. What's not to like? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment While I would welcome more science news at ITN in general, I would really want editors who are knowledgable about this subject to weigh in on this discussion and evaluate the significance of this, much like did . As , It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know this story very well, to the point where I have a conflict of interest on it. I'm therefore deliberately refraining from commenting or !voting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The paper that elaborates the discovery is available here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly oppose the current blurb which implies there's life on Venus, which the article does not state. The abstract says that the concentration is unusually high and that they do not know the pathway how it formed. "PH3 could originate from unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or, by analogy with biological production of PH3 on Earth, from the presence of life." So, if we post this, we should water down the hype a lot, which would make the blurb not very interesting (definitely not mentioning life in the blurb). Although this is a very interesting science story itself. --Tone 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current blurb, per Alsoriano97 and Tone, as it is sensationalist and implies a potential discovery of life on Venus. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but with a slightly more cautious blurb. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I like the alternate blurb(s) better than my original blurb. Would support them over the one I wrote up as nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either of the alternate blurbs. They communicate the discovery without sensationalizing. Radagast (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the potential discovery of a substance known to only be produced in high quantities by living matter is definitely something newsworthy. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not. Sure it's not confirmation, but it's a big signpost and it wouldn't be surprising if this causes a mission to Venus to be launched in the future. Banedon (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important news that may renew interest in Venus. A slightly less implicative blurb should be used, however. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 04:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurbs. Phosphine has been found on other planets, but my understanding is that those discoveries are explainable by something other than life and this one, so far, is not. The Moose  04:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurbs. A very cool discovery, and although I suspect we're going to learn more about exotic chemistry than we will about aliens, I still support it. Very nice articles both for Venus and Phosphine, and the similarity of those two names in antiquity piques my locutionophile side. Not mentioned in the Phosphine article is that the atmosphere of Venus is especially suited for reacting phosphine into other products, and the fact that any steady-state phosphine could be detected means that it is being constantly produced in abundance.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support huge deal in astrobiology, even if it turns out to be a dud. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A major discovery. If a biosignature like this was detected on an exoplanet 1,000 lightyears away it would still be a pretty big deal and definitely newsworthy, but to find one in our own Solar System is beyond incredible. GWA88 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support what's wrong with people here? This is the first not-so-subtle, actually credible, evidence of that "Earth is not special really".  How can people oppose this but post "recurring" disasters that happen at a faster rate?  Is this still an encyclopedia?  2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting. Just wanted to mention that the carbon-based life is not quite up to standards of the main page.  I suggest Life on Venus as a much nicer alternative. 2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Was about to say that unbolded links don't need to meet the quality criteria but yikes that page is a mess, agreed. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 07:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * When this is debunked, I hope that people here have the strength to post a retraction ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that phosphine wasn’t discovered? Stephen 09:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he's suggesting the blurb is way too close to the middle-left panel. —Cryptic 12:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull. The blurb is way too credulous of the biosignature possibility, despite the preliminary nature of this work.  The detection is one thing, but the significance of it is far from clear and there's a lot of upselling of this by the involved parties.  We have no business posting this here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping to . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The "possible" is deployed exactly for this reason. The only reason such an assertion passed muster in peer review was because there is no known route to phosphine in the Veneral atmosphere. Phosphine is not exactly a niché compound; it has a very long history within chemistry and industry, lots of work has been put into producing and studying it. The Veneral atmosphere is loaded to the gills with sulfur oxides which should very aggressively react with phosphine. By all known chemistry, there should be no phosphine on Venus. The fact any could be detected means that it is being produced, and aggressively so, because the bulk atmosphere is perfectly suited to transform it to something else. So, we're left with two options: 1.) this discovery leads to a heretofore unknown mechanism to produce phosphine, or 2.) this discovery confirms what is known about phosphine, which also happens to suggest life outside of Earth.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull Agree with Vorbis here, Wikipedia is not a popsci publication [where this news has gained traction], even stating "possible" seems to be stretching it based on current research. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - agree with supportive comments above - "Alternative blurb" seems the current best - after all - seems phosphine was detected in the Venusian clouds, and, as far as anyone seems to know at the moment, phosphine may be a possible biosignature - Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. This has certainly been in the news this week, and I don't agree that the blurb is overstating the matter. It reflects what sources are saying, which is that the discovery reflects a "possible" sign of life,no more than that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I came here after seeing DV's post at AN. But I have to agree with Amakuru; the current blurb seems not to overstate the gist of what I've been reading about it. DV will have to elaborate, please! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the blurb is neutral and factual, and in the News.  People will mostly definitely come looking for it.   You can't explain why it's in the news without mentioning that it's a possible biosignature.  ADS says I've never co-authored a paper with Jane, so I don't think I'm too in the tank. Wily D  08:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Although, yes, grammatically it needs to say possible. Phosphine is a known biosignature on Earth, so it is a known biosignature, but it needs to be worded carefully enough so it doesn't imply it's a known biosignature on Venus. Wily D  08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a biosignature also for Venus, but no single biosignature is absolute proof for the presence of biological processes. Ultimately, biology is nothing more than chemistry, and from only one biosignature it's difficult to rule out some alternative complex abiotic pathway that can explain the observation.  Count Iblis (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I would say "A biosignature is something that is proof of biological processes", similar to the definition here: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2017.1729 ) It's a problem, that we don't really know what might be a clear biosignature, but that's something we're working on.  Maybe it's just astronomer jargon, but it's clear that without qualifying it as "possible" or "potential", several people understood the phrase to mean proof of life on Venus had been discovered.  Wily D  11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Yoshihide Suga

 * Wait for inauguration parliamentary election . We already posted the resignation. Oppose the BLP which I tagged with a few CNs. Oppose the election article which is just lists and tables. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once 2020_Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Japan)_leadership_election has refs and a prose update. We post leadership changes at election time not inauguration time - unless we want to erect a wall of text every quadrennial January... --LaserLegs (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. May resigning and Johnson taking over had more importance due to the overarching Brexit issue. Abe resigned due to health issues, not a scandal or controversial issue, and presumably the new leader will be like minded. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. Once he's inaugurated, we can post. I don't buy this "overarching Brexit" business. Changes of leader are de facto ITN/R, and the Johnson precedent should be followed. Obviously this is also dependent on article quality - I haven't yet checked that aspect. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNR says "heads of state" which is put us in the curious position of posting changes in powerless figure heads while taking a pass on the chief executives of G7 countries. Numerous attempts to correct this have not succeeded - though I'm thinking to start another. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that, makes much more sense. President of Ireland and President of Germany are not worth posting, but a change in the Taoiseach or the Chancellor would be newsworthy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to post the last change of Taoiseach (I supported it, but that's beside the point), so trying to make it ITN/R seems a bad idea, especially on the excuse that the German and Japanese PMs supposedly need to be ITN/R, even though they will almost certainly get posted anyway (subject to quality).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "Johnson precedent", we judge each nomination on its own individual merits. There are also powerless/puppet PMs. In Russia it depends on which office Putin decides to hold. There are reasons that we post heads of state that I won't repeat here. We post most changes in head of government as part of a general election, those that aren't part of one get evaluated on their own merits, and a party uncontroversially changing its leader, who will presumably carry out the same policies, counts for less IMO. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Putin is literally the one exception. I'll move this to ITN/R this afternoon so we can finally put an end to the insanity. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no insanity here other than expecting different results from revisiting the same issue over and over. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well no, people come and go, or they stick around long enough to see that the status quo doesn't make sense. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The status quo may not make sense, but it doesn't follow that it makes sense to try to waste everybody's time trying to change it with little or no prospect of consensus on new wording, when any agreed new wording would likely just make a bad situation no better, and likely even worse. And especially not in this instance, because a new Prime Minister of Japan will almost certainly be posted regardless of what ITN/R says (the only question here seems to be when to post it, not whether to do so),provided it reaches the required quality. However you might be right to try to change ITN/R if and when it fails (for reasons other than genuine lack of quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Per Amakuru. New PM of Japan (4th-largest economy) would be ITN-worthy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when he actually takes office as PM. Added an altblurb for when that happens This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either now or when he takes office, based on its self-evident newsworthiness, unless the article genuinely fails a quality test (and possibly even if it does, if only to avoid another time-wasting attempt to change ITN/R in a way that will probably either fail, or leave things no better, or make things even worse).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for Suga's inauguration.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we extend change of head of state/govt. to procedural ones such as this one, I thought it was limited to electoral changes. If not then we probably shouldn't post this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inauguration is now official, per Japan Times. Juxlos (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I am not impressed by the article, which is quite short for such a prominent political figure and needs a couple refs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support he is now the PM. The article could be bulked up but none of it is particularly controversial about his life. Doesn't really take away from the message, which is a new PM. Albertaont (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , can we use Altblurb on the post, please. I see there is sufficient whitespace, and Altblurb should fit well in that space "Yoshihide Suga becomes Prime Minister of Japan, replacing Shinzo Abe."Ktin (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sounds reasonable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aline Chrétien

 * Support article is fine, I'm really struggling to see how a PMs wife warrants an article but I know better than to wade into an AfD over it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – adequately sourced thanks mainly to Bloom6132. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marking as ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: September 2020 Western United States wildfires

 * Support – also blurb if preferred. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Maybe we can finally get this story up now. P-K3 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per my reasoning in the Sept 12 ITNC. This is a much better target (outside of the focus being on September but that's less an issue right now) and reflects the ongoing. --M asem (t) 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is the way to do it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly prefer a blurb (with the expectation that it will go into ongoing when it would roll off). It's not like we're cycling them off the template so quickly that nobody sees them; the bottom one is two weeks old.  The wording doesn't have to differ significantly from the one proposed yesterday - its real problem was choice of target article. —Cryptic 23:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed to blurb. Can post to ongoing if this gets kicked off.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to square miles (km²) cause we're in size of Wales territory here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've been over this. No. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is there a reason you're opposing besides "we've gone over this before"? Because things change. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted as blurb Stephen 00:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a decent satellite image of the smoke if you want to swap the pic. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Let's get it.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  00:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I agree that this article is better suited for the main page than the one nominated below. Good work to those who improved it. Davey2116 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Finally! (Eventually, though, a likely candidate for Ongoing. ) – Sca (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Photo Comment The photo doesn't really show anything. Could we find a suitable pic of the orange-sky thing? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - glad to see this finally made ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The photo quality has been questioned both here and at ERRORS, and I am inclined to agree. We need a better quality image or I may revert to the last one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's moot now because we've got an enhanced image of Venus in the box, but a satellite photo was just fine for the Brazilian fires we featured last year --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jack Roland Murphy (AKA Murph the Surf)

 * Comment Article is very well composed and the polished. I've reffed everything save the first para of Life after prison.130.233.3.21 (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks "okay" but needs an ib and reworking of the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "ib"?130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 California wildfires

 * Snow oppose We've been over this This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow oppose No.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  04:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Same as my comments before: Notable? Incredibly so. Articles? Absolute mess that topic regulars seem adverse to fixing. WP:CFORKs left and right without any real work on the main article(s) needed for this event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This nomination covers NINETEEN articles across three states since mid-August, the majority of which are content forks: 2020 California wildfires, 2020 Oregon wildfires, 2020 Washington wildfires, Loyalton Fire, August 2020 California lightning wildfires, River Fire, SCU Lightning Complex fires, August Complex fire, CZU Lightning Complex fires, LNU Lightning Complex fires, Hennessey Fire, North Complex Fire (2020), Creek Fire, El Dorado Fire, September 2020 Western United States wildfires, Santiam Fire, Oak Fire, 2020 Washington state Labor Day fires, Evans Canyon Fire. The main articles just list fires in a simple table and do nothing to convey the severity or importance of these fires to the reader. They're incredibly lackluster articles that have limited use to readers. Some of the individual fire articles have detailed information on progression so that's a plus...but others are horrendously outdated or straight up stubs. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but Oppose on multiple factors largely addressed above. This is major news. Under normal circumstances I would strongly support. But our coverage is too disjointed, and of at best, indifferent quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- this is the most prominent story in the news today. The SNOW closers aren't explaining their reasoning at all. I understand the quality issues with the articles, but that can be fixed. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  07:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and suggest changing the nomination header to 'United States western wildfires'. Given the scope of the fires, the most appropriate article for bolding in a prospective blurb is September 2020 Western United States wildfires. This article is actually not in such bad shape, in terms of referencing in particular, and is appropriate in terms of scope. There are lots of other articles floating around, of course, but they don't need to be mentioned in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk)
 * Support the suggestion from once that alternate target is cleaned up --LaserLegs (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, this is much more significant (Vox) than I thought at first. The article has many problems as pointed out above, but the current wildfire season is one of the more prominent and impactful seasons i had ever seen personally.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT, title is fine as is. Over 25 wildfires are actively burning simultaneously from Northern to Southern California. Many cities have thick smokes. Air quality index in many cities are above 200, which is hazardous to human health. See map of fires at fire.ca.gov. See red and purple color area in map of air quality at epa.gov. Many cities have evacuation warning as wildfires are near homes.SWP13 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the Americans burn all the time argument? Snow opposes argument lack quality. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – for Ongoing  – The Western U.S. fire disaster is likely to persist well into October. The unprecedented magnitude of these multiple fires, which have killed at least 30 and left hundreds of thousands homeless and at risk, is so great that it's very odd indeed not to list the topic, at least in Ongoing. The reading public does not understand its total absence from the Main Page. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would Support the September 2020 Western United States wildfires (though simply retitled "2020 Western United States wildfires" since these are continuations of events from August) as an ongoing. That article is generally well put together and is far better than just a table of fires. Ongoing between no single event has happened beyond the massive haze that is causing people to take notice much like the Amazon fires last year. --M asem (t) 13:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree re the article cited by Masem, and with removing "September" from the title, since the CA fires have been going on for two-plus months. We also could change "United States" in the title to "U.S." or just drop it. (Where I live, in SW Idaho, we've been plagued with varying degrees of "smaze" for weeks. It's gotten worse since Oregon blazed up. This too shall pass, but not soon.) – Sca (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In titles, we should always spell out "United States" unless it is part of an official abbreviation or the like. --M asem (t) 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really not necessary. Cf. 2020 California wildfires. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for a range of reasons. As noted above by Cyclonebiskit, there are numerous redundant content forks resulting in 19 articles, many of which lack the content that one should see in a standalone article. The proposed nomination is for a blurb which links to wildfires, California, Oregon and Washington State. The Wildfires link is problematic as it is a redirect, and the Washington State link is problematic as it is a disambiguation page. Regardless, none of these four articles are particularly notable to the specific 'news' under discussion, ie, wildfires in those locations. Finally, the blurb does not mention the country in which this weather event is taking place. Chrisclear (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My my, such a litany of offenses! – Sca (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality and content forking. <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 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for Ongoing'' but otherwise Oppose. Content forking still needs to be addressd. See the article's talk page.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. What we're witnessing is that due to rapid climate change quite a lot of California now has a desert climate, but there is still a lot of vegetation there. This triggers enormous wildfires with the end result that the entire area will end up becoming desert wasteland. Count Iblis (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We are an encyclopedia and not a news agency. The posting can wait forever and Wikipedia will be the better for it. This project is here to improve the encyclopedia, not to announce news. The only cudgel we have to ensure that the article starts off on good footing is withholding posting. The proposed article is still missing its core. It needs a summary of the most notable aspects of the fires listed in § List of wildfires. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S., I would Support Western United States wildfires as either ongoing or blurb. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Newer article of better quality nominated above. Suggest closure of this discussion as the newer one covers the same topics as this.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) U.S. Open

 * Oppose – Proposed target is a listicle with no prose on tournament matches. Would support with Naomi Osaka in bold but the section on the US Open is currently unsourced. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – ALT. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – ALT II, the men's article and Thiem's article are not ready. There is nothing stopping us from posting Osaka since she won yesterday. Thiem can be added if and when the article is ready. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same problem as last year, the article is just an indiscriminate dump of data, with no prose discussion of the event at all. Needs significant work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs at least a tournament summary, and some unsourced sections. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. A collection of statistics and tables is far from enough for a page to be posted to the main page. Maybe Naomi Osaka is a more appropriate target article; so as the men's champion Thiem/Zverev. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II for now. Would change to ALT III once Thiem's article is ready. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose on quality as per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added an ALT1 blurb with Naomi Osaka as the target article; the men's champion will be added in the same style when that match concludes.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yesterday, I tagged the citations needed at Naomi Osaka. I think I speak for everyone when I say, we cannot post a BLP with citations missing. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , all cn tags at Naomi Osaka have been sourced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITNR says it's the edition of the tournament, not the individual,  which should be targeted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. I wish it weren't, but it is. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've omitted the first half of that sentence, which says "Generally, the specific event article for that year/time period is the target article in the blurb". I would read the clause you mention as determining whether to bold-link the winners in addition to the main event, not instead of it. In any case, it doesn't look like that clause was added on the back of any specific discussion on the talk page, so I wouldn't expect it to override consensus here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:In the news. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The individual, Naomi Osaka, cannot be the target article. It won't be newsworthy then if she is the target, not the tournament itself. Removing Altblurb 1.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:ITNSPORTS says winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The new altblurb is fine. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove blurbs after they have been voted by name. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do not set a bad precedent by circumventing the lack of quality of the main event's page by posting a blurb with only the players bolded.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can tell from the archives,, the US Open hasn't been posted since 2012.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still opposed, per Bagumba and TRM. I don't think posting the winners, just because the article itself is crap, is a sensible solution. It's baffling to me that golf and tennis, two of the biggest sports in the world, and with apparently dedicated WikiProject, manage to churn out such dross, tournament after tournament. At least with be golf one, somebody stepped up to make improvements. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am planning on adding prose summaries on each day's section of the day-by-day section of the article to address the concerns of those above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you axe the "day by day" section altogether (or at least hive it off into a subpage) and just write a unified prose summary of the whole event, subdivided by competition instead of by day? I don't think anybody cares what day something happened, and it gives it a disjointed feel. The article is really poorly structured right now, even aside from the lack of prose, and that would be a definite step in fixing that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , consider summarizing the singles finals first. If the blurb is going to be about the winners, I would want to at least see how those championship matches went.—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and : just want to ask advice of both of you: would you support getting rid of the day-by-day section (as advised by Amakuru) and combining the new tournament summary section with the events section lower down in the article? I would think it to be unnecessary to have both a tournament summary section with prose on each event and a separate section with just some bullet points and flags. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I dont need it from an ITN perspective; however, I'm not sure it there are project standards. Is there another successful Grand Slam ITN you can pattern it after?—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , 2016 Australian Open was one of the last, if not the last, Grand Slam to be posted, so I'm planning on modeling this page after that; I've split the day-by-day into a subpage and I'm going to expand the "Events" section with prose about each competition. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have added prose to 2020 US Open (tennis) and plan to do so for the remaining sections. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Remove altblurb 3. It is literally the same as Altblurb 1 except bolding the players (nothing important about them, it's the tournament that's important and it won't be ITN/R then) and not adding "the" in front of the US Open. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITNSPORTS: winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:In the news. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, this clause is being misquoted. The page says the event's article is the one to post. The thing about winners is just an addendum. Sometimes we also link winners as well as the event, but it is never instead of the event. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , then why say "Generally"? The Awards section at ITNR says, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." So your interpretation of the clause is just as arguable. If that was the intent, it would say "The winner can also be bolded in addition." --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps you're right. I was about to undo my last comment actually, as it sounded unduly aggressive when I read it back. No doubt your query at ITNR will sort the matter out, but it seems local consensus in this thread is against posting the winners right now. cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blurb that deephasizes the event article. That's ITNR. That needs to be up to speed. If that isn't up to the quality, then we don't post. It's not that hard. Other sport event articles easily have a good quality article without hours of the event completing (TRM puts us to shame with Boat Race nearly every year, but Super Bowl and other sports events are usually just as close), there's no reason this could not either. --M asem (t) 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not "nearly". Cheers! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (pinging all who voted oppose: ) Prose has been added for men's and women's singles section under 2020 US Open (tennis) and will be soon added for all other sections. I would appreciate if you would re-evaluate. Thanks, PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for adding the prose. Upon further review, I find the overall layout confusing.  I think sections for Players and Seeds do not need to be duplicated in the main article when that detail is in child articles like 2020 US Open – Men's Singles.—Bagumba (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have moved many of the large, clunkier tables off of the page and onto the child articles you referred to, and I have made minor changes to the order in which sections appear. Does that look better? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck ALT2 and ALT3 as they de-emphasize the event, and I believe that the original target article has been brought up to speed. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Prose is much better, still areas to improve as some areas are still just tables. Also, You can remove the altblurbs 2 and 3. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am willing to work some more to improve the article; what areas could use work? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A place to improve will probably be the section about the wheelchair competitions. Those currently only have a link the the subarticle and some data on who won. Otherwise, the article is much much better. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am currently cleaning up the "Point and prize money distribution" section, replacing the tables with sourced prose. I will take care of the remining events subheaders when I am finished! Thanks for your suggestions. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have finished adding prose to each event subsection; additionally, all tables in the article have either been reformatted, replaced with prose, or moved to a child article. Also pinging oppose votes whose concerns about article quality have now been addressed: ) PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better! Changing !vote to Strong support. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved and has a sufficient amount of prose.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Newman (baseball)

 * Comment Sourced, but is this person actually notable enough for an article? Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Greetings. Just by way of clarification, RD discussions are to judge merits of the article (stemming from quality primarily), and not about notability. More details on the criteria here WP:ITNRD. Put simply, if the person has a Wikipage that is not under discussion for deletion, the article is eligible for consideration for RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is missing many citations and has a few broken links too. Will need to be fixed before this article can be ready for homepage. Ktin (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Looks good per the edits and note below from . One more pair of eyes, and I think this is good to go to the homempage. Ktin (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , citations added, the dead links have archive urls present so all should now be fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – short article, but look like it meets the criteria. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Navid Afkari

 * Weak Support Article is on the short side but it is not a stub and appears to be adequately sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately the article has devolved into an NPOV train wreck. There is no possibility of it being posted in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:ITNRD requires the subject have a biography, but the page seems to be more about the death sentence and execution. Unless sources exist where his life can be fleshed out as a true biography, the page might ultimately need to be moved to a non-biographical name.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above, this article is almost entirely focused on his death. There must surely be some information on his life and sporting career that can be added. If not, maybe this article should be renamed to Death of Navid Afkari instead. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important topic. Maybe it should be renamed to Death of Navid Afkari because even in the Persian Wikipedia there are no details about his wrestling career. I tried looking for more information by searching his English name on Google, but could not find any more, among the sea of articles about his death. It seems like the only way would be for someone who knows Persian to go to obscure wrestling websites in Persian to get more details. Tradedia talk 03:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, the consensus for the fatal shooting of David McAtee a few months ago was not to post because it was about the shooting and not a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the info. Tradedia talk 05:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Terence Conran

 * Weak oppose a few places where sourcing could be improved, including several unsourced paragraphs in "work" section.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with, sourcing needs to be improved across the article. It also suffers from what Amakuru pointed out in one of the other articles, rather than coherent prose the article has a list of disparate bullet points (across sections). E.g. In 2008, the subject did this. In 2010, he did this. Ktin (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Cuties

 * Snow oppose. Twitter hashtags are not notable. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  06:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Nixinova.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nixinova. Wikipedia is not social media nor should we act like a trending ticker on it. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  06:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait if if Netflix pulls the film due to pressure from PC right wing religious snowflakes then we have something, else it's just their usual whining. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. A strictly national dispute with a mid-sized company is always going to struggle to reach ITN status, and this is way below any reasonable threshold.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the film is removed or banned, it could be important news. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Entertainment trivia. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Fahey (Australian politician)

 * Comment. Clean article. Good structuring. Requires a good amount of references / citations across the sections (and I see that a couple of folks are already working on it). There are a couple of subjective lines in the career portion, that should come off during a round of copy editing.Ktin (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is terrible really, and a poor tribute to a man who contributed so much to sport. But it is fully referenced now at least. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we have some additional eyes (and opinions) on this one? Seems like this does fit the hygiene standards for homepage. Don't want to miss because this was lost in the midst of the other posts. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support To me, it seems good enough to post. I can't see any missing refs.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent shape and sourced appropriately. <b style="color:#ffcc00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00e64d">2302</b> (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Peruvian political crisis

 * Oppose on quality -- article isn't updated, and the lede is way too long. Also, the WaPo link is to the wrong article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment @User:power~enwiki It is the correct article. Please read it completely. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * A two-sentence mention in an article about Coronavirus is really the best coverage there is, or is supposed to signify this is In The News? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a bit of a mess. The article identified at the top of the nomination as the one we are supposed to be looking at, is not actually linked in any of the proposed blurbs. What are we talking about linking on the main page in bold? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is missing refs and has a stubby update. Clean it up, when the trial is concluded either way we can post a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that Peru works like the US, this is only the start of a process, no former declaration of impeachment charges have been made (has had been for Trump). --M asem (t) 12:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of Trump, they would not have started the process in the first place if they did not think they had a decent chance of success at impeachment(not the subsequent trial). The same may be true here. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, so let's wait until the impeachment actually happens. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  07:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Big development and newsworthy even if it doesn't go anywhere (see also: trump-ukraine) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this would be posting that something is probably about to happen; wait for it. Kingsif (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the president is actually impeached. 331dot (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for the outcome. It's a good development to follow, but this gets posted only when Vizcarra is impeached. Somebody else created this article, which is still an orphan and seems to be stale. Could this be merged into that longer article? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kathy Bruyere

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth for subject.  Spencer T• C 22:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bahrain–Israel peace agreement

 * Oppose micro-stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose micro-stub with reactions filler. Also Bahrain is basically a US Navy base and some oil wells and has not been repeatedly invaded by Israel so I'm not really sure on the notability here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , like the UAE? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say exactly like the UAE. A vassal state does what it's told isn't exactly "Nobel prize" material. Let me know when the original 1948 partition is restored and Syria gets the Golan Heights back. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, glad to see where you stand. Thankfully, 90% of the world disagrees with you. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . I'll tell you what would be Nobel prize worthy though is ending a disastrous and illegal war predicated on fabricated evidence. I'd love to see someone get a Nobel for that. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that perhaps we should have something on the broader trend of Israeli normalization of relations with Arab countries. Much of this, of course, is just making official what has been in practice for several years, but the formality is still important. BD2412  T 20:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, posting every small update on these US-backed agreements for Israel is too much. Either we don't post any update and keep waiting for other agreements to surface and post all updates at one go (but that perhaps is not really "in the news") or we stop posting this all together and only update this for major countries/agreements. Lastly, this agreement has not finalized yet and the full details are yet to emerge for it to be judged completely. Gotitbro (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose too short for ITN, RPS is not even 300 words.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the Saudis pile on and make peace with Israel, that might warrant posting, but I don't think every country that does should be posted. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not even certain this is worth its own article.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Support on article improvement. This is another important step towards ending a multi-generational war between Israel and most of the Arab World. Its geopolitical significance also extends to furthering the political isolation of Iran in the Middle East. Frankly I find some of the opposes to be rather shallow given our propensity for posting almost every country that legalizes gay marriage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We did start to roll back posting gay marriage legalization... --LaserLegs (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed. That aside, this is in fact a highly significant develop with serious geopolitical implications. I suspect that it is paving the way for Saudi Arabia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia and Israel have already tacitly been allied for several years. An announcement at this point would be for little more than publicity. BD2412  T 15:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article needs major expansion per above but the event itself is yet another historic breakthrough in the Middle East. Dan the Animator 19:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait last week there was a nomination for joint agreement economic between Serbia and Kosovo, and through an editor's fact-checking it was realized that the agreements were actually between the US-Serbia and US-Kosovo. At a minimum, we need to wait until September 15 to see the exact agreement that is signed this time. We are not here to promote an administration, but to provide proper news. Albertaont (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a peace agreement. While formally there was a state of war, in practice it was not all that different from countries imposing sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea and its involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Suppose that the EU lists sanctions against Russia with no improvement in the situation on the ground in Ukraine. Then no one would call any such agreement between the EU and Russia a peace agreement, it would be criticized as appeasement. Similarly the so-called "peace agreement" between Bahrain and Israel, and also the UAE and Israel is nothing more than an appeasement deal. The deal will end up strengthening the position of Iran, Russia, China and the EU, and weakening the position of the US in the Mid East, so it is a highly significant deal in this respect. Count Iblis (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: H. Jay Melosh

 * Oppose not updated not referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He died a few hours ago, no news organization has reported on this yet. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub, death not reported by any reliable source. P-K3 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no reliable source seems to be available.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Boldly re-opening per report of DOD in NAS.130.233.3.21 (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agnivesh

 * Comment. RIP. Clean article, nicely sourced for the most part. Works (i.e. Books and magazines) need sourcing (should be easy), and one round of copy edits (minor) will get this article ready for homepage. I can work on it later this evening. Ktin (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Fixed the pending citations (including the additional ones called out by below), and also did a round of copy edits. The article meets RD standards and is good for the homepage. If someone wants any additional edits, I am around for sometime. Else, this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support sourcing seems good. "Early Life" could use a few more references, but I don't see any dealbreakers.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @, @, @, and @ - Pardon the intrusion. This should be ready to go. Ktin (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Toots Hibbert

 * Oppose for now - quite a few citations needed. I'm also not mad keen on the structure of the body, but I guess it's fine as a start class once the cites are sorted. For a guy who was at his peak in the 60s and 70s, by all accounts, it's strange that the 21st century section is longer. And the latter reads more like a bullet pointed list of tours and so on rather than coherent prose. The typical sort of thing that happens when miscellaneous titbits are added to an article over time, giving a skew towards the post-Wikipedia era! Compare the sizes of the sections Pete Sampras and Andy Murray for more evidence of this phenomenon. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Agree, Amakuru. The article needs work. Was actually shocked that the page was in the condition it is in given the prolific cultural contributions of the subject. Wanted to get this on the radar now regardless. I have done an initial pass but invite others to help refine and expand the page so it is suitable for inclusion. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb – The definition of transformative world leaders in their field. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Per The New York Times: Although Mr. Hibbert never attained the same level of global fame as Bob Marley ...—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I am saying, blurbs have become a popularity contest instead of an indication of influence. Elvis gets credit but Sister Rosetta Tharpe is ignored. The rest of the NYTimes quote says "he was immensely popular in Jamaica and was adored by critics and fellow musicians for a body of work that helped establish some of reggae’s fundamentals." --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, Notability as defined by only the 'most famous' feels like it devalues the other participants. Bob Marley, in this case, is the 'most famous' reggae musician. However, a more true definition is that he simply the 'most famous export.' There were pioneers, like Hibbert, who preceded Marley and laid the groundwork for Marley -- then went on to have Grammy Award winning careers of their own. Simply said, most subjects have a constellation of stars, and Hibbert was one of them, even if Marley was the brightest. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb per Bagumba. A decent article, though not that much in the news when it comes to the blurb. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations have been addressed. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Comment on blurb how does he compare to Bob Marley? I always assumed that Bob Marley was the founder of reggae since he popularized it a lot. If he is equivalent in influence and popularity as Bob Marley, then I will support the blurb. If not, than no. Dan the Animator 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Don Letts in Rudeboy: The Story Of Trojan Records argues that Hibbert "is responsible for launching the genre we know as reggae." Hibbert "invent[ed] the word and arguably the genre." Our article on Reggae, even before his death, gives him credit for the word reggae. Dictionary.com also credits him for the word reggae. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Kite (talk). I am going to keep working on the article regardless. Glad Hibbert is recognized, and, that our community discussion about the definitions of notability has a resolution. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, Rolling Stone ranked him No. 71 in their "100 Greatest Singers of All Time" in 2010.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Reggae is a distinct form of music, which has transformed the way musicians produce and compose music. By admission from numerous primary (musicians) and secondary (writers) sources, Hibbert is the definitional founder of the genre and even more uniquely, invented the word to describe the genre. This flatly satisfies the transformative world leaders in their field stipulation for RD blurbs. Whether this-or-that artist composing within the genre is more popular is moot - they are composing with Hibbert's genre, and Hibbert was successful and popular in his own right anyway. I routinely oppose RD blurbs, but I can in good conscience support this one.130.233.3.21 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pamela L. Reeves

 * Support . Looks good enough to me. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A bit short, but adequately sourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Similar to the previous judge article nominated for RD a few days/weeks ago, would like to see a little bit more about notable cases presided over: for example, information like that included in this article.  Spencer T• C 03:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a fair point. I opposed a similar RD (the Queens borough president IIRC) a few weeks ago for having no useful information about the notable part of her career, so the same should apply here. Unmarking as ready, hopefully something can be added today. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I foolishly didn't check this nomination for a few days, so apologies for that. I have added a bit from the article Spencer linked, and I will add a bit more shortly. Would that address your concerns?  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The federal judicial career is pretty brief imo. I'll strike my weak oppose but I'm decidedly neutral.  Spencer T• C 04:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 01:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Minter

 * Oppose the tables appear to be completely uncited and the 1972 Olympic results section has no sources. Dan the Animator 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Professional Boxing Record tables, they are cited, the reference is at the bottom of the section. The Olympic results section had a source for the medal bout, I have added a source for the earlier rounds.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Adequately sourced and decently long.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diana Rigg

 * Comment Sad news. The article is indeed in rough shape. Several CN tags and the tables are almost entirely unsourced. I am not going to bother adding a ton of CNs. This is when an orange tag is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Sad news, but not a major game changer career wise. Just RD only once quality is up to scratch. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an RD nomination. AFAIK nobody has proposed a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, good point, not sure why I thought a blurb was being proposed. Striking this and will also oppose RD on quality, see below. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Wish I had time to help. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, recently she had been in an important TV series, plus wiki page is well-written. Conditionally support blurb, if it includes something about Olenna Tyrell/Game of Thrones.--Joseph (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Subject would merit this even if she had not recently appeared in a TV series. BD2412  T 19:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still a few citation needed tags before this can be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when CN tags are dealt with. Bizarre that people are suggesting that she's notable for Game of Thrones, considering she was a major actress prior to that. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM strikes again. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose television, theatre, awards and honours all need referencing. There's precisely zero point in supporting an RD if the quality isn't there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Comment'. Added a couple of sources at the top level (BFI, Rotten Tomatoes). Someone might have to go through the individual entries and find out the movies, plays, TV shows, that are not covered by these sources, and then tag them. As we learnt recently at Jiří Menzel, this is a non trivial task. But, if someone can volunteer, it would be great! Also, not a bad time to recheck if IMDB is an acceptable source for filmography. Reading WP:CITEIMDB, I would veer toward having filmography be sourced from here. Will be good to get some guidance on that front. Ktin (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not reliable for these types of credits. --M asem (t) 06:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost all done!!! Theater also done! Calling it a night. Very few citations remain, in case someone has the time. Ktin (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support internationally well-known individual. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD. The comments about WP:RECENTISM are rather curious since most people alive today are not going to be familiar with the Avengers, which was on television in the '60s. Nihlus  08:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD right, "Awards and nominations" section is almost entirely unreferenced and some of the TV roles are still missing too. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I filled in the last few gaps in the filmography. Now every theatre, television and film performance is cited (except for 1 early credit which eluded me) as well as every award. Ackatsis (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Great work on referencing. P-K3 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Well done everyone, good effort. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2020 Bulgarian protests

 * Oppose I think it's now too late for a sticky as these protests are losing momentum in the same fashion as those in Belarus but, anyway, it's a bit strange to me that this was not posted during its focal point about a month ago. At this stage, the only news that will merit inclusion is the resignation of the government as demanded by the protesters or serious escalations with many victims.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Shere Hite

 * Comment: There are several outstanding "citation needed" tags. I'm also a little surprised that the words "Hite Report" do not actually appear within the body of the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking as stale Absolutely no work had been done on the article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chhetan Gurung

 * Support fully sourced and is long enough. Don't see any issues with it either. Dan the Animator 20:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - well-sourced by rather short. An expansion on his career would bring the article to posting status. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , It meets the dyk prose size to be featured in the main page.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * DYK prose size =/= adequate depth of coverage of a subject's life to merit an RD posting. At present, there's just about as much information regarding his death as there is about his film career.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The main page is there to highlight the work of our contributors. This contributor has written a good article with what coverage there is in reliable sources. The encyclopaedia's job is to summarise available coverage from reliable sources not the life of the subject. The article is long enough, and it deserves to be posted. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: per Dantheanimator. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short but sourcing is there. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered per above. Did an exhaustive investigation for more information to add; perhaps there's more in other languages but there's disappointingly little about the subject in English. Will go ahead and post to RD since the appears consensus to do so.  Spencer T• C 20:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , One of those cases where a person became notable after their death.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Bizos

 * Comment . Article is reasonable but still needs some work. There is at least one "citation needed" tag and the prose is rather disjointed in the first two sections. I have had a go at the first section. Did he die in South Africa? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * last "citation needed" tag has now been addressed. Yes, he died at his home, but the location of that was not disclosed per NYT ref. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in that case, although the prose really could use some work. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just gave a shot at a cleanup – hope it's a bit better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Maybe the article should be improved, but Bizos was very notable.--WEBDuB (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. By definition, anyone who has a WP article is notable; the question is whether the article is of sufficient quality to be linked from Main Page. rawmustard (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Solid B class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Bell (musician)

 * Comment. I realise that it is not mandatory, but it would be nice if nominators at least tried to address obvious issues before nominating articles for RD... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominating it here is a way of getting more eyes on the article and getting it improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've cleaned it up, and it has basic, sourced information now.—Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I learned a lot from this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is in far better and postable shape from when I nominated. --M asem (t) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Still a bit short, but much in much better shape than last night. Well-sourced. Ready to post.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Belarusian protests

 * Oppose - Mass protests are still ongoing, the article is updated daily. --c (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that it is updated daily would you kindly point out the updates today or yesterday that were about mass protests? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, but that's only one of the standards. The other is that many international news agencies are still reporting on it daily, which in this case, they're not. Please take a look at this before saying it should stay only because "the article is updated daily". Dan the Animator 22:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly per WEBDuB. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh cool, so you can point out the updates today, or on the 8th, or the 5th, or 4th or 3rd or 2nd that were about mass protests? Because I can't seem to find them. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * can you take a look at this and particularly the opposes. Thanks. Dan the Animator 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Referenced paragraphs with new information added daily. Updates from this week do discuss protests. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As it was agreed earlier, many updates on the article DO NOT mean the article is ITN worthy. Dan the Animator 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do you oppose? Most news agencies stopped reporting on this daily to my knowledge. Dan the Animator 22:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing articles at least once a week from both of my main news sources. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, but I look at the Wikipedia article currently featured on the main page so if you can look at the edit history and let me know which updates about mass demonstrations I missed please do. I looked through every content edit for the last 10 days and except for protests this past weekend saw no "mass demonstrations" --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I missed that, could you just link to the edit with the paragraph of new information about protests today? Or yesterday? or on the 5th? Just help me out because I couldn't find it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Go to 2020_Belarusian_protests and CTRL-F "protest." There is discussion of many of this week's protests. The article does not have to explicitly describe the protests every single day. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is about protests. You previously said Referenced paragraphs with new information added daily. I'm just trying to find the edits in the last three days or so where a paragraph was added about protests, since In_the_news explicitly says " In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." --LaserLegs (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Three of the last four days is more than enough. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool so just help me find the edits made in 3 of the last 4 days (and ideally in the last 10 - 14 days) which are new pertinent information about protests and I'll concede that this nom was ill-conceived. I'm just applying the guidelines as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Belarus is a revolution waiting to happen. – Sca (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and the 2020 Bulgarian protests, 2019–20 Iraqi protests, 2019–20 Lebanese protests, and the 2020 Thai protests are not? PLEASE take a look at the other protests going on. Dan the Animator 22:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh could you point me to the WP:ITN criteria where we leave items in OG until something happens? I must have misread it. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support this isn't really in the news anymore (or at least as it used to be). Per the people above saying "article is updated daily," so is the 2020 Bulgarian protests page (which is longer and much better quality (no POV mess) then this one). Just because it gets updated frequently doesn't mean it's ITN anymore. Dan the Animator 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exceedingly Strong Oppose as above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you exceedingly strong point out the new pertinent information added to the article in the last 10 days? ---LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the exceedingly strong oppose. Just an oppose and at most a strong oppose is enough. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Drilling down on the "Europe" section of a half dozen news sites, I can find no mention of this (other that opinion/analysis day-two stories). Ongoing is to prevent continual posting of similar small events from the same larger event. If nothing happens that would even warrant a nomination, than it needs to come down.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. "Belarus protests show no sign of fading as 100,000 turn out in Minsk" three days ago for example? Or "Protesters Flood Streets in Belarus but Lukashenko Refuses to Bend" a day earlier? These are just some particularly obvious ones. There are plenty in major English-language newspapers since then too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comment. I never said "no articles have not been written about this in the last week."  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Super Duper Strong Support per above, in the hopes this cancels out the Exceedingly Strong Oppose above. WaltCip- (talk)  01:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal since it's very much in the news. That other protests articles aren't in Ongoing isn't a reason to remove this one, since it's equally plausible those articles should be added to Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for clearing that up Banedon. Could you help me find the new, pertinent information about protests added to the target article? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see anything important happening on a daily basis so that this should warrant inclusion as ongoing. If this gets removed from the ITN section, it doesn't mean that we no longer keep an eye on the protests but that there's not an update that should be permanently posted for a long period, which is exactly the current status of these events. Should anything significant happens in the period to come, we can always re-post this either with a blurb or a sticky.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, protests seem to be coming to a head at the moment. The foreign ambassadorial protests at the house of Svetlana Alexievich was widely reported across Europe this morning (see 1 or 2) and there has been prominent coverage of the arrest of other leaders around the world (examples 1 and 2). —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, instead of providing links to BBC articles could you show the edits to the article actually linked in the main page where that content was added? The article is about protests, not the arrest of malcontents who have spoken out against the government. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to WP:BEBOLD,, and add it yourself. Article quality aside, you appear to have a distinct agenda on this topic. I can see no reason whatsoever that the repression of a protest movement should not form part of an article on the protests. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to read WP:RS on the subject and port it into an article that 1) I do not care about and 2) I consider to be a WP:COATRACK dumpster fire. I look at an article currently linked in "Ongoing", determined it to no longer meet the WP:ITN requirements and nominated it for removal. That's where my interest in this thing ends. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your repeated commentary here on the merits of the protesters' cause rather belies this supposed nonchalance. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The last event update to the article was on 9 September (yesterday) which is too early for removal and the protests themselves are still ongoing. Brandmeistertalk  10:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for at least looking at the article. That update was a video message of solidarity not a protest. As these things wind down the organizers will continue doing outreach and someone here will hyper-report it to the target article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that (and still, video messages are also part of the protests). Further per article, "The remaining two members of Belarusian opposition's Coordination Council, Maxim Znak and Ilya Saley, were detained the same day... As of 9 September Maria Kolesnikova remains in police custody on Volodarsky St, awaiting trial". Brandmeistertalk  11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still a significant ongoing topic.   – Sca (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still ongoing and very much in the news. Another opposition leader just got arrested. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Is it ongoing, yes. Is it ongoing and one of the top 3-4 items in the news today? No. Its exactly like the 2020 American racial unrests now, still going on but not the world's attention. Albertaont (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only a few days a prominent protest leader was reported to be attacked/kidnapped. Still ongoing and clearly in the news. Gotitbro (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted; pulled;Closed) Ongoing: 2020 California wildfires

 * Support Major disaster in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this is made an ITN/R, seeing as how this happens every year.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sky is dark orange/yellow. Street lights are still on because it's so dark. Wildfires happen every year, but this hasn't ever happened before. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 million acres have burnt, which is apparently a record. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not denying the wildfires are apparently the largest in CA, but compared to fires from previously years where the fires were threatening densely populated areas of CA, these are mostly in rural areas (though have potential to be worse). It's sorta akin to "if a tree falls in a forest", though obviously these needs to be dealt with as they are still a threat to the state in general. But there are also first along the West Coast (OR + WA too), and given these are a yearly thing, and causes are standard - dry conditions + lightning strikes - I'm not seeing this as news to be ongoing. --M asem  (t) 18:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen what the sky looks like in my urban center? The air moves from rural to urban areas. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What does the color of the sky have to do with how newsworthy this wildfire is?--WaltCip- (talk)  19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will stress my Oppose here on quality matters. An article that is mostly a table of what fires are ongoing is not helpful, and the possible target that covers the number of West Coast fires at September 2020 Western United States wildfires isn't close at all to cutting it. --M asem (t) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The west coast is burning up! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support no different than floods in flood season or cyclones in cyclone season there are fires in fire season be it in the United States or Australia. The target article is a list with links to updated sub-articles (long accepted as legitimate updates for OG) so why not post it. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't normally post every flood or cyclone season unless significant deaths or damage is incurred, or there is something else to note. --M asem (t) 18:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange sky or not, it's abjectly crass that this regular event is considered significant while the death of more than 100 in Sudan floods is just "meh". Sudanese Lives Matter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Sudan Floods article got posted. Now these fires have burned over 3 million acres, caused over $800,000 in damage, and killed 12 people. Not significant enough for you??~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose typical for the West Coast and nothing seems special about these one's in particular (in contrast to the Sudan floods, which are actually historic). Will change to support if either a +100 people die or some large record is beaten. Dan the Animator 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Been one of the top stories in the US all week long now. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Wildfires in the extreme western U.S. have reached an intensity heretofore unknown. The new disaster is Oregon, where "unprecedented" fires have destroyed hundreds of homes. A month later, Calif. is still burning. The situation is quite serious and shouldn't be dismissed as run-of-the-mill summer troubles. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing cracks me up like arguments such as "Americans burn all the time." Black lives matter, but black Americans' lives don't. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wildfires May be typical for California, but certainly not for Oregon or parts of Washington. It has been on US and some international news for more than a week. Over 2 million acres have burned, even more than the 2018 California wildfires, where 1.something acres burned. 10 people dying from fires is considered a lot for developed countries. The Sudan floods are historic, but the article needs to be expanded. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Destroyeraa, Muboshgu, and others. Many thanks Destroyeraa 🌀 for messaging me on this. Dan the Animator 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality – Target article is largely a table without sufficient prose giving readers context of what's going on, especially for recent events. Sub-articles are an absolute mess as well: August 2020 California lightning wildfires, SCU Lightning Complex fires, August Complex fires, CZU Lightning Complex fires, LNU Lightning Complex fires, North Complex (2020), and Creek Fire. This needs a more cohesive article covering the primary events of August–September across the West as a whole as the 2020 Oregon wildfires and 2020 Washington wildfires (2020 Washington state Labor Day fires) should also be included. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of these fires, five are in the top 20 all-time for California... Regarding notability, this is by far the most burned acreage in California history (already 1 million acres more than the previous yearly record) and some of the most expansive in Washington and Oregon. As for impacts, thousands of structures destroyed, 16 people killed, and 100,000+ evacuated across affected areas. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we merge some of the fires into one article? I suggest that we merge the August+September California wildfires, the Oregon wildfires, and Washington wildfires into something called the 2020 United States West Coast wildfires or something like that. That way, there won't be so many forks. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, merge the bulk of the articles into August – September 2020 Western United States wildfires. Some of the well-developed sub-articles like North Complex (2020) can stay, but all the lightning complexes are woefully underdeveloped and should be merged. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There is no reason for us to have 18 spin-off articles (my count) from a topic like this in California alone at this stage. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (on significance at least, I don't know about quality) - A major disaster with heavy news coverage. Those saying this is typical for the West Coast are simply wrong.  While fires occur in the region every year, this year's fires are much worse than normal.  It is true that there were also historically large fires in 2018, but that doesn't make this year's less significant.  People seem to be opposing because less significant fires have been nominated in other years, leading to the impression that this happens every year.  However, if you actually read the articles, it should be clear that this year's fires are of a historic scale. Calathan (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now From what I've seen the fire has been away from major urban centers. "The Sky is Orange" isn't really something huge, and as another mentioned above the article needs work on consolidation. Juxlos (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not - it's in the news and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Obviously meets our notability standard for ITN. However, the quality is lacking. In either the 2020 article or the August 2020 article, we need actual content beyond a list. There is no coverage of preliminary damage reports, evacuations, or containment efforts. A lead section is a summary, but where is the content the lead is summarizing? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support On front of NYTimes.com and BBC.com currently. A record 2.5 million acres have burned in California ..., Over two million acres of land has been burned in California, compared to 118,000 acres burned during this time in 2019.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The best way to address a subject like this would clearly be a prose article. Having a mere list with a dozen spin-off article stubs smacks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:CFORK. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just updated the article by adding some notable fires in a new section. Should be better now.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Tens of thousands of people in three states uprooted as fires increase, threatening thousands of homes.  – Sca (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: — FWIW, German Wiki's ITN leads with the Calif. fires, noting that they are "the most extensive since record-keeping began" (die größten seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen) . – Sca (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 California wildfires, August 2020 California lightning wildfires, September 2020 Western United States wildfires, SCU Lightning Complex fires, August Complex fires, CZU Lightning Complex fires, LNU Lightning Complex fires, North Complex (2020), Creek Fire, 2020 Oregon wildfires, 2020 Washington wildfires, 2020 Washington state Labor Day fires Chrisclear (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support in principle, as contrary to claims above that this is "regular" or "nothing special" these are unprecedented events; however I have to oppose on quality as the proposed target article is not much more than a list. Either more prose needs to be added or several different articles need to be merged.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- Created page August – September 2020 Western United States wildfires. It's currently less than a stub, I really need your help expanding it. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There are multiple wild fires in California simultaneously. The sky is brown with smoke and air quality index is as high as 181 in Monrovia, California from Bobcat Fire on Sept 10, 2020. Multiple cities have AQI of 150 or higher from the wildfires. Example: See Monrovia at airnow and click on Recent Trends button. This link only shows daily data. Not sure how to view previous day data. SWP13 (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article has one paragraph of text, and then a table that lists fires. The whole series of articles on similar topics is one huge mess that needs to be sorted and consolidated.
 * See Talk:2020 California wildfires for a discussion regarding the concerns for the stubbiness of the article.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support: This news item is at the top of the BBC website, where they call the fire season "unprecedented". The Wikipedia article is in fine shape for an ongoing event, containing several paragraphs of description and a completed and informative list. A balanced selection of references are included. OtterAM (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the fires are record-breaking in state history, and neighboring states have been heavily impacted. Also the lead story in many outlets. Davey2116 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Record-breaking fires, massive media coverage, will only cause more destruction. Perhaps the news entry could also mention the 2020 Oregon wildfires and the 2020 Washington wildfires. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we post?~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous comments that the article quality is lacking, and the supports have (largely) not attempted to counter this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to talk with people on the 2020 California fires page. They DO NOT want to improve the page. See Talk:2020 California wildfires and Talk:SCU Lightning Complex fires. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Half a million flee fires in southern Oregon.  – Sca (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we just replace WikiNews with Sca?--WaltCip- (talk)  14:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Walt, that would mean a big boost in my WikiPay. – Sca (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support a blurb which includes Oregon's wildfires. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The impact of the fires makes them worthy of posting. The article isn't ready to be posted yet. -- Calidum  18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a clear consensus on notability. Quality of the article looks fine & I like the list. Most of the prose will be added once the impact and damages are further assessed. I don't think it's necessary to wait until then to post 68.58.65.7 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please draft a blurb. I am willing to +post. El_C 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is would be for ongoing so there's no blurb to post, but at the moment, the problem is quality issues. --M asem (t) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . Right, sorry. But I am also open to posting a blurb at this time. El_C 21:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that several quality issues have been pointed out and as was just said. this needs to be pulled. --M asem (t) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, on closer look, you're right. Pulled, pending a more focused engagement on quality concerns. El_C 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling Comment – The unprecedented magnitude of these multiple fires, which have killed 23 and left hundreds of thousands homeless, is so great that it's very odd indeed not to list the topic, at least in Ongoing. The reading public will not understand its total absence from the Main Page. Pulling it was an editorial mistake, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Target articles that are posted to the Main Page from ITN (or any other main page section) must be representative of WP's best work. We do not feature sub-standard news articles regardless how pressing the news is, as we are not a newspaper. --M asem (t) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but ITN is not an encyclopedia, either. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN absolutely is an encyclopedia, it is encyclopdic articles on current events that are of high quality and in the news. If you want just "in the news", Wikinews is that a way. --M asem (t) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, ITN functions as a window on – or portal to – the news, whether we like it or not. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve been working on the season article, but some editors don’t want to improve it. See the article’s talk page. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jakob Oetama

 * Support. Article is quite good, although in-line citations in the section on "Early life and education" would be best.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, in principle i think you need to update the citations about him. Apart from that, the article is in good shape. 36.69.63.48 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no issues. Dan the Animator 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kenosha protests

 * Oppose. Part of a continuum of continuous police shootings, protests and unrest. If at all, this should be covered under "ongoing", but it seems the Floyd protests were removed from ongoing. Perhaps an appropriate supertopic should be re-added to ongoing?  Sandstein   07:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard rioting now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Protests. Not rioting.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing in the article indicates significant unrest into September. Stephen 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too stale for a blurb. "George Floyd protests" has become a blanket name for notable civil unrest directed at the Tramp administration but it's not really about George Floyd anymore. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from major RS sites. Old news. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Budig

 * Support Good article, no issues. This should be ready. Dan the Animator 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Navalny supporters attacked with chemical weapons

 * Wait far far too early to even assert if this was a chemical weapon. If it was something like a regulated chemical used against civilians like this, that's probably news, but no one has identified it yet, and it could simply be something like tear gas or the like (something more common) which would not be as far significant. --M asem (t) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. Maybe it's news, maybe not. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose where in the target article is this covered and reliably referenced?? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we going to post anything remotely connected to Navalny? "unknown liquid" in the blurb says all that you need to know about this. Gotitbro (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no update. Trump has been using secret police to attack unarmed women with chemical weapons in Portland so the notability bar is pretty high --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Dan the Animator 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 *  Wait . Unfind any confirmation on major Eng.-lang RS sites. – Sca (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: However, Der Spiegel is carrying an article saying (in German) that unidentified assailants in Novosibirsk attacked the office of Navalny supporters with a bottle containing a "a chemical substance," and two people were hospitalized. Sounds comparatively minor, so far. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Minor development of a past headline (Navalny poisoning). If there is an actual popular uprising against Putin that would be worth posting.  Sandstein   07:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not in the news as of 13:00 Wednesday. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We already posted Navanly getting poisoned. Posting just a minor event in a big picture isn't how its done on ITN. Suggest close.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vaughan Jones

 * Support. Looks good. Well cited, clean article. It would be great to build on some of his work as a mathematician. There is a brief mention of knot polynomials / knot theory in the career section, but, it would be good to build on that rather than just a passing mention, if someone has the time. That said, with or without it -- the article meets RD expectations. Ktin (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short, but sufficiently sourced. Another dead Fields Medalist. :( power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Article is adequately detailed and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Jamaican general election
*Oppose per John M Wolfson and LaserLegs. Dan the Animator 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality lots of uncited tables and statements. Consider this a support when those are taken care of. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Table sources are provided either in the tables themselves, or (for the candidate list) in the section introduction. If you could mark unsourced statements in the text itself, that would be very helpful. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but only when citation issues are worked out. Elections are ITNR. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Elections are ITN/R but also an interesting case, with good updates.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for election ITNR. The early call to elections is interesting, perhaps can be highlighted in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tags --LaserLegs (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Resolved.Joofjoof (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready now. Thanks Joofjoof for adding all the refs. Dan the Animator 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Marked issues have been resolved.Joofjoof (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's "wins" in some variants of English grammar if I remember correctly, not "win". Maybe you should rewrite the blurb if both win and wins are correct. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how an election held on the 3rd keeps coming up under the 7th but whatever --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Holness was sworn in on 07/09. But given that the elections happened on 03/09, I think the nomination should have been put in the section for the day when the election results came out. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The election is the event, not the swearing in. keeps moving the nom back to the 7th. Not stale, don't care that much but adhering to process would be nice. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Peacock
*Weak Oppose missing 2 in text-refs. Once that's fixed this is good to go. Dan the Animator 23:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this is good to go. Thanks again Bloom for all your great work. :) Dan the Animator 00:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks far better than Start. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Sudan floods

 * Oppose disaster stub and WP:PUFF --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article also needs a copyedit for grammar --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment needs expansion, not a stub, not really seeing the puff aspect of LL's elegant opposition. If a flood killed 101 people in Europe or America, it'd be main-paged in minutes.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Mostly sourced, but missing a ref or two. Information is also a bit scarce; the main section lists "dozens" of deaths while the "100" figure is near the under of the "response" section, which is not very intuitive. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I'm skeptical about the "disasterporn" aspect of ITN (natural disasters, mass casualty accidents, shootings, etc): while significant to the people involved, they are sadly a routine aspect of human existence and should only be posted if they are so exceptional as to make broad international headlines, which I don't see here.  Sandstein   07:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say "because X made it, so should Y" but at least look at previously posted disaster articles posted to ITN for context. Here's some: Anshun bus crash, 2020 Darfur attacks, and 2020 Kyushu floods. Please consider these and question your definition of "so exceptional as to make broad international headlines" and whether that is aligned with typical ITN standards. Dan the Animator 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Tragic, but 99+ deaths in flooding/landslides happen often in underdeveloped countries. Article is rather stubby, needs expanison. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * that's not the only reason why these floods are notable. These floods are more significant than other ones because: the longest (or one of the longest depending on your stance) rivers in the world (the Nile) reached the highest water level in over a century; for the first time in history the Pyramids of Meroë were threatened; and the rates of floods and rain exceeded the records set in 1946 and 1988. I think the first point in itself should be notable. Read the article in its entirety to fully understand the severity of the situation. Dan the Animator 22:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and weak support on quality, no worse than the example article provided at WP:ITN to demonstrate minimum quality standards. Complaints about ITN being overrun with disasters is a problem with many other significant stories lately not being nominated, not with too many disasters being posted. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and added a less flowery altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Sexton
*Comment: Is it possible to please cite Early years section? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. All paragraphs are cited. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose multiple missing in-text citations. Dan the Animator 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Good job. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is good to go. Thanks PCN02WPS  for adding all the refs and sorry for the late reply. Dan the Animator 20:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All cn tags have been taken care of. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lou Brock

 * Support. Article looks fine. Maybe a couple more things could be cited but this is a B class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support - Overall a great article. Iadded a few cn tags to the article, as some places still need citations. However, other users have added sources and greatly improved the article. Article is ready.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment No outstanding Cn tags at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Hall of Famer with a thoroughly cited article. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations needed at the end of a couple of paras, and a broken ref needs fixing. Stephen 02:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Two CN tags one of which is for a claim that doesn't strike me as a controversial. All in all, it's passable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Latest reference tags resolved. General consensus anyways that quality is sufficient—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kesavananda Bharati
*Weak Oppose there is still a "needs additional citations" template. Otherwise, it's good. Dan the Animator 19:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no DOB, no early life, "basic structure" statement has 13 inline refs, the paragraph doesn't make clear if Kerala was imposing restrictions on him or an institution he represented, doesn't really indicate what he argued to persuade the court (given he "is acknowledged as one of the key actors" it should say more) and the article overall suffers from WP:PUFF and could use a copyedit for grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Cleaned up the statement that had 13 inline refs. Now more manageable. Also added some more details of the arguments. Did a round of overall content cleanup to do away with WP:PUFF. Also see some streamlining by (Thanks!) I think, in the current state, the article should be good for RD. Ktin (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says " attempts to acquire the Mutt's property" and the Matha article says "math, matha or mutt, is a Sanskrit word that means "institute or college", and it also refers to a monastery in Hinduism.". So which is it? Did Kerala attempt to get the land of an institution or an individual? This always happens with these articles where someone points out specific grievances and those grievances are addressed but no one takes the time to actually make the article worth a damn. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Mutt is the anglicized spelling of Matta or Math, and all three are perfectly right spellings as noted here Matha. Regarding, monastery vs institute / college -- I believe they would be both. Typically in these Mutts, as I understand, the monasteries also house centers of learning. Regarding the actual sequence of events, I learnt that the state intended to acquire the land that belonged to the Mutt (as stated in the article). As the chief / head pontiff of the Mutt, the subject of the article filed the petition in the Supreme court.  . Ktin (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, so which "Mutt" because that's what I have been trying to figure out. Not that it matters now I guess it's posted --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , all three of the Mutts (Mutt, Matha, Math) are the same as indicated here Matha. Remember that these are transliterations of words from some of the Indic languages and hence the variations in spelling which do not mean much of a difference. Ktin (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs was asking about the specific type of institution the word means and which was represented in the court, in this case that would be a monastery of sorts. The meaning of the word should be explained in the article itself as well. Gotitbro (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not really. The distinction between monastery and institution of learning is usually fluid in Indic Mutts. I don't think you would be able to speak about one without the other in this case. Ktin (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support thanks Ktin. Looks good now and sorry for the late response. Dan the Animator 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks Dan. That was a new tag. Added additional citations for that statement. Should be good now. Please have a look. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of improvements were carried out and it looks ready now JW 1961   Talk  21:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Deadline for a post-Brexit trade agreement

 * Support it's in the news, article is decent, consequences are real. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as typical Johnson hot air, just reframing the status quo as media management.  Michel Barnier (EU chief negotiator) had already said (on 26 August) that agreement would have to  be reached by 31 October for it to be ratified in time by the Council and both Parliaments. So Johnson says "no, I say the deadline is a whole fourteen days earlier" (paraphrasing). If he had a track record for consistency and truth, it might be notable: he doesn't, so it isn't.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose more parochial nonsense from a government who lied and cheated their way to a majority. Nothing unusual there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose if they hit the deadline and something real happens, we can consider posting then. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Detail of an ongoing political process. Post when there's an agreement or no-deal Brexit happens.  Sandstein   07:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ethan Peters
*Oppose per Yoninah. It is very stubbish. Dan the Animator 23:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Every paragraph is cited, but the article is rather short and cursory. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Support. Article has been expanded and looks ready now. Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is good. Thanks TJMSmith for taking all the time to expand it. Dan the Animator 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried expanding the article to include more about his style and origins. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Though expanded, still stubbish. Only has 8 sources, though still adequately sourced. More information will be needed for this to be posted. Once that is done, I will reconsider my opinion. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 04:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jiri Menzel

 * Comment. Article has only the lede plus filmography (including TV series). Might require restructuring to break the lede into the body of the article. Furthermore, the filmography section, and the TV series section does not have sources / citations. But, I think this can be remedied with some attention by the group here. Also, the talk page says that this is still in a "stub-class", this will need to be changed to atleast a "start class" prior to WP:ITNRD publish. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have taken a pass at organizing the article into sections, cleaned up the front end, and added a section for his roles as an actor. There is a stylization mismatch between filmography as a director, and as an actor -- If someone thinks this should be changed, please do so. If someone can take a pass at sourcing his filmography as a director, I think this article is close to being ready to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb (used for the acting part of the Filmography) is not a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have heard conflicting inputs on this one. I have heard that it is acceptable for filmography. Can someone confirm? Happy to revert the changes asap. Ktin (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to revert – I'm in the process of formatting three other refs that can source this section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added 3 sources (from Rotten Tomatoes, the British Film Institute, and TV Guide). Disclaimer – I haven't looked over in detail whether every entry in the Filmography section is covered in one of those three refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Most of the entries match (at least for the directorial section) . But, seems like there are a few that do not exist in any of the three sources. Would be great if someone can match and ensure that the this section is fully sourced. Once that is done, only the issue of formatting needs to be considered. Ktin (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources, only few missing in actor section. Jklamo (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

* Weak Oppose filmography section and TV series section are still completely un-cited. Dan the Animator 23:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still a bit hesitant. It's definitely better but there's a few films in "As an Actor" subsection that appear to be unsourced. There also seems to be more films shown in the list then the sources have (in As a Director sub-section). See my edits to the page. Will change once at least those are added. Dan the Animator 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh that is an easy explanation. The sources added in the rows were only for those not already covered by the three sources above the table. If they were already covered by those (i.e. BFI, RT, and TVG). Last night we had added a citation needed against rows that were not covered by those three sources (that were added by Bloom). Subsquently filled those entries. Ktin (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support all ref issues are fixed. Thanks Ktin for notifying me and really sorry for not replying earlier. It's a pity that he won't get posted. Dan the Animator 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Any volunteers to help cleanup the filmography section (formatting + references reconciliation)? Once that is done, this article is ready to go to the home page. The window of opportunity is today.Ktin (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Someone has gone in and updated the sources for the Filmography section. Seems ready to me., - Give it a look if you have a bit. Ktin (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ready – marking as ready, assuming that csfd.cz is a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See cs:Česko-Slovenská filmová databáze. The website has some "social" features (rankings, reviews etc.), but the database itself is not user-generated (except the trivia section), registered users are not able to submit new material or edit to existing entries. Jklamo (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale Stephen 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, we tried. Go well Mr. Menzel. RIP. For those who haven't seen his Oscar acceptance speech, here goes link. Thanks for the effort, , and . Ktin (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lloyd Cadena

 * Comment: The article appears to have paragraphs of copyvio from Rappler.com. The article was just created on 4 September, so it would appear this text was lifted from the website. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I removed the copied material. TJMSmith (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose article looks fine but if what Yoninah is saying is correct, than this needs major reworking. Dan the Animator 23:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support... but as one of the users who edit this article, further improvement and reworking like what and  said is needed. Jhenny38 (Starters talk, My contributions) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've removed what appears to be the possible copyvio. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Close paraphrasing issues resolved. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Williams

 * Support fairly decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  22:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per JW 1961 . Comment: as a minor suggestion, it's missing 1 in-text ref (I added the citation needed tag). Dan the Animator 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that tag. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kosovo–Serbia agreement

 * Oppose on shortness of the article. The agreement is clearly significant but the article needs obvious expansion to establish that. --M asem (t) 18:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Also *Oppose blurb because it doesn't mention their recognition (both Serbia and Kosovo) of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Dan the Animator 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per stub article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On article quality. The article and blurb should also stress that the normalization of relations b/w Kosovo and Serbia is limited to economic ties. Gotitbro (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Serbia and Kosovo have finally come to an agreement... to open embassies in Jerusalem!" This smells like more like Trump propaganda than actual progress.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the angle is that Kosovo a Muslim "state" (not really a country) has chosen to recognize Israel but I don't see how that clicks with Kosovo normalizing relations with Serbia which is kind of a medium sized deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close On 2 issues: 1) normalizing on economic issues means little, when neither state acknowledges the formal existence of the other. 2) Kosovo recognizing Israel is a non-news item as it is a secular state in europe, not a muslim state. Albertaont (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a majority Muslim region not an Islamic state, and it's not a country at all with limited world wide recognition. Still. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unclear details and significance of the agreement, and the article itself is not informative enough.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article's been substantially improved now.--Sakiv (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reopened following premature non-admin closure; most of the opposes above concern article quality rather than clear notability issues.  Spencer T• C 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It is a notable event, but notability itself is not enough. We have an obligation to readers to present them with topics that have undergone fact-checking. I have raised a very serious issue on the talkpage: there never was a Kosovo-Serbia agreement. The Trump administration put forward that narrative likely for its own election-related reasons, but Kosovo and Serbia never signed an agreement with each other. Each signed a non-binding document with the Trump administration and delegations from both countries have stated that they never signed an agreement with each other. The title, the narrative and many other details must be fact-checked.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A glorified photo op doesn't deserve front page coverage. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Graeber
*Oppose Missing int-text refs. Dan the Animator 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support refs have been added. Thanks Bloom. Dan the Animator 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Dan above - 6 CN's remaining Support fixed JW 1961   Talk  22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * all "citation needed" tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks ready. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Prominent intellectual and activist. czar  21:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) MT New Diamond

 * Wait At this point, its not a "disaster" as such. No oil has spilled as they rush to contain the fire, and only one person on board is missing. It could get worse, but if all that this ends up one death but no ecological impact, that's not really a ITN event. --M asem (t) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait One death. Wait until fire is under control-more info will come. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose death toll is a meaningless metric but the article is disjointed and stubbish. Write a paragraph or two on the vessel itself (builder, owner, laid down, etc). The problem with all of these articles is that they don't say much because not much is known and it'll either stay that way forever or it'll get expanded but by then it'll be opposed as "stale". Personally I don't like featuring these disaster stubs on the main page but it does seem to be the thing to do. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded and somewhat streamlined the article's prose, but I agree that as the effects are now, it's not really ITN-worthy. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Wait Oppose Let see if there is a spill or more deaths. Good nom on a developing story, but now apparent not ITN-worthy. Albertaont (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sentiment, but that's a rather unfortunate way of expressing it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's unfortunate is the event, not what we say here. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not mutually exclusive! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose a decent amount of time has passed and it seems that this won't become the "environmental catastrophe" it was thought it could be. Still only 1 death as well and there was another accident in the Sea of Japan recently. Dan the Animator 02:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not relevant enough for ITN.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still on fire, says Reuters. Story bears watching. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's out. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment No major deaths and the fire was put out. Though oil spill is still a worry. Looks like a close but should wait for some time to see if there are any updates. Gotitbro (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) GW190521

 * Technically the gravitational wave has been observed rather than the merger. Stephen 08:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is a distinction without a difference. I am not writing this; I am typing it. You are not seeing this; the light is entering your eyes which sends a signal to your brain, which interprets the signals as sight. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can defuse this by suggesting an alternate title: Largest observed black hole collision is detected by LIGO and VIRGO Nick Levine (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of what's significant about this event is not yet captured in the page describing it. I aim to put some effort into that now; let's see how far I get. Nick Levine (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a little happier about this now; I've captured what I thought was most important. I think it might be worth going ahead with announcing this, while it's fresh, even though the article could do with some more work (can't they all). Nick Levine (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting event, but one which has been overplayed in the media. The current blurb is misleading, as they were not IMBHs prior to the merger. The actual novelty here is finding a black hole in the mass gap, yet that's never mentioned in the article. Instead the article focuses on the idea that the product of the merger is an intermediate mass black hole, which depends on the definition you pick and the latter article shows there has been plenty of evidence of those before, even if it was more indirect. The EM counterpart stuff should be taken with a massive grain of salt; the association is far from proven. As an astronomer I find this very interesting, but I'm not convinced that a more accurate (i.e. toned down) article and blurb would appeal to ITN readers. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These black holes are not just in the mass gap, they're also in the range where they can conceivably constitute 100% of dark matter (see Fig 6 of ). I don't know what field of astronomy you're in but I'm finding this pretty damn exciting. Banedon (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That appears to be WP:OR, as I've not seen any reliable sources that explicitly link GW190521 with dark matter. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * see section 6.3 of the paper. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's a possible one, and it's pretty damn exciting. Banedon (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One paragraph in the section on scenarios which are "disfavored either by the data, or by low prior probability of the alternative hypothesis, or by both". <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They can't have written much more, given the unknown prior probability. Besides, anything they write except very general statements (which is what they've written) is likely to be wrong. They say as much, "we do not attempt to quantify such scenarios". You can be sure though cosmologists are going to be looking at the result, I already know some who are. Banedon (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Pretty darn exciting. Nothing recent stated in blurb-needs to be updated. Article also needs to be expanded and updated with new info from new papers.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Often scientific discoveries or conclusions from research are announced long after the actual findings, in order to allow for peer review and other rechecking. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The results were published yesterday. It takes time for scientific results to be verified, analysed, written up, peer-reviewed etc. That it took a year to publish this event should not have any bearing on whether to feature it in ITN - the news is now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Lacks general impact. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What is new about the peer-reviewed articles published yesterday (In the article, the two that are led by "Abbott R.") compared to the number that were published in late June 2020? I think there is a valid question on staleness here, that yes, while the event was first obversed in May 2019 and it took time to understand and process the data, that was first understood in June and only this newer paper narrows down details, which is not really a "new" result. --M asem  (t) 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - seems sufficiently notable - for supportive reasons presented above, esp by Bandon and Nick Levine - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC) - Update: added altblurb2 above for consideration => "First-time confirmed detection of two small black holes merging near a third larger one, and associated with a coincident and uncharacteristic flash of light."    - Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You might be looking at a wrong source - the NYT article is from June; it's currently September. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Support. Reading a few articles, this definitely seems huge (no pun intended) in the world of Astronomy. However, the blurb should be rewritten to draw the significance out to the larger audience. Have attempted a rewrite as Altblurb. Can do with some further polishing., , Ktin (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 Captures the significance. Nice to have some science news on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is no Altblurb3 (at this point). Did you mean Altblurb? :) Ktin (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant altblurb2, updated my initial comment. Gotitbro (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As science news goes this is fairly big, and when it’s “in the news“ is now. Article will only become significantly more informative by becoming much more technical, which (a) takes time to write and means the news is no longer current, and (b) will leave the average reader behind. I know about this stuff, but still found the LIGO press release a complex read. Nick Levine (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No denying this isn't interesting or cool. Fascinating. However blurb needs to reflect something about the new scientific papers - all the blurbs say right now is that LIGO and VIRGO detected the merger, which happened more than a year ago. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and others - AFAIK - the recent studies  now confirm, what only *may* have been detected over a year ago,  which is all reflected in AltBlurb2 above - Drbogdan (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Dan the Animator 21:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurbs proposed are awkward and practically inaccessible to non-experts. I appreciate it's a complex topic, but it really needs some work on getting something the majority of our readers would assimilate as usable and interesting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's called serving the reader. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM -- do you believe that this is an article worth posting on ITN, but, the blurbs are not doing justice and hence the oppose? If so, it will require some collective effort, but, we can polish the blurb. However, if folks believe that the article is fundamentally not for the homepage, then, no amount of polishing the blurb will help. Ktin (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Added Alt 3. I oppose alts 1 & 2 as probably incorrect: alt 1 because we don't know if this event is rare (we haven't exactly had gravitational wave detectors for a long time), and alt 2 because 1) there are only two black holes merging and 2) there have been other black hole mergers detected by LIGO, e.g. GW170104. Banedon (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Refined Altblurb1. Removed 'rare'. It was a word I had picked from one of the news articles . But, that said, removing it seems alright. Done. Ktin (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I think the best Blurb is the first one proposed. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Very good news of encyclopedic significance. Most of the proposed blurbs are a bit clumsy but Altblurb III seems to touch the point well enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, this seems to have the support to be posted, we just need to decide which blurb. Please comment below. I believe we are choosing between original and alt3? --Tone 09:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a lot to tell between original blurb and alt3, imho. Both sound “correct”; alt3 more enticing. Nick Levine (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alt3 is the only one that doesn't contain a factual error. I would go with that, but replace the names of the detectors with 'using gravitational-wave astronomy'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Posting. --Tone 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW - seems consistent with the following => According to astrophysicist Vicky Kalogera of Northwestern University, “This is the first and only firm/secure mass measurement of an intermediate mass black hole at the time of its birth ... Now we know reliably at least one way [such objects can form], through the merger of other black holes.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogdan (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Re "a black hole in the mass gap" – is this similar in its effects to the chrono-synclastic infundibulum? America wants to know. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe "An intermediate-mass black hole is observed…" would be less jargony? The "mass gap" is just "the range between 'small' and 'large' black hole masses", which, until now, no observed black hole has been in. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wick Allison

 * Support short but seems adequately sourced.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Seems OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Seaver

 * Support. First ballot member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and his article is thorough and well-cited. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well written and sufficiently referenced. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  01:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Article ready and good to go. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment as OP. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the supports. As much as I want to see this posted, there are significant gaps in referencing and this article is not currently ready for the Main Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm ready; there are 11 citation needed tags in the article. Please carefully review RD items before rushing to nominate them as ready.  Spencer T• C 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright, the concerns above appear to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The "Career statistics" section is almost entirely unsourced. Those are not supported by a general stats database citation, as they refer to stats limited to niche cross sections like pitchers during a certain era, Hall of Fame pitchers, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was basically WP:TRIVIA, odd and hyperspecific superlatives like "Third most hit batsmen on a Thursday" and stuff like that. I just deleted it, the article is not worse off for it, it was all unreferenced anyways, and if something really feels the article needs it, they can find sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Adequately sourced and ready to go with above deletions. CoatCheck (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He's a baseball hall of famer and led his team "The Miracle Mets" to the biggest upset World Series win of all time. Ahseaton (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The legacy section still needs some citations. P-K3 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've removed WP:OR material from the "Legacy" section. Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've addressed my concerns. Support.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Capel

 * Support I checked the article when I saw his death announced on Cricinfo, and it looked like this. Excellent work with the expansion since then.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short article but everything there is pretty well cited JW 1961   Talk  20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kang Kek Iew

 * Weak oppose- Pretty long article, though several places need sourcing. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. How does length count against the nomination? I (and others) have addressed all the citation tags.--Varavour (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not; it counts towards the nomination. That's why his oppo was "weak." As noted, the sourcing has a lot of issues. Thanks to Coffeeandcrumbs for the tagging.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several paragraphs that end without a single sentence. Stephen 04:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moose Lallo

 * NOTE: I will be working on the article later today to add more citations and other copyediting. Flibirigit (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Completed update of article. Please comment here if there are concerns. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Thorough and referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 02:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please post. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * it's already been posted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lance Finch

 * Support short article but pretty well referenced JW 1961   Talk  20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There's one sentence in the article about his time as a judge; any more info on notable cases he presided over?  Spencer T• C 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 *  support - Very well-referenced, . Good job for updating / expanding it. Article ready. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Erick Morillo

 * Support I was just coming here to nominate him as well. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Awards (seemingly redundant with Awards and accolades) still needs sources. The current ones don't support the awards, just the flavor text about the awards themselves. 1 CN present which may be supported by the print source.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP. Dan the Animator 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Judge

 * Support Long and detailed BLP, and as such the best I could do now is a quick reference spot check, which turned out just fine.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - well-referenced, article good to go. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) China-India border skirmishes

 * Oppose for the same reason as last time. The last skirmish was on June 15, everything since then is diplomatic bickering. Updates are hyper reporting now commentary about the Thai Canal helping China to "surround India". No thanks, not for OG --LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose has something changed in the last few months? Seems to get re-nomed every 3-4 weeks. Outside of India, doesn't seem to be ITN at all. Albertaont (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and procedural note: The sources field of the template is there so that editors can quickly get a feel if the current development is worthy of posting, and is especially helpful for long articles such as this one. It is a little off-putting to have to rummage through the article to find the current event which prompted this posting, only to find that it's an opinion piece.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is good, but the most important parts of the event are not happening these days.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)