Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2021

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

(Posted) RD: Carlisle Floyd

 * Support There were a few cites missing, but I've added those in so I think this is good to go now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Amakuru and Aza24, it looks much more professional now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Quality of article is decent. I'd say it's ready. Jusdafax (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - I supported above, so technically INVOLVED, but it has lots of support besides mine and it's been 24 hours, so seems OK to post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Expo 2020 inaugurated

 * Comment removed image from nom, as we don't post non-free images to the front page. Non-free images should only be used in article space, for the article to which it relates. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - For those who might say "but I don't see Expo on the ITN/R list" -- it's a world's fair. Not saying anyone will think that, but just in case.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've got a few nit picky concerns - proseline in the COVID section, the big empty table of participants - but the only blocker is that orange tagged section on IPM. If we can (legitimately) strike it, I'd be a support.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest reviewing verb tenses since the Expo is now opened (seeing a lot of "will" and should now be "was"). --M asem (t) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The previous Expo 2017 and Expo 2015 don't seem to have been posted at ITN and this one doesn't seem to be getting much news coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to remind you that this is ITN/R, per my comment immediately above your vote. If you want to dispute its ITN/R status, take it up on WT:ITN. WaltCip- (talk)  15:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2015 was nominated but not posted as its quality was not improved in time for posting - this also triggered a review of the Expo at ITNR which obviously left it to be kept. 2017 was never nominated. So these can't be used as data points here. I am seeing news coverage, so that's sufficient for that factor, and only leaves the quality of the article issue. --M asem (t) 15:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know, this is ITNR so all that is of concern is the quality of the article, not the number of pageviews which appears to have become something of an irrelevant disruption lately. Just ongoing disruption, time after time.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the 2015 discussion mentioned by Masem above: Proposal: Remove World's Fairs. The rough consensus seems to have been in favour of the proposal (7 for removal to 3.5 against).  Here's an example:
 * Hear, hear! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Difference is I respect consensus here, rather than continually try to convert ITN to WP:TOP25. Whether or not I personally think the Expo should be at ITNR is immaterial.  Imagine being emotionally mature enough to get over it and work with the community consensus instead of continuing to disrupt the process with tangential irrelevancies?  Here's a suggestion: renominate it for removal from ITNR instead of this endless stream of TOP25 suggestions?  That, at least, is a pragmatic approach for once.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And it was not removed. Period. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The orange-tagged section is tiny and doesn't seem in any way vital; I'd suggest removing it until it's sourced rather than letting it languish unsourced. Otherwise this seems fine, if unpolished. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment orange-tagged section deleted. I agree with Grapple X that the section added nothing to the article and can be dispensed with. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support no major issues or omissions from this ITNR. I've done a tiny tidy-up.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that this thing is open, I've been inspecting the grand spectacle. Here's some observations:
 * It's clear now why CNN is listed as the news source above. That's because "CNN will be the official broadcaster for Dubai Expo 2020."  Note the future tense.
 * The page is dominated by a big table of country pavilions. These all have flags but otherwise seem to be mostly empty.  Consider the topical country of Guinea for example.  What is in its pavilion and how has this been affected by the recent coup?  It doesn't say.
 * But there's prose too. Here's my favourite sentence: "Tickets are also free for people of determination, with 50% off being offered for one caretaker."  But what does it mean?
 * I also checked out the opening ceremony on YouTube. This is two hours long but I haven't made it past the first 30 minutes, which consisted of slow drumming while guys in desert robes slowly tapped their walking sticks.  Next up was a speech but I made an excuse and left.  But the good news is that my online view means that I'm now an official visitor to this thing.  Here's an explanation:"Pre-pandemic, Expo organizers forecast 25 million visitors to the event over its six-month tenure. That number has not been adjusted for its new dates and circumstances, but organizers have since been referring to "25 million visits," which will include repeat visitors and people watching online. Expo's digital offering has become a cornerstone of the event, and Dubai reportedly wants these visitors to be included in its overall attendance numbers. The city is desperate for its visitation numbers to be a success..."


 * Yes, you can smell the desperation.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, meaning that it would be posted upon a adequate update. I don't actually disagree that there are not as important as they used to be, and I've supported removing it from the list in the past, but as long as it's on the list, it will be posted. 331dot (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed, again) Sarah Everard verdict

 * Oppose This is exhausting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons as and per consensus in In the news/Candidates/September 2021 and perhaps In the news/Candidates/September 2021 were opposed. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose local news with no encyclopedic impact. This is not WP:TOP25.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose To further add to the above, this was not a situation that drew a major story as in the death of George Floyd and the subsequent sentencing. While I'm sure legally, justice has been served, this is yet another example of the media giving undue weight on a story due to MWWS. --M asem (t) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Her disappearance, death, the police response to a vigil for her & the prosecution of her killer all gained a huge amount of media coverage in the UK. Unlike the reaction to the murder of George Floyd, there weren't any riots & because Wayne Couzens admitted the crimes he was charged for, there was no trial. Jim Michael (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per TRM. Ain't gonna fly beyond the cliffs of Dover. – Sca (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note the international sources cited from all over the globe. The NYT, for example, leads on the angle that "The extent to which Ms. Everard’s attacker wielded his powers as a police officer in the horrific attack has prompted a wave of new calls for reform in the London police department." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Reopen This discussion was closed in just 26 minutes. But now, 3 days later, it's clear that the story has not gone away.  I was just watching the influential Andrew Marr Show reviewing the Sunday papers, "Many of the papers are covering the Sarah Everard story – there’s lots of different version of that...this is obsessing the country and rightly so..."  Here's some of the latest coverage:
 * Everard murder case sparks urgent inquiry into vetting of police officers
 * Sarah Everard’s killer Wayne Couzens was deployed to guard Parliament
 * Commons Speaker wants Met Police to explain Wayne Couzens' Parliament work
 * London Police, Under Fire on Everard Murder, Respond With Safety Tips ...provoked widespread criticism and mockery
 * How CCTV played a vital role in tracking Sarah Everard – and her killer
 * Sabina Nessa and Sarah Everard cases put treatment of women and safety back in the spotlight.
 * Sarah Everard: The 80 UK women 'killed by men' since her murder
 * Sarah Everard: Teachers call for misogyny lessons in ‘national strategy’ to stop sexist attitudes among boys
 * The 79 women killed in the UK since Sarah Everard’s murder
 * Sexual offences: when women report them, what happens?
 * Well, we see what happened to the report on ITN – it was perfunctorily dismissed in just 26 minutes. And that's by a 100% male straw poll, right?  This is not a good look so can we give such discussions at least 24 hours, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no arbitrary minimum discussion period, and attempts to establish one have not gained consensus. That said, I might have given this a little more time. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Covered by Le Figaro, Die Welt, El Pais, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. Was there a trial? It seems to me the time to post this would have been when he was convicted. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a trial – the evidence and verdict are the starting point for this item. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The legal proceedings are documented in the linked article. A guilty plea meant that a full trial was not required. Much of the evidence only came to light after the verdict and sentencing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose again, dozens of people have whole-life sentences. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not many whole-life sentences prompt such a widespread discussion on women's safety, the integrity of the police force (including demands for Cressida Dick to resign) and the call for a public enquiry. Still going on in the UK Sunday broadsheets today. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that in the blurb. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well at least you've owned up to it. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Which blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And please excuse me for my sarcasm. I assumed TRM was suggesting that a more descriptive blurb might have been more suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. The existing blurb is indeed inadequate. It needs more to convince readers that this is not just another "parochial" story. --PFHLai (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – The most recent news, the sentencing of Couzens, was widely covered, but the nom. was rejected as essentially parochial, and it's now three days old. It may still be spawning follow-up coverage in the UK, but as far as I can ascertain not elsewhere. Today the topic is absent from the main pages of AP, BBC, BBC/Europe, Guardian, Reuters, and NYT. As a non-Brit I must tread lightly, but I'm not persuaded by the preceding comments that it's now somehow become of ITN-level import, and I'm leaning toward opposing once more. (Convince me otherwise.) – Sca (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – (The nomination was closed way too early) The case of a policeman turned rapist and killer while on duty is absolutely newsworthy for ITN. Apparently the people in the UK are still in shock. STSC (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So? How does that leverage this nom. in? – Sca (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite significant in the UK, for various reasons, and will likely have sustained media coverage in the UK, but is probably of little interest to people outside the UK. Not sure how that converts to ITN-ness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any murder is a tragedy but this has no additional notability beyond routine crime coverage in the media. I'm opposed to posting individual murder-trial verdicts unless they truly have some additional notability beyond simply happening; the murder of George Floyd for example sparked worldwide protests for an extended period of time, and that's the bar for me. I think it's also worth noting that another young woman's murder is also making occasional appearances in the UK press, and we're not opening let alone re-opening a nomination for her here, I wonder what the difference is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the difference is. The Everard murder is of interest because it involved an abuse of power (the killer was a police officer who arrested Everard under false pretences), which was followed by nonsensical statements by officials representing the Metropolitan police, such as the Met Commissioner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I've lived in Northern Ireland my whole life, this isn't the coverage most crimes by the police are given. The difference is something else and I would hope we aren't going to contribute to it further. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you cite to me a comparable case (that didn't receive comparable media attention) to an incumbent police officer falsely arresting someone who wasn't a "young, white, upper-middle-class women", then proceeding to rape and kill her, followed by police executives advising people to run from armed police officers into someone's home and then call 999, or familiarise themselves with their legal rights and refuse arrest if they deem the arrest (in their opinion) to be unlawful? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While not identical, this article indicates that killing of women by serving or former police in the UK isn't as rare as we would like to think it is. As for the clumsy reaction of the Met etc, just incompetence, not ITN-worthy at all, if we posted everything incompetent this establishment did, we'd have ticker running.   The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not necessarily supporting this ITN, just saying the "it's only ITN because young, white, upper-middle-class woman" doesn't seem valid. None of the cases on that Guardian link are comparable, as none were serving police officers who used police powers to kill someone. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not directly comparable, but the point here is that a trusted individual abused that trust and killed someone. That's happened a lot, not in identical circumstances to this, but it doesn't raise it above the ITN bar.  And if the actual story here is the fall-out, that's not covered in the blurb and as I noted, if we're going for the "incompetence" or "systemic issues" angle, that could be applied to most of the establishment mostly everywhere around the globe.  However tragic it might be, it's not ITN-worthy.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think things in No'rn Ir'n may be (still) a bit different to the rest of the UK. But I take your point. Alas, not just missing any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community" per WP:ITNCRIT. – STSC (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per WP:UNDUE. Lacks countervailing significance. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Fumio Kishida elected Japan PM

 * This is ITNR as the Emperor of Japan is a figurehead, the PM has power. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Now that the new prime minister is known, it's the right time to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Japanese politics is not my strong point, will he definitely become PM for a few weeks? The next election is in November, and it's not clear from the article whether he becomes PM right away or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Prime minister-designate is comparable to president-elect. He won't assume the office only if he dies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle based on the above i.e. he will definitely assume the position before the forthcoming election. ITNR as head of state change. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Japan's PM is the head of government, not head of state. Modest Genius talk 11:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand on that answer, we no longer post simply the head of state- we post whichever position exercises executive power, as shown at the List of current heads of state and government. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant head of government not head of state, as the head of state is mostly ceremonial in Japan (like the Queen in the UK). Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is accurate. There is no official position as "Prime Minister-designate." The diet will vote on Oct. 4 who to name as PM and that's it. Kishida at this point is leader of the LDP and as such will almost certainly be elected PM, but there is no actual office as "Prime Minister-designate" until the Diet actually votes. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the blurb is inaccurate. I explained what does prime minister-designate mean from the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Not ready . I agree this is a reasonable time to post this, though 4 Oct would also work (when he's due to formally become PM). However the article has only a results table, no prose whatsoever on the outcome (just two sentences in the lead), campaign, policies etc. It needs at least a referenced body paragraph on the results, reactions etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add a section about how Kono was favored by LDP members and an aftermath section about reactions to policies Kishida promises to execute. Would this good? I've added an aftermath section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Switching to support. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd prefer having Kishida's article bolded, since he will be the new PM. --Tone 08:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We could also bold them both, as they both look fine. We often do that for someone being elected through an election, bold the person and the election. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The ITN/R mentions only "change... as part of a general election". STSC (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It says "except when that change was already posted as part of a general election". This change was not part of a general election as it is the party changing its leader. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my point, the PM-elect wasn't due to a general election and we should wait for now. STSC (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until he takes office in 2 days. When Suga took over from Abe we waited until he took office. He's been officially elected PM now, so this is good to post. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Approve altblurb or an updated version for posting, he is officially the incumbent prime minister now. - Indefensible (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, with the link to the new PM's wikibio also bolded. --PFHLai (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bronius Kutavičius

 * Long enough and with enough footnotes, this wikibio looks READY for RD. There is one {cn} tag for his professorship, but this should not hold this nom back. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Takao Saito

 * Comment Needs some more citations. (Also, I didn't know Wikipedia had support for furigana, that's pretty neat.) Mlb96 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew it could be done with HTML markup (Ruby character) but didn't know we had templates for it too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The selected works section is orange-tagged for needing refs. Quite a few paragraphs in the prose also need refs for their respective backhalves. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) US extinctions

 * Question. Is there some notable aspect of this? (i.e. a record number, a single cause, something) Species go extinct around the world not infrequently. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, animals are too often declared extinct, and not only by the U.S. government, but especially by the IUCN, which has more scientific authority in this matter. Inform me well, but I don't know to what extent linking a list is acceptable in an ITND nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alsoriano97 is mistaken. AA explains that "It is rare for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to declare a species extinct ... Since the Endangered Species Act was signed into US law in the 1960s, only 11 species have been declared officially "extinct" ... Wednesday's declaration would mark the highest number of species ever declared extinct at one time." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why the US government should be singled out here. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, these animals lived in the US. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, are the Americans declaring the Cuban sub-species to be extinct as well then? That's their call is it?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the Cuban sub-species fall under the scope of this announcement? I'm honestly not sure. In any case, there hasn't been strong evidence for the Cuban subspecies for several decades. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But the blurb is telling us the "US" is "declaring" the entire species extinct. There are two sub-species, the American and the Cuban.  To which of these subspecies does this "declaration" apply?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And what is their average airspeed when unladened?? --M asem (t) 21:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the declaration relates to the US Endangered Species Act, I assume that the Cuban subspecies is not under the scope. Tell you what: if you fly down to Cuba and actually find an ivory-billed woodpecker, I owe you a Coke. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, so even that part of the blurb is incorrect? Is that five fails? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Cuban subspecies' lede says generally believed to be extinct. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can read. But this blurb is saying that the US have declared the entire species (i.e. both subspecies, by implication), extinct.  Is that reflected in our encyclopedia? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So replace ivory-billed woodpecker with campephilus principalis principalis? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And replace "declares" with "proposes" and point at the correct target article and include in that article some prose and a suitable update, and then you might have something to nominate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the correct article? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The one that describes the 23 species being "proposed" (not declared) as extinct. Which one is that do you think?  The woodpecker one?  Or another one?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But you're not telling me I'm wrong. I'm just saying that in the case that the declaration of an extinct species has to be blurb-worthy, we should look at the updating of the IUCN lists (which I believe is annual, so it's not exceptional either). I don't deny that the US government does it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The instructions above urge that we "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country...". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the fact that it's the United States government that I'm concerned with, but the fact that we are singling out a single government. There's also systemic bias to consider. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, we get rid of IUCN, what is it for if we already have the United States? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered why the instructions say not to oppose because the event related to a single country, when people routinely do oppose for just that reason, and there are many cases in which it's sensible and valid. This is one of them, as we don't want to have to make individual posts for every country's individual lists of extinct species. We rely on a global authority which sums up all the matters of interest for us, not just those in one jurisdiction. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That part of the "please do not" above means that nominations should not be opposed because, say, they deal with the United States only, or the UK only. It's fine to oppose something because it is a local story, irrespective of the country involved. My comments above are based on that, not the fact that this deals with the US. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's so rare to see any science articles in ITN. The ivory-billed woodpecker is an iconic bird species, and its status has been the subject of speculation for decades. This is interesting and newsworthy, regardless of the IUCN's position. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "list" article contains practically no prose at all and should be the genuine target of this "news" item. The woodpecker article says the IUCN considers the species to be critically endangered, not extinct, so this appears to be something of a non-event really.  Why is a local organisations's decision-making superseding that of the international body we normally use to determine such statuses?   And finally, I don't see the details in the blurb mentioned or referenced in either target article.  Triple fail. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually quadruple fail. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to remove 23 species from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to extinction" so this is just a proposal.  I suppose that's what you get when going for "popular" news stories on the BBC homepage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * AP explains that "The announcement kicks off a three-month comment period before the species status changes become final.". I suppose that, as this is rarely done, the announcement has triggered widespread coverage.  We should report this now so that readers will keep their eyes open for woodpeckers and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the quote I made came direct from the US Fish & Wildlife Service so I assume they know the difference between what this blurb says and what they have actually "proposed". So the blurb is incorrect, the target article is incorrect, the target article contains no mention of the detail of the blurb, incorrect or otherwise, and the real target article has no prose.  So my vote stands.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Woodpecker Spotlight as specist, otherwise Refrain. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm pretty sure the IUCN is the international organization that specializes in these issues. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic altogether; the ivory-billed woodpecker has been presumed extinct since the 1940s, and this is the IUCN's job. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The bird I would rather spotlight above ten others (if I did play favourites) has been dead to even kooks for 33 years and to mainstream spotters since the 1960s, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IUCN Some say that this is the IUCN's job. It seems that the IUCN reports three times a year and so we're all over that then, right?  No, the most recent report was at the start of this month and nobody even noticed.  Look at recent years of ITN for coverage of this sort:
 * Bramble_Cay_melomys – no consensus
 * Biodiversity_loss – no consensus
 * Przewalski's_horse – no consensus
 * Vaquita – pulled
 * So, it seems that, whatever the organisation, the usual suspects will always find something to quibble about and so nothing is ever done. It's like Greta says, "Blah blah blah".
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "usual suspects" have every right to weigh in as you do. If you build a consensus without the "usual suspects", then you do. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well given the blurb is wrong, the target is wrong, the real target article is very low quality, there's little wonder this is being "quibbled" about. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose the IUCN, not the US government, is the proper authority on this. This isn't American Wikipedia, so we don't need to post every time the US Government says something. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose US always put their nose in things that are not their business. I agree that it's IUCN's job to declare species extinct, and any other report should be taken with a pinch of salt.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the power vested in me as a Wikipedian, I hereby declare this nomination extinct. – Sca (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We can quibble with the exact wording of the blurb, but a government decision arguably has more real-world implications than the IUCN status, in regards to endangered species protections. 2600:1008:B04F:C0CD:2D23:D1DB:415D:EF09 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true, the US Government declaring something to be true has impact only in the US, if any. A world organisation that is actually the expert declaring it would be a lot more important and world-impacting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But individual governments can enact policies to actually DO something about endangered species. The fact that the US is basically giving up on these species is notable in itself. We can never prove that something really is extinct, but it’s worthwhile to know what governments plan to do about those species. 2600:1008:B04F:C0CD:2D23:D1DB:415D:EF09 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. It's also a RD for Woody Woodpecker. Count Iblis (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He's an acorn woodpecker, which aren't extinct. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I always assumed he was pileated. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wash my hands of this conversation. WaltCip- (talk)  16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Extinctions just aren't going to make it to ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are certainly high-profile species where it would be worth posting, such as the black rhino, mountain gorilla and Hawaiian crow. The Yangtze River dolphin is probably extinct but hasn't been declared yet; that would surely be a blurb. We posted Lonesome George (Pinta Island tortoise). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The woodpecker hasn't been seen since 1944, so is pretty old news. The authority on these matters is IUCN, so we shouldn't even consider a blurb unless they've declared a species extinct. Then it comes down to which species, how many etc. In this particular case I don't think any of them are worth a blurb on its own, and 23 is sadly not an especially large number. I recommend starting a new nomination the next time IUCN updates the red list, as conservation is certainly under-represented in ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment are we done with this error-strewn nomination? I know WP:TOP25 hasn't been updated this week, but that's really no excuse for this continued obsession with nominating whatever the BBC News "most read" articles suggest, particularly when there's literally no fact-checking going on.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Najla Bouden as the new Tunisian PM

 * Oppose The subject appears to be more of a civil servant or chief-of-staff than a true leader. It's the President that will be ruling by decree and who has the real power. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ITNR; Andrew is correct, according to List of current heads of state and government the president of Tunisia has the power. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree Prime Minister of Tunisia indicates a more co-equal role, with the PM in charge of domestic affairs and the president foreign. The role certainly meets the spirit of ITNR and possible the letter.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the list of heads of state/government needs to be adjusted. President of Tunisia states that "the president is responsible for the general state of defence, foreign policy and national security, after consultation with the head of government", which suggest that while the PM may have some duties, the president has more. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The facts here are difficult enough without you muddying them. It says whomever holds "the office which administer the executive," not whomever has "more duties" (as though they were countable?) We could certainly debate how that language applies here, but we needn't make up new criteria on the fly.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As she's not an Arab and wasn't elected, it seems wrong to have her figuratively represent the Arab world. As a PM, no ITNR exemption. Good day for geologists, though, symbolically. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "she's not an Arab"? (Also, I think you'd find that most leaders in the Arab world aren't elected, to be fair.) Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean she doesn't appear to me to be an Arab. I concede I might be missing something. And yes, government appointments are less enthralling stories, even when the appointee identifies as a man. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At first, I thought you were kind of symbolically alluding to Amazigh nationalism by under-emphasizing her Arabness, but I think your comment is actually very racialized - many Tunisians are light-skinned (in fact, Greek DNA makes up the majority of the North African genetic substrate). Please avoid making such racist comments in the future.  Esmost   talk  23:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying she isn't Tunisian or North African. Not trying to be racist, either. But when I see a blonde woman without Islamic garb from a French-speaking country, I don't assume she's an Arab. Has she said she is? Has someone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, Tunisia has historically been one of the most secular countries in the history of the world - Arabness isn't confined to post-Salafi revivalist tropes. Secondly, the article clearly states that she would be the first PM of the Arab world. Whether or not she herself is Arab is completely irrelevant. Also, all referenced articles explicitly state that she's originally from Kairouan and - just from contextual clues (her name) - it's obvious that she is an Arab/Arabized. Your comment is ignorant and lacking cultural context. Esmost   talk   00:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, then. After researching those names, it seems safe to assume their bearers are North African or Belgian, at least. I'll remember that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what her race or appearance has to do with this nomination. The Tunisians can choose whomever they want to be their leaders. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Tunisians didn't choose her, a Tunisian appointed her. That president is also not a representative of the Arab world, even if he is an Arab, which he might be. Too much conflation between state, culture and government. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral. On one hand, I agree with 's reasoning that the role seems performative so far under the current government (considering emergency powers). However, I don't rule out new developments on her impact in the future. Esmost   talk   23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Are people opposing because this isn't actually ITNR or because they think that it shouldn't be ITNR? Because if it's the latter, then those opposes are invalid. Mlb96 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNR now states that we post "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government". IMO that's not the PM, hence my oppose as ITNR. It's also not tbe PM according to the article we go by(the List of heads of state/govt). I have not weighed in on the posting in general(the groundbreaking aspect). 331dot (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as this falls within the scope of ITNR. Firstly, ITNR states "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." The linked page contains columns for head of state and head of government, and her name is already listed in the latter as Prime minister-designate. Moreover, we didn't post an election result prior to her designation, so ITNR is clearly applicable to this case. Secondly, Tunisia is not a fully presidential system but a semi-presidential one in which the prime minister has substantial executive power.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. At a mere 0,85kb prose, this is a stub and wouldn't not even pass an RD nomination where WP:N is assumed. Much more must be written here to convey impact.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – At 163 WORDS, article is a stub, or more like half a stub. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s no need to close it now. As the days go by there will be more information to publish. Let's give it a chance. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gonna let it grow, eh? – Sca (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Much better than let it go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're living in a dream world, mon ami. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Nom. comment Romdhane's wikibio is no longer a stub. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, even though the text is now up to a whopping 247 words (below the 300 hurdle). – Sca (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But page statics says "start", not "stub". What is the acceptable limit then? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Page statistics are then likely inexact. A sub-300 word article on a head of government is a stub, since one would expect a fair bit more than that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality with no prejudice if article can be expanded in a timely manner. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per above, this guy isn't the one who wields the power in the executive, that's the president. So it isn't ITN/R. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sabam Sirait

 * Support Good depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking 'ready'.  Spencer T• C 04:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Cumbre Vieja eruption

 * Oppose While the threat of a tsunami is still there, this has yet to cause any deaths and remains an interesting spectacle for most of the world rather than a major disaster outside of the small population of that island. --M asem (t) 14:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a major news story. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose what part of "it reaches the sea" is of encyclopedic value? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait How much lava is reaching the coast? Is new land being formed? Hopefully, the island's coastline gets changed and maps will have to be redrawn. A new mini-peninsula would be cool! --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect the locals would welcome some coolness. – Sca (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... are they still around? Thought they had been evacuated..... --PFHLai (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's forming a delta around 0.5km wide . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. This land formation is very interesting -- potentially blurb materials, eh! --PFHLai (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news, and it's nice to see some science-related articles in ITN. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what the scientific aspect of "lava gets to the ocean" is. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean... there are "scientific aspects" to everything that happens in the universe. It is a dramatic event that can be observed, and has some notable effects on the environment (which are mentioned in the nomination statement). 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a change of phase of the eruption in terms of human impact: not covering significant more land with the lava flow (hopefully!), but also starting to generate new land. Scientifically, the new ~3 mag earthquakes, and the changes in the eruption patterns, are probably more interesting - but this adds human interest I guess. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting we need a better blurb? "reaches the sea" is hopeless, what's the actual "story" here?  We have people below celebrating "heat exchange" and a "notable geological event", neither of which are borne out in any encyclopedic sense.  The creation of "new land", is this somehow of interest?  Is it unique, or novel?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Amended to Support Ongoing Remains an interesting spectacle for most of the world rather than an elderly dead or alive politician. When lava hits the sea, heat is exchanged, among other things. Bubbles, steam and modern rock happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable geological event which has gotten worldwide coverage. Article is looking better than before. HaudenosauneeC (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters says the island is "gaining ground" by virtue of the lava/sea action, but I don't imagine that 'ground' will be very useful anytime soon. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be put to use as a beach. Count Iblis (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sea creatures who stick to rocks could also thrive, providing a whole new world for small fish and friendly crustaceans, inadvertently reinteresting the sort of human naturalists and tourists who dig reef business. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't forget that when one of the most active volcanoes on the planet, Kīlauea, erupted in 2018 was posted. In less than 48 hours and with a lot of support. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs to be updated. For example, statements like "[tourists were evacuated] in case the lava flows to the sea and cuts off the main access roads" should be in the appropriate tense.  Spencer T• C 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been done and the article continues to get frequent updates from multiple editors. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Update Canary Islands lava peninsula in the Atlantic doubles in size. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was the whole island, maybe, not just a peninsula. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's half a Vatican (in acres, anyway) risen from the underworld in just three days, simply phenomenal, arguably miraculous. However this goes, kudos to the editors. Kudos! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing it's an ongoing event, and I don't subscribe to the theory that ongoing is worse than being listed as ITN news. It means it'll stay on there for longer. There are some updates almost every day to the story, which is the definition of an ongoing event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, ongoing is better than a single blurb here. We missed the part when they evacuated the town, and now we don't have a strong blurb contender. --Tone 10:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing per above as it looks like we have missed out on this by now to be a main ITN blurb but it certainly is still getting a lot of coverage JW 1961 Talk 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing – Makes sense, since coverage is still quite widespread on a daily basis. A new vent reported today. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above. Plenty of continuing coverage. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems the consensus. Marked attn. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 00:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting to ongoing Unclear how long this will last on the template as the event develops; IMO should be posted as an item and then roll there if the article continues to be updated.  Spencer T• C 04:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Picture request I've found that we have a good CC satellite image of the lava flow into the sea (right).  As the Ryder Cup is not now the top blurb and the Expo blurb doesn't have a picture, please could we run this picture while it's hot?  Pinging, as they seem to do this sort of thing most often. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above, post posting. Article is being updated, is of wide interest and continues as a destructive force that is in the news. Jusdafax (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) FC Sheriff Tiraspol beat Real Madrid
Oppose we don't post single game/match results of any kind.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Although this is an incredible match and certainly deserves its own article, individual matches aren't exactly news-caliber and while the football world may be devouring this information I don't know if anybody else really is. Jihaslun (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose match is good for three points out of 18 in a group stage. Come back when Sheriff win the whole thing. User has made three edits, all of which on ITN and the last two were overwhelmingly opposed, starting with one stating that arrests of five people could conclude racism in football. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:85DE:3D8E:740E:4972 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Manny Pacquiao retires

 * Oppose. If he's elected as president, we can post him then! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He is not the greatest boxer in the last 250 years, or even just this year.  If he wins the presidency, that will be posted. As I understand it, he has competition from Duterte's daughter. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He's also already a sitting senator, he had time for that and boxing. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The news reports indicate that some rate him as better than Muhammad Ali and they all use terms like "icon" and "legend". And boxing is a much bigger sport than sumo with about 20,000 professionals whereas sumo only has about 120. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please do not use Wikipedia's MainPage to promote awareness of his candidacy in the upcoming election. --PFHLai (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:Tendulkar and WP:Ferguson not posting this as well would be systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pacquiao is not in the same universe as those two. He is not the greatest boxer ever, or even this year. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And both of these were done in 2013 when the standards for inclusion where very different. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources agree No doubt about Pacquiao’s greatness. I'd never heard of the other two, nor Pacman, so I go with what WP:RS tell me. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm sure this will draw baseless comparisons with Hakuho's nomination below but Pacquiao is simply a very good boxer, and there are any number of those; should we post Pacquiao we'd set precedence for a much, much broader field. If he wins this election, then sure, let's go with that. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose if he wins the election, then post about it then. But he's not even the biggest boxer of his era, and not anywhere near as famous as Tendulkar or Ferguson (both of whom I would have had questions about posting anyway). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is apparently now long-standing consensus that we do not post sports retirements of any kind, period. WaltCip- (talk)  12:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nana Ampadu

 * Support - looks OK to me as a start-class article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emmanuel Agassi

 * Support - Fully sourced start-class article. I think it's good enough for a RD.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lonnie Smith

 * Support – article is well-referenced; now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karan Armstrong

 * Support Adequate, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eberhard Jüngel

 * Support. Grimes2 carried the load of the update, I made just a few more or less cosmetic changes. No idea what a commented out small section means, Bultmann, which also doesn't fit in the career. Awards would be nice, Grimes2, your specialty, - source in Tübingen, and many listed in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The bulk of the prose of the article is a list of positions/roles that the subject held. Article would benefit with a couple sentences about the subject's ideas or theological views.  Spencer T• C 19:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 added his major topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Long enough with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. An extra footnote for his replacement at Tübingen after he retired in 2003 would be good there, but this should not hold the nom back. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) UK fuel crises

 * Comment. Neither article is in the greatest shape. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the panic buying is notable (nearly every forecourt in the country running out of fuel within hours of each delivery, massive queues every day and widespread issues caused by a lack of available fuel) but the article isn't in a good state at all, especially for how many sources can be found right now. I'm not too sure the natural gas shortage has received coverage on the same level, internationally or domestically. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is improved. This is a very good example of an event with major immediate repercussions. The whole country is in a chaotic situation, with the army put on standby to help ease the crisis, and the rising oil prices have already affected other countries as well. And, last but not least, this is clearly top news at the moment far beyond the UK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "whole country is in a chaotic situation"? Whatever do you mean!? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support pending cleanup. Top of my news feed this morning. It seems the Brexit boom has .... run out of gas? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No names, no pack drill. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also we posted then pulled a major fuel disruption and panic buying in the Southeastern United States an area larger and more populated than all of the UK but that's only because we can't post thing from the USA so no reason to compare. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry for the non-Brexiteers. I don't know where you see the remarkable international coverage, but certainly beyond the British news there is little explanation. I fear that if it had happened in another country, such as Lebanon, it would have less impact, however much the same or similar in severity. And about the buying panic....nothing important considering what we have seen during the whole pandemic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither article in a suitable condition, moreover, the situation as far as the petrol/diesel supply is concerned appears to be stabilising now the morons have full fuel tanks. Yesterday's news, and here, reported very badly.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Double oppose. Filled up this morning, no problemo.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have to head to your neck of the woods. Our local petrol station is still flip-flopping between having no fuel and having absurd queues, which block the entire road even for those not panic-buying. I still have enough fuel for now, though, so like this whole story it's not really a huge deal. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. You probably have a pass for being a "key Wikipedia worker." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. Storm in a jerrycan. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Assume you mean an Einheitskanister. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Having walked past several empty forecourts on the way to the office, it doesn't even seem to affecting parts of the UK outside of Britain, I can't imagine a localised panic being a real news concern. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Won't have any lasting impact, it's a flash-in-the-pan story generated by media-fuelled panic buying, that's already settling down. And that notwithstanding the BBC News sending their reporter Phil McCann to cover the story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mate, this is like a Tuesday morning in Florida during the hurricane season.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short term market panic. May be signs of something more but it would be that something more that we'd post, not irrational consumer panic. --M asem (t) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality since this is getting worldwide news coverage, and since this is related to a topic that was previously covered in depth in ITN (Brexit). NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Did we post the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to ITN? Might be useful precedent to refer to. Mlb96 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem that it was posted mistakenly, pulled, and then failed to gain consensus to repost. In that case, I also oppose posting this one for lack of significance. Mlb96 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... any move to repost. Limited market machinations without general significance. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, supply chain disruptions are occurring globally, so singling out one instance is problematic. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eugeniusz Faber

 * Oppose Article is too short for RD.Pyramids09 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A bygone era, sure, but a giant snowman blocks the way to expanding upon which one (see History repeat). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: George Frayne

 * Oppose Doesn't necessarily need a standalone bio, but he does not have significant coverage on an article about a group per WP:ITNRD.—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Here and there are lots of other sources within the article, including those listed above. The band disbanded in 1977, but the name "Commander Cody" survived, being used by Frayne in various iterations in his solo career.  "Frayne continued with a solo career, still using his stage name, and toured and released albums under various titles including Commander Cody, the Commander Cody Band, Commander Cody and His Modern Day Airmen and Commander Cody and His Western Airmen."   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as he doesn't have significant coverage about him on the nominated page. There's a paragraph with some sources, but most of the sources just verify something rather than being significant coverage about him (the one obit in that paragraph being the exception). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to referencing issues, leaning support on notability. The requirement is that the article have significant coverage of the individual, not the sources cited. I realize there's some overlapping guidelines at play here, but RS coverage of Frayne seems sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 10:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Over 40,000 page views without being on the main page. Apparently all those obituaries shows some interest in the world but mean nothing here.  Oh well.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Hunt

 * Support Well written and referenced. Seth Whales   talk  16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some sources where there were cn tags, and all that remained the last time I looked was for him being in 13th on a 2006 online fan poll. All my search results for that were Wiki mirrors or forum posts. Perhaps it's not notable at all. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:1917:69C4:3634:BEF3 (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to support - that's been cited from a book 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:1917:69C4:3634:BEF3 (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article, looks ready, referenced, RIP JW 1961 Talk 07:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good work from people on sourcing this article, looks good now. Can someone add updater credits for those who helped fix this? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC) [Updaters have been added as suggested by Joseph2302.]

(Posted) RD: Caressing

 * Support Good depth of coverage and referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This gets less than two views a day, and there is zero coverage of the death on Google News besides this one horse-specific website; I see no indication this is significant enough for the main page. Reywas92Talk 03:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Google News (like all their products) is curated per user. After wiping my browser and changing my IP, a Google search for "caressing racing" gives me about a page and a half of results about this topic. All subject publications, but it's more than just one. RD nominations have for years taken WP:N to be satisfied by any article at all, and the redress is to nominate at WP:AFD.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "less than two views a day"??? the link provided shows almost 1300 views yesterday. "zero coverage"? why would there be any coverage of any death on Google News before the day of death??? --65.94.214.51 (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * RD's are posted as long as the update is adequate. If you are arguing that the subject does not merit an article, you may propose its deletion. Page views does not factor into anything that we post. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A handful of paragraphs that lack a closing reference. Stephen 06:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Woops good catch.  Spencer T• C 07:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , - Hi I have replaced all CN's with references this morning  JW 1961 Talk 08:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't recall pageviews prior to death being a criterion against which we judge RD nominations. Article is up to scratch, good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the sourcing is fine, which is the actual requirement for WP:ITNRD. Pageviews before death and claims of obscurity are not relevant to an ITNRD posting, as any living person or animal is eligible to be on RD. The death was recently announced, so no issue with timings. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Anthony Joshua vs. Oleksandr Usyk

 * Oppose just one weight category, nothing remarkable about the fight that makes it rise above the normal regular boxing matches which are essentially a massive money-making exercise for a couple of people. And this isn't WP:TOP25.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, this isn't ITN/R and if we posted every weight category title fight we'd be inundated with stories. And what on earth has it got to do with Lewis Hamilton? Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Not ITNR" is not a reason to not post an ITNC nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I know that (I've been here long enough), I was simply pointing out that there was no special treatment for the heavyweight category. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Lewis Hamilton thing is the persistent objective to translate ITN into WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd not heard of Usyk before so that was just some context. Usyk was actually just the #3 article yesterday – the top two were Squid Game and UFC 266.  The latter seems to be the fight of most interest to our readers but it didn't get much love from mainstream media whereas Joshua vs Usyk was covered by the likes of the NYT, as noted above.  And, of course, all of these stories are utterly crushing our bottom blurbs which are stale stuff from over a week ago and which just about nobody is reading.  That's the real issue here – that ITN wants to be the BOTTOM25. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Viewing figures are not a factor, have not been a factor, will not be a factor, &c &c 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the pursuit of pageviews is not one of ITN's goals. That is left for WP:TOP25, which operates just like a tabloid newspaper, instead of an encyclopedia. And it's a little pot/kettle when there is opposition to the Ryder Cup article (which logged nearly 1/4 million pageviews over the weekend) because the article doesn't cover Brexit.  Clearly disruptive.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. We have posted high profile boxing matches before, and heavyweight is the class that most people pay attention to, but I don't think this fight rises to the profile level needed.  As part of the role of ITN is to draw attention to articles, and motivate their improvement, readership should not be a main factor in determining what gets posted.  If any user feels that ITN should just be an automated ticker of the most read articles, they may propose that- though I'm not sure why we would want more people to read articles that people are already reading without our help. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, Anthony Joshua's fights seem to rarely have any promotion here in the United States despite the fact he's a unified heavyweight champ. It seems as if British media (such as Talksport, which can be heard in the U.S. through various streaming options) will talk up the fight before it happens, with U.S. media (such as ESPN) only issuing an news alert after the fight has concluded. I don't know why the heavyweight bouts have lost luster here, but it is evident they have (irrespective of how heavyweight boxing is still perceived in the rest of the world). rawmustard (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If there was some manner of record here—an unheard-of title unification or the like—I'd consider it but as nothing out of the ordinary has happened here this is really no different to any other title fight, and I say this as a combat sports fan. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua held titles of the three (of the four) major sanctioning bodies and lost it to Usyk. (Yes, I know, if there's a unification fight between Usyk and Fury (the holder of the other major title, and the lineal champion) mainstays here will still oppose lol.) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which would mean that Usyk has not won anything that has not already been won before—when I say "unheard of", I meant along the lines of Conor McGregor's first champ-champ accomplishment, or even Amanda Nunes being the first to defend two concurrent titles, not merely the changing of hands of a collection of belts that have already been nominally unified long before. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, hence mainstays here, and even some who are not, will oppose no matter what unless some white British guy is involved. It was very hard to get in Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao to be posted here, and indeed, it wasn't. Good thing Pacman's next fight was against a white British dude, while was not as big in the news as the De La Hoya fight, was still posted (LOL). No worries, ITN is diverse since we have Gaelic football! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what race or nationality has to do with my position here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, race or nationality plays no part in my consideration of nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the structure of boxing without any regular championship/playoff structure, such that these title fights can happen at any time, there has to be something significant beyond just title-winning to be an ITN item, and from discussion above, this present fight just seems to be shuffling of the current titles among the top fighters out there. --M asem (t) 14:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, boxing has many championship fights, often multiple per year. If/when someone fights the belt unification fight with Fury, that match may be ITN-worthy (especially if all the belts are unified). But the importance of this particular match is not significant enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would only consider a reunification of all the belts to be noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Bucking the trend here, but surely the heavyweight title is the "big one" when it comes to boxing, the category where anyone can enter and the best person wins irrespective of weight. And, although it's not something I watch myself, this is clearly an event and a sport which attract large interest - Sky Sports charged viewers a one-off £25 to watch it, which gives an indication how much the public wanted to see it. Plus I've been at pubs before when a boxing event is on and they are rammed. As such, I don't think this has less importance than the FA Cup / Superbowl / AFL Grand Final / Wimbledon / take your pick - it's the blue riband event of this sport. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the "heavyweight" category is the blue riband for boxing, not any more. It's certainly one of the biggest money-making events in the sport at the moment, but as noted above, it's barely made a scratch in the US (and I think it's obvious why that is right now!), it's not like the golden era with Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman etc.  This is very much about the money and I suspect most of the organisers were disappointed they couldn't contrive a draw so they could do another multi-million dollar show.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just earlier you were arguing that ITN would suffer from stagnation if we did not have a diverse selection of topics, regardless of viewership and regardless of hits. I don't understand why you are singling out boxing for reasons that could easily be applied to a variety of other sports that are ITN/R. WaltCip- (talk)  15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was certainly referring to a niche sport that we represent annually. If we were to selectively post this "heavyweight" championship bout, then there'd be little reason to not post all subsequent title bouts, and that's patently absurd.  I don't think a routine boxing match should get ITN.  I don't think a routine football match should get ITN.  I don't think a routine rugby match should get ITN.  Stagnation is definitely something we should be working harder to avoid, but just unleashing tabloid journalism (aka WP:TOP25) at ITN would spell the end of it.  That may not be such a bad thing, but would need consensus.  As it stands, this particular match is of no real encyclopedic value at all.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that heavyweight boxing has lost a great deal of its popularity and viewership since the Tyson v Holyfield days (at least in the US, its prime market). To suggest it's still on a par with Wimbledon in terms of prestige is misleading in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with that comparison is that those things take place once a year - ad only once. With five separate belts for each weight there theoretically could be a dozen title fights a year in that weight (for example, there are currently at least three weights that have four different title holders).  Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Hakuho to retire

 * Comment The promotion of wrestlers to yokozuna rank is an ITN/R item, and Hakuhō Shō's promotion was listed in 2015. I would be opposed to a blanket addition of yokozuna retirement to this practice, I think the merits of this item depend on whether Hakuhō Shō is a sufficiently exceptional sportsperson. --LukeSurlt c 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction, he became yokozuna in 2007. The ITN item in 2015 was Sumo wrestler Hakuhō Shō wins a record-breaking 33rd makuuchi championship. --LukeSurlt c 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. It should be rare for us to post sports retirements, but I think this rises to that level, given this man's career and status. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I don't know what the precedence is for posting retirements, and if this would be the first or at least one of the first then I'm not sure we should start, but Hakuhō is as accomplished in his field as any sporting name is ever likely to be. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this would set a precedent for retirement of GOATs that wouldn't be desirable. Like an old person dying, retirements are inevitable and pivotal figures such as Roger Federer, Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, Serena Willams, Lewis Hamilton etc are all likely to retire some time fairly soon, but I wouldn't advocate posting any of them, however notable their achievements. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sports have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted the retirements of Sachin Tendulkar(here) and Alex Ferguson(here). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on merit but the article still need some updating. He's not just record holders on success, the others aren't even close. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree with the other supporters, he seems like an important person in his sport. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The subject hasn't actually retired; there is just a report that he's planning to, due to injury. This might change if his condition or mood improves or it could just be a manoeuvre as he tries to establish a stable.  High profile stars routinely go through this sort of will-he / won't-he and comebacks are quite common too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Typically with this sort of thing it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal handing in of paperwork or a retirement ceremony. The reports don't indicate that he's just thinking about it, but that he decided to. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Reuters' report cites NTV which just attributes anonymous "sources". Neither the subject nor the Sumo Association seems to have made a formal statement. This is just gossip and rumour. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The JT article says "Yokozuna Hakuho, the most decorated wrestler in sumo history, has decided to call time on his storied career, according to multiple media outlets.". That's pretty definitive, and as with elections, we report what the media reports. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an ozeki with the record he holds, there will be the traditional retirement ceremony, this isn't something that's taken lightly or from which there is a comeback. If we want to wait then the ceremony would be a definitive "he has retired" point but also even just the announcement that one will happen should be definitive. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And in most cases like this, it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal ceremony or handing in of paperwork. If we waited for that, the argument would then be "not in the news" 331dot (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The retirement ceremony will not happen for about another year, no sense in waiting that long. The Japanese press has reported that his retirement paperwork has been handed in so no going back on it now. I agree that should be posted at the time of the announcement anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't seem to say anything about handing in paperwork and it's not a statement by the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the first sentence. It will formally be announced on Wednesday.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with posting now; my point is more that the formal nature of sumo means that isn't likely be backpedalled upon like, say, Michael Jordan or George Foreman retiring. Once it's announced it's a fait accompli as far as we're concerned given the ceremonies involved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Just because he is the GOAT in sumo does not mean we should post his retirement, given that his article does not show how he is relevant beyond the rather niche boundaries of sumo. Chaosquo (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What should he be relevant in other than his field to merit posting? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because sumo is a niche sport in my opinion, he has to have something other just being a GOAT in sumo for me to justify posting him to the front page. Chaosquo (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but every sport is a "niche sport". Very little would be posted if it had to be broadly relevant to global society. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it any more niche than American football or the All-Ireland championship (neither of which I would want to see ignored)? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're both deliberately misunderstanding me. Niche is mostly defined by viewership. For me, posting a retirement of a athlete should be held to the same standard as a death of a person, and Hakuhō does not meet that bar. Also, all four currently posted items are broadly relevant to global society, either by their own merits or because it was agreed to on ITN/R.
 * I didn't misunderstand anything. Every sport is only relevant to those that watch it or follow it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sumo is the sport with the longest recorded history where complete lists of champions exists since the 1700s. And cricket is a fairly similarly niche sport yet it gets regularly featured on ITN and got a GOAT nod recently, and doesn't have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cricket is the biggest spectator sport in the world after (association) football, but do feel free to carry on posting nonsense... Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Table tennis also has a giant amount of spectators, but mostly in China. Just because cricket is played in UK and some of its ex-colonies that are populous like India and Pakistan, doesn't make it not a niche sport outside those borders.  Pretty much the entire Japan watches sumo the way the entire India watches cricket, difference being 10x population size. And variations of sumo are practiced in nearby countriues like South Korea and Mongolia, same way nearby Pakistan also follows cricket. The difference is that sumo is so ancient it didn't have an international organization to impose standards like the British Empire did throughout its colonies. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose I don't think that announcements of retirement made by famous sportspeople should be posted because there are many cases in which people have come out of retirement. Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry are all household names in their respective sports who have returned to competition after announcing retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose even with the stance that the retirement is irreversible, we simply just don't post sports retirements. We don't post things like CEO retirements or other influential outside of world leaders (which do involve changing of leadership by necessity). --M asem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * we simply just don't post sports retirements—As pointed out above, we have posted sports retirements before, at least twice. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I agree posting retirements should be rare; Peyton Manning's retirement was nominated but not posted(correctly) but I think Tom Brady's would merit it(though according to him that won't be for awhile yet). It's usually sports retirements that get the most attention, but others might. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Support A comparison to a CEO retirement is a little odd, they don't have the iconic status that the greatest sportspeople achieve. His status in sumo is similar to Sachin Tendulkar in cricket which we did post. No question that he is the greatest sumo wrestler of all time and this is being widely reported.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree CEO's can lack "iconic" status, with people like Bill Gates, Lee Iacocca, John D. Rockefeller etc. but as with anyone in sports, those who are "iconic" will be few and far between. --M asem (t) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the Tendulkar and Ferguson postings were a long time ago. Things have changed since then, and I find it unlikely we'd post those now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, everything else ignored, cricket is the second most popular sport worldwide. Sumo? Not quite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure covering only popular topics as we see them is a road we want to go down. Sumo is popular in Japan. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subjective editor opinion about significance is something, but what is even more telling is that this does not appear to be so significant of a major sportsman retiring that it actually made world-wide front page news (no mention on Guardian; BBC; NYT, so on so forth). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC covered it as a news item rather than sports item, for some reason, I don't know if that speaks to greater prominence in their view or lesser however. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Must be pretty awkward to be missing a BBC article from 6 hours ago yet still reason an oppose with that. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT have the story now .-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I cannot remember when sumo news ever made it to the front headlines in anglophone news. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality would we post the retirement of Messi? Jordan or Gretzky had we been around then?  Sumo's a big enough sport that some sumo things are ITN/R, and this guy is regarded as the greatest sumo of all time.  And as mentioned above, this is actually a global headline on the BBC right now.  However, his article needs some improvement before it makes it to the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely we would have posted Jordan's retirements - both his first and second one. Jordan was an example of an athlete that had incredible international recognition. The first was especially notable because he was retiring in his prime and he went from there to another major league sport. I'm not so sure about Gretzsky. I'm positive that a Messi nom will make it to ITN without being SNOWed out of the room when he retires. WaltCip- (talk)  16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been noted above that there is no coming back from retiring from sumo. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed that so I revoke my vote. However, I won't support this announcement of retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting the retirement of any sportsperson. Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As mentioned above, we have previously posted retirements of "greatest" sportspeople where there was little or no chance of them returning.  This certainly falls into this category and the fact that the sport is not one that is popular in the Anglosphere should not prevent that, per WP:CSB. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the most successful person in a quarter of a millennium in his sport? Of course.  And comparisons to retiring CEOs are patently absurd (like retire from British Gas, get a job at Astra-Zeneca, retire from Astra-Zeneca, get a job at Accenture.... give me strength).  The household name/not widely reported issue is also absurd, this is clearly a niche sport and reported upon by only those news sources who have a clear, eclectic role.  And as for blanket "oppose any sportsperson retiring", well, that's taken the biscuit.  Job done here, an absolute legend.  If he died at any point hereafter, he'd be blurbed.  His retirement is easily worth a blurb.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be aware that the vast majority of people haven't heard of him, so it's difficult to make a case that his retirement is important news to anyone other than those who follow sumo. Do you want the retirements of other sportspeople to be posted? Which ones which we didn't post do you think we should have? If you want the retirement of a person in what you admit is a niche sport to be posted, I take it that you want retirements of sportspeople in more popular sports to be posted as well. If Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal were all to retire next year, would you want all their retirements to be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To address your comparison; if either Nadal, Federer or Djokovic were demonstrably the most successful player in the history of tennis, number one in the rankings for a 250+ year record span, had won the most grand slams and matches and held a grand-slam winning streak twice as long as the second-place record, &c &c, and retired in a fashion which made it impossible to return to the sport, I think a lot of us would support them. I make no exaggeration when I say it would take going back to Max Woosnam for a comparably-accomplished sportsman. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Every sport is a "niche sport". That's just another way of pointing out systemic bias. This man is literally the #1 participant of this sport over its entire 250 year documented history. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which makes his retirement of great interest to other people who are in the same sport & those who follow it (who will already be aware of his retirement), but of no interest to the vast majority of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The stated purpose of ITN is written as follows:
 * To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
 * To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
 * To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
 * To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
 * It isn't just about what readers might be interested in, if it were, we would be nothing but a tabloid talking about Kim Kardashian's latest hairstyle or how Mitch McConnell got a COVID booster yesterday. ITN is not a popularity contest. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't post trivia.
 * Would any mainstream media source that's not a tabloid or a sports site/publication put the retirement of a sportsperson on its front page? Jim Michael (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Has Kim Kardashian actually been relevant in the news cycle for the past four years? WaltCip- (talk)  13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most sports do not have a 250 year documented history at all, never mind a literal #1 person in that entire history in the sport at this moment. I encourage people to set aside systemic bias here. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were about some actual achievement that's in the news now, a title win or the setting of a record, I might consider it. But the dude retiring is entirely predictable, and not particularly interesting - a fact compounded by the simple fact that Sumo is not widely followed in the English-speaking world. Yet meanwhile, the main prize in the boxing world has changed hands for the first time in two years and it's apparently a snow oppose. It seems that what "countering systemic bias" actually means is sidelining topics that are encyclopedic and of actual interest to our readers, while instead promoting mundane stories about 36-year-old sportsmen retiring. The guy is of interest, but his retirement isn't. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet meanwhile, the main prize in the boxing world has changed hands for the first time in two years and it's apparently a snow oppose I don't think these are comparable. One is a sporting event of a nature that would always be opposed here—sporting events outside of the remit of a grand final or the culmination of a season are routinely opposed, especially when "the main prize" is really something like four of a possible half a dozen competing prizes. Opposing the post of a boxing match would be the equivalent of opposing the posting of a single honbasho result, and even those seeking to broaden the scope of what we post would likely and rightly oppose one of those. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) ITN is not a popularity contest. Does the boxing match involve the #1 person in the entire documented history of boxing? "A fact compounded by the simple fact that Sumo is not widely followed in the English-speaking world" is just systemic bias at work. We post on this page "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." That sumo is not a top sport in English-speaking countries should not be a reason to deny posting this. It's like people are afraid to read about something new and interesting to the sporting world in general.  I apologize for leaning into this too hard, and I probably shouldn't say anymore, but looking at this opposition is frustrating given the mission here.  That's on me, no one else. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Michael. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support only because we cannot post the retirement of sports figures in English-speaking countries, and then refuse to accept those as precedent when considering non-Anglophones.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Righting a great wrong, are you? – Sca (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's that we should not put the retirement of any sportperson in any case. Neither Messi, nor Rafa Nadal, nor LeBron James, Anglo-Saxon or not. As if they were monarchs or the Pope.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the cited cases (Ferguson and Tendulkar) date to eight years ago, when our criteria for posting were very different, so can't be held as a precedent here. The general consensus from the past few years is that no sports retirements should be posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is the end of an era. Glad that Wikipedia is here to help enlighten people who don't know much about the world beyond the anglosphere. --PFHLai (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose respectfully. Per longstanding community consensus and ITNC precedent, we do not post sports related retirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I note above, we have posted retirements; one very much like this one(the literal greatest ever in his sport) 331dot (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Conceding the odd exception has made it through, none that I am aware of seemed justified. Nor does this. If this were a death blurb under discussion I might be persuadable. But I really think we need to hold the line on sports retirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What longstanding community consensus are you talking about? This nomination alone is split 50/50. That doesn't sound like longstanding consensus to me. Remember that consensus can also change. WaltCip- (talk)  00:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus can change. And I am opposed to any change in this case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But the point here is that you cited a "longstanding community consensus" against, and unless that's documented somewhere, would seem to not be the case given that at least two cases have gotten through(again, including one very similar to this one). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point about long-standing consensus is that it doesn't get overridden by localised issues, particularly when everyone is all buzzing because their favourite star has retired. Posting this would set precedent for a whole slew of sports stars to be posted in the next few years, and we really don't want that. For the umpteenth time, while there's no doubt that this guy did great things in his career, it's those things that are notable, not his retirement. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have said that this should be rare, but we are talking about the best athlete in this sport in the last 250 years not some random sports star; many sports don't have that long a documented history. Tendulkar was also the greatest ever in his sport(and posted). I'm sorry, but I can't fathom the reluctance here and I think that some systemic bias is at work. And I've already said too much. Very disappointed and frustrated here(which is on me and me alone, no one else). I'm contemplating an ITN vacation to let that die down some, not sure yet. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Pageviews his page has NEVER been more popular although he HAS been featured before on ITN.  Yet the traffic he got even without being on the main page. All opposes are cause we dont post retirement but didn't have a problem with previous posted retirements.  And half of them I recognize talking all about diversity but when it comes to actual diversity they seem to oppose "cause too niche".  2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:58AE:2253:7389:9189 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop misrepresenting people like this. I don't support any sports retirement, period. We posted Hakuho when he broke the record because that was an achievement, and rightly so. But his retirement isn't notable. This isn't anything to do with diversity, and it's an underhand tactic to try to discount people's !votes in this manner, on an incorrect charge of being non-diverse. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 74th Tony Awards

 * Comment there should be something about the ceremony itself - the articles covers the planning of it, but specifics of the ceremony should be included. --M asem (t) 05:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on a list of performances and presenters, but can't finish it now—and the source I'm working from seems to have tapped out around the halfway mark of the CBS show. Hopefully it will be updated soon or I'll look elsewhere later.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a relatively routine event. If something special happened during the awards I might change my mind but I didn't notice anything especially notable. Elithanathile (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITN/R. It doesn't matter if you think it was routine or notable or not. It'll be posted pending an article update. WaltCip- (talk)  12:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNR is specifically for the posting of routine events where notability does not need to be debated every time. If you feel that the Tony Awards should not be on the ITNR list, please propose their removal at WT:ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Tony Awards, as routine as they are, are ITN/R. The article needs a little more prose and what Masem points out. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article quality about good enough, event is ITNR (which should be challenged on talkpage not here). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still missing ceremony information. --M asem (t) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator update I think I have something approaching a complete list of performances in the newly created "ceremony information" section and I've found two reviews for a "reception" section. Ultimately I'd like to see more (I thought I saw another review in a major trade paper, but like the first third of it was just the reviewer complaining that his Paramount+ app didn't work). Perhaps there will be more reviews and obviously when the viewership figures come out this afternoon that can be added.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on relative significance of this compared with other ITN/R items which are also about to be included (such as the German elections). ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a rubber stamp in terms of notability. It will be posted as long as the article is adequately updated. Usually we are criticized for not enough turnover in postings, so a lot of them potentially ready to go is not a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp Um yes, that's exactly the point of ITNR. And ITN rules specifically say we shouldn't just compare with other things, and the comparison makes no sense, because if you wanted to compare, you should compare with what's on ITN (and so old it's not to any other news platform). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, article is fine quality wise, and suggest that closer ignore the oppose votes as being based on notability for an ITNR nom.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support. A bit of a damp squib, given only 18 events were eligible (14 won awards) and the ceremony was over a year late due to Covid. The article is underwhelming but does meet our minimum standards. Seems ready to me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Not bad, not great either, but enough to be posted. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Quality, while not great, meets minimum standards. Consensus in favor of posting.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ryder Cup

 * Oppose The article has some flag-waving but does not address or explain the issue of Brexit. See Team without a country and Golf Today for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What a load of bunkum: seven of Europe’s 12 players aren’t technically part of that continent anymore - we didn't leave the continent of Europe. And the Ryder Cup was never about the European Union.  What a pointless conjecture. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh? Has the UK actually left Europe?  Where has it gone?  Actually, even your link points it out ("As the Ryder Cup has always been a geographical representation of the countries within the physical boundaries of Europe, not political ones...").  Also, Viktor Hovland isn't an EU citizen either... Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the team has no affiliation with the European Union. See Team Europe and Flag of Europe. cityuser (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Andrew knows that. The article has precisely zero references to either the "European Union" or the "EU", nor should it.  This kind of tangential disruption is completely unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many articles that make reference to Brexit e.g. this news article (which has been published on a few sites), which seems to go on about not-EU players. But it's not directly/at all relevant to the tournament itself, so no need to be in the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In the hoooollllleeeee!!!!!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support some round summaries have now been added, so article looks good enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support summaries are weak but at least are present. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: there should be at least some prose under the "Course" section, no? I don't think a Main link to the separate article is enough.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or at least merged into another section.  Spencer T• C 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've just had to orange-level tag two sections. Those shouldn't be too difficult to address though, and the rest of the article seems postable once that's done. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - tags handled and article is free of issues. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Sammarinese abortion referendum

 * Comment - "Sammarinese"? While that may be in some sense the "correct" demonym, I can honestly say I've never heard of it, and it would be much better to simply title this "2021 San Marino abortion referendum". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the creator of the article, and conveniently the link can be piped in the blurb, completely side-stepping the issue. If you wish to move the article nothing prevents you doing so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I've done that. Thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMMONNAME. RfC started on Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election regarding this particular issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being one of the last to adapt such regulation is certainly far from being significant.--M asem (t) 03:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above comment, being one of the lasts countries to do something doesn't make it ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we would post the last country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage (though we might, though it'll probably take centuries), but the last in merely Europe does not count IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even the last in Europe: according to source in the article, Malta, Andorra and the Vatican City still don't permit abortion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Local politics in a microstate with the population of a small town; not the last country in Europe let alone the world; barely makes a difference anyway as all its citizens could travel a few miles to Italy and (legally) get an abortion there. The article itself describes the issue as 'mostly symbolic'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Lewis Hamilton

 * Oppose we already posted him breaking the overall wins record. A 100th victory is a purely arbitrary number. He recently became the first driver with 99 F1 victories, and will almost certainly become the first driver with 101 F1 victories.  We're not going to become a Hamilton ticker, are we?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Unless "100 F1 Victories" has been a similar long-standing theorhetical goal like the four-minute mile, this is just an expected result of just prior record breaking. --M asem (t) 19:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Mase. I'm no fortune teller, but that this was nominated doesn't catch me by surprise. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment October_2020#(Posted)_Lewis_Hamilton
 * Keep up LL, that was my opening comment! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked the template diff (thank you) I just added the discussion. Always a pleasure working together TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And don't forget to sign your posts bud! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stated by others. I didn't even know there was a Russian Grand Prix. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He's won five out of the ten there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. F1 is global (unlike that curiosity IndyCar) but given Lewis wins 50% of the Russian Grands Prix, there's even less reason to post this.  Like "business as usual".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough; borderline routine "Hamilton wins another grand prix" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Swiss same-sex marriage referendum

 * Updated with official results.  Sandstein   15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The source supplied is a projection as there's no official result yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the news does not wait for official results, neither do we. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia, not a forecaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We posted Joe Biden winning when the media said he won based on unofficial vote totals(not exit polling), not when it was officially certified by Congress(Jan 6). If you don't want the media to call elections, you will need to take that up with them. Our business is to update articles based on news coverage. No one is forecasting. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if was an official result, oppose as being rather late to the party in regards to same-sex rights. --M asem (t) 15:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted two equivalent Irish referenda which covered these issues in recent years so there's precedence for this, and there's more Swiss than there are of us. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that this is arguably of more public interest than routine changes of government, the results of routine sporting events or routine aircraft accidents which we regularly post about.  Sandstein   15:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To go back to when the Irish referendum was passed in 2015 (under Irish_marriage_referendum) it was due (by consensus) to being the first such same-sex rights by referendum, so this one would not be a first related to same-sex. (The 36th was related to abortion, so I would not consider that here). --M asem  (t) 15:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm realising now that this story uses "reproductive rights" in a different manner than I had read into it, disregard that second amendment then. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Nothing new. Nothing ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is common now in Europe. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose apart from the first country, this being applied in other countries isn't ITN-worthy. We've rejected nominations for other countries for similar bills relating to same-sex marriage for the same reason. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) German elections

 * Oppose and close shouldn't be nominated as a blank blurb before the results happen, this is an obvious attempt to WP:GAME the system for a nomination credit. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I didn't specify a blurb yet, because I indeed wanted to wait for results or more concrete things to report on. In the future, where would be best place to mention/suggest topics, without knowing yet what the blurb/text should be? This is my first In the news nomination. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not the first person recently to post an election blurb many hours before the results are announced (and there's been similar issues with people nomming sports events before there's a result). It was nothing personal, just seems stupid to allow people to pre-emptively nominate, as the only benefit as I see it is so that someone gets the nomination credit. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Early exit-poll results have SPD, CDU virtually tied.   – Sca (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are exit polls, not an official result, which could take hours or even days. This should be re-nominated when the results are actually confirmed. Rather than encouraging people to nominate articles 7 hours before the polls even shut in the country.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't post exit polling, but we don't need to wait for final, official results if the German media calls it. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Elections are not appropriate for ongoing as they are routine events. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an ongoing nomination. How odd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was working from the nomination's source which has "ongoing = yes". The default for this parameter is "no" so the nominator presumably supposed that "yes" was acceptable but the template only seems to accept "add/rem/no" which is certainly odd. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not tagged visibly as ongoing. Suggest you strike your comment and allow regular discussion to continue.  One imagines, in fact, that this would be WP:ITNR.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support regular ITN blurb when ready i.e. in other words wait as with other national elections; this is ITN/R material, just needs for the article to be updated, and for some form of official results. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Late evening coverage puts Scholz and the SPD ahead.    – Sca (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's now about 293 out of 299 constituencies reporting. That solves the first of the issues ("some form of results"); now it's on article quality; which I have not taken the time to check again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Preliminary results to be confirmed in half-hour's time, . Added provisional blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments Clearly a work-in-progress yet. Some issues requiring address before posting:
 * 1) Orange tag under Campaign, Major issues section
 * 2) Tables are unsourced in this article: In Parties and candidates, Competing parties and Opinion polls. Some of these are pulled from other articles, where they are referenced, but the standard here should be in-article referencing. The one in Competing parties appears to be wholly WP:OR. The only reference that could cover it conveys only incomplete information. This effectively renders the whole Opinion polls section an unreferenced section, and if the non-sequitur external links were (deservedly) removed, it would become a section containing no prose at all.
 * 1) Tables are unsourced in this article: In Parties and candidates, Competing parties and Opinion polls. Some of these are pulled from other articles, where they are referenced, but the standard here should be in-article referencing. The one in Competing parties appears to be wholly WP:OR. The only reference that could cover it conveys only incomplete information. This effectively renders the whole Opinion polls section an unreferenced section, and if the non-sequitur external links were (deservedly) removed, it would become a section containing no prose at all.
 * Support Results are out. I'd edit appropriately. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think adding information on the SPD's intended coalition partners would be useful for the item. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not even sure the SPD will actually be in the coalition, we don't necessarily need to add speculation at this early a stage. +altblurb; if a bit verbose RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Far and away the No. 1 story in the news today. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb III - Biggest story in the news as of right now. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb III as imo it is most neutral and accurate. If you are following the news reporting, you know it's not yet clear which major party will lead a coalition, which is why I oppose Alt 2. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There may be a slight issue with alt blurb III though. It may suggest that Scholz is the party leader, which is not the case. He is just their main candidate and the party is led by two other people. So, the 'led by' bit seems a little off to me. Probably best to just cut that out and simply state that the social democrats won the most seats. The most clear and simple in the end. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would he be their choice for chancellor? 331dot (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, most certainly he would be. And i am not saying alt 3 is totally wrong or misleading. It just is an unusual circumstance that the frontrunner of a major party is not actually the party leader of said party, i would assume. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I think't it's right to remove him from the blurb, though. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if one were to replace 'led by' with something a bit different that does not suggest he is the leader(which in a way is he despite not being so) then it would be fine to mention Scholz of course. As is it can be nitpicked, is all i am saying. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Slightly altered blurb 2, for grammatical tense and proper verb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III as this is the normal way that we post elections, and isn't making any guesses/assumptions about who will actually take control. Article looks much better now- there is one section tagged for expansion, but I don't believe that is strictly necessary for this page to be ITN-worthy, as it's not a key part of the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt III. We can update this down the line with any potential coalition but this is cleanest way to post the actual election results for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt III now that it's been updated; added main updaters to nomination RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as Blurb I is incorrect: Angela Merkel is still cancellor. Besides that, it is not really encyclopedic to say that the SPD is the party of olaf scholz and the CDU the party of Angela Merkel, because both dont own the parties. --LennBr (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt III I do see one cite tag but that shouldn't hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as this article is effected by an edit-war/by vandalism. See here: Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and on the elections-talk page for more information about it. --LennBr (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing is WP:NOTVAND. Also, not an issue for ITN, but for AN/3RR or ANI RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - May somebody close this please? There is a consensus around posting alt blurb III. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It's still possible that a so-called 'traffic light' (red, yellow, green) coalition could be announced in this cycle. Warte, bitte. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: There is an for the Campaign section. Is more prose coming to that section? --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like it ain't gonna happen real soon.   I still prefer Alt2,  but I would be OK with Alt3 for now. – Sca (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality comment There remains 2 unreferenced tables in the article (1 of which looks to be WP:OR) and an orange tag.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and ready on Alt3 There is consensus, and opposes have been addressed. HaudenosauneeC (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it's okay to leave an in the Campaign section, I suppose... --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull . No, it is not alright. Why was the above quality concern ignored? There's still an orange tag and that's a red line. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Update : I've now sourced the two tables that were missing a cite, and taken the liberty of boldly removing the expand tag. The section is good enough for ITN purposes right now. No need to pull after all. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's adequate and acceptable in the current circumstances. Let's hope the parties don't take forever to negotiate a coalition govt. Reuters says "next week or even later." – Sca (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Global Citizen Live

 * I can't find anything in the searchable archives where we posted the Venezuela Aid Live (or where it was even proposed as an ITNC. I have doubts that unless the event broke records in fundraising, we would not post something like this. --M asem (t) 00:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t find anything either, but I swear I remember some drama about putting the logo on the main page and didn’t think DYK would have bothered. The other possible comparison for precedent would be One Love Manchester, also comparatively small. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The other possible comparison for precedent would be One Love Manchester... - are you saying here that OLM got posted to ITN? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that it seems like the only other concert of even close to comparable size in the ITN era. It didn’t get posted, but Live Aid was like 40 years ago so we can’t compare that. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Soft Support The idea of spreading awareness of a concert that only raises awareness of things that are already front and center (as opposed to money) feels sketchy, but it is an abnormally big show. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merely spreading awareness. If there is some additional hook(i.e. a fundraising record, policy change tied to this event), I would reconsider. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not much in the news. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Montana train derailment

 * Support - article is in reasonable shape, no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Can it be indicated on the blurb that this occurs in the United States? There is a strange tendency that when one of the states is named it is taken for granted that the readers (not all of them Americans) locate it to US. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Done. Feel free to improve blurbs if necessary. The posting admin will decide on the final look of a blurb in any case. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Uncommon. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine traffic accident. Derailments are quite common – here's some recent examples: ; ; ; . Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - we are discussing passenger train derailments in the US with fatalities here. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also "50 others were injured, with 15 being hospitalized." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I concur with Andrew, absent additional information. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although fairly widely covered (for reasons not readily apparent), this train wreck lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the death toll is low & there's no evidence that a crime was committed. Had this happened in Latin America, Africa or Asia, it's highly unlikely that it would be nominated. It's likely it wouldn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, these kinds of fatal accidents are unusual in the USA. But you're saying a "crime has to be committed" to make a rail accident postable? Where's the logic for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we should only post transport incidents if they involve some sort of crime (such as a deliberate crash, drink-driving etc.) or there's at least a double-digit death toll or someone notable is directly involved. Otherwise it's just one of many transport accidents. Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Well I think the crime question may be a bit of a red herring. It might take some time to establish that any crime had been committed, by which time we'd nominating something like "so-and-so found guilty of such-and-such rail accident"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on expansion. Transport accidents involving public transport systems like trains or planes that include deaths and injuries are nearly always notable. But the article is currently a bit too short for posting. --M asem (t) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one's disputing that it's notable enough for an article, but why is it notable enough for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was maybe a couple people injured in a derailment, it would not be appropriate for ITN, but with dozens injures and several dead, it is a major public transit accident. It is a major news item. We would cover this type of event from anywhere in the world as long as the article was up to speed and the event nominated. --M asem (t) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 dead, not several. It's only a major news item in Montana. If it happened in Latin America, Africa or Asia, it would have no article or a stub article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of article creation is not what ITN itself worries about, but nearly any public transit accident with deaths is going to meet GNG-notability guidelines, the article just has to be written. Same with the articles being nominated -that just has to be done once the article is created. We have definitely posted rail accidents like this in Africa and Asia in the past (can't recall any recent L. American ones but we'd post those too). --M asem (t) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant, because having an article that's better than a stub is a requirement for posting to ITN. Yes, we've posted train crashes in Africa & Asia, but they had significantly higher death tolls than this one. Jim Michael (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks good and as explained above the difference between this and other derailments are the fatalities and injuries. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not significant enough for ITN. Milavče train crash was not posted last month with equivalent article quality and casualties. cityuser 16:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the death toll of both is too low for ITN. The Stonehaven derailment also killed 3, was nominated, but not posted. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So 10 dead or a dead sleb? Does that apply only to US rail accident? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of what I said is specific to the US or trains. A very well-known car crash in Paris in 97 had a death toll of 3. Were it an ordinary accident with no-one famous involved, it certainly wouldn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Private transit accidents (such as car accidents) are far too common to have articles on, unless they lead to rather large significant tolls or other major investigations (eg Schoharie limousine crash). Public transit accidents, which nearly always have government-lead investigations to understand what happened, etc. on the other hand are nearly always notable, particularly if there were some deaths involved. --M asem (t) 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course there will be outliers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cityuser and Jim Michael. For congruence in view of the fact that we did not include the one at Milavče. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is far too starkly anomalous for us to promote this to the main page when a direct equivalent that didn't happen in America was rejected. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 AFL Grand Final

 * Oppose the match description has a lot of slang and sports report hyperbole. Needs a ironing out Bumbubookworm (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree ("Cough up a mark", "slotted a snap"). This simply needs rewriting in normal prose. Also, the continual switching between "Melbourne" and "Demons" needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: the match summary has been improved now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Kamla Bhasin

 * Oppose Written like an essay, lots of apparent mindreading into her motives and editorial expansion on the themes ("she lamented...she adjudged...really important to her...however her revulsion of capitalism emerges..."). There are footnotes, but that's not all a decent bio needs. And no, I'm not against India, women or feminism, just against flowery rhetoric for any cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Release of Michael Spavor and Kovrig / Meng Wanzhou

 * Oppose This saga doesn't appear to have made a massive splash outside of Canada, and it met probably the calmest end possible. I also think the impact on international relations will be fairly unremarkable (in other words, China will stay China). Nohomersryan (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoned above. Additionally, undue. Meng's arrest is the spark of this fiasco, and should be the focus even if passed through. – robertsky (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added alt blurb focusing on Meng, feel free to change if it is too long. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Lacks broad significance. Although fairly widely covered, this deal made headlines mainly in Canada. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sca: The release of Meng and the Michaels made the front page of the New York Times, with the article emphasizing its implications on US-China relations. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In the news here in Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Meng was charged with fraud in the USA, Canada detained her per an extradition treaty and China retaliated with sham charges against two moderately relevant Canadians. Kidnapping and extortion all around and a rare thing for Canada to get mixed up in. Weak only because we should also bold Meng Wanzhou and that article is meh quality. Opposes "because the event is only relating to a single country" are "unproductive" and should be ignored when evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Support a blurb only mentioning the release of Meng Wanzhou which is a significant event concerning the China-US relations (Canada was only a pawn). STSC (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support First Two, but oppose overAmericanizing it. This was always Canada's game to lose. And we won! End of an era, or news chapter, at least. If around half the audience only knows a small part of this international intrigue info, now is the time to learn more. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already out of news cycle, and probably more suitable for ITN during initial arrests. HaudenosauneeC (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When arrests are nominated, ITN usually invokes BLPCRIME and moves to "Wait for conviction". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support also news in Europe. And that the two were for all intents and purposes hostages makes it a quite unusual and notable story. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:B49E:7D7A:B3FE:B093 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Notable geopolitical impact noted in Australia an uninvolved country, hostage diplomacy over a telco company that is the subject of state-spying allegations Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Major implications around global players. Chinese citizen, Meng, was arrested in Canada on the orders of US for violating US sanctions against Iran, immediately followed by Chinese government arresting 2 Canadians. Now that Meng was released after striking a deal with the US, these two Canadians are also released "just so happened" right afterwards? That's clearly state-sanctioned hostage taking. Front page of New York Times and coverage in uninvolved countries demonstrate the geopolitical implications. I also don't buy the "out of news cycle" bit. Our most recent entry was the death of President of Algeria, which happened a week ago. Now that is definitely "out of the news cycle". <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 21:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb one. It is the resolution of a major, year-long diplomatic row between Canada, China, and the US. The users who oppose on the basis that this didn't create a major splash outside of Canada forget that ITN does not have a ban on news items which effect a single country. This was likely the biggest ongoing news item in Canada since she were detained. -- Plasma Twa  2  21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from COVID, anyway. And maybe reconciliation. But yeah, "it's up there"! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, Major event in foreign relations between Canada, China, and the United States.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Hostage diplomacy involving 3+ countries? Certainly worthy. I'll never understand any substantive rationale for including snooker championships, but not stuff like this. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable political chess game involving multiple countries and a major tech company. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Important case making news headlines. It will likely also set a precedent where China may end up acting more like the US when it comes to imposing its laws it feels strongly about on foreigners. The Chinese have already passed laws allowing foreigners who never set foot in China to be prosecuted in China for violating its domestic laws on sedition. Count Iblis (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I support this, but perhaps we shouldn’t state unequivocally that the two events are directly related, even though they almost certainly are, as China explicitly denies there is a connection. 142.116.123.215 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ready pretty clear consensus to post this. No more CN tags in Meng Wanzhou. Admins can decide what blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Len Ashurst
, I have now added more sources. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Is it good to go now? Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the fair use image should be deleted, it's far too early to assume we can't get a free image. Also, the article lacks several citations.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Referenced.  Spencer T• C 23:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Waka Nathan

 * Support Meets minimum requirements. Do you know the year of the tour he went on when he had the broken jaw? The only thing that wasn't clear to me when reviewing the article.  Spencer T• C 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * he actually had his jaw broken twice (in 1963 and 1967). I've added details on both to the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie

 * Support, the article is long enough and is sourced properly. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: 3 more CNs to address then should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Only 1 {cn} tag left! --PFHLai (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now zero {cn} tag left! --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jitender Mann Gogi

 * Support. Sufficiently referenced. Yee no   (talk) 🍁 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Article has since been expanded, which also means it needs more copyediting before hitting the front page.  Yee no   (talk) 🍁 00:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction The nominator has written "India's most wanted gangster". This should be "on Delhi police's most-wanted list". BBC DTM (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: 1412 characters? That's a bit stubby. Can this wikibio be expanded? --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Not a stub anymore. Now >2400 characters long. --PFHLai (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posthumously created stub, not convinced of his notability beyond the one event of his killing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then WP:AFD it. We have plenty of bios created post-death, that isn't a problem a lot of the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Is notable before, during, and after his death based on the sources. I've made a lot of posthumous article RDs in early 2021s and nobody seem to be bothered. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment article needs work, for references, grammar, spelling etc. No comment on notability, but certainly needs copyediting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) :-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFTs

 * Oppose There is not sufficient in-depth coverage, in terms of type of sources or length/quality of articles, etc. on this topic to indicate that it is a significant enough story. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * :-( as reasoned above. – robertsky (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel I want to frown. (sad face) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Non-fungible tokens are people too, you know!!


 * 👎🏼 Per Jayron. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Someone got scammed, there's no mainstream media interest, and no long-term encyclopaedic value either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Grier Sellers

 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Taito Phillip Field

 * Oppose a day after nom and it still has lots of work to do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought

 * Comment We need a link to the journal where the paper documenting the discovery was published. AP article doesn't mention it and NYT has a paywall. Also, the one-sentence update citing the NYT article with restricted access at the end of the intro is insufficient. One such discovery requires a separate section or at least a paragraph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the NYT article gives a DOI, which links to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7586. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't able to access the NYT article because of the paywall. Now that this was published in Science, we need a better update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As stated in the article, there are several known sites that are pre-Clovis, thus "Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought" is not really accurate. The significance of these new findings is that they are ... better quality than the other ones. So, let's not make too much of a hype here. --Tone 08:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The NYT account is good and there's a more accessible equivalent at the BBC. The footprints in time are more evocative than most such stories and they are excitingly evanescent as erosion is now destroying them so there's a race to glean this evidence before it's gone.  Carpe diem. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The finding implies that humans arrived in North America more than 30,000 years ago (consistent with the dating of the stone tools from Mexico), because the ice sheets would have made it impossible to cross over from Asia into North America later than 30,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Target article has a one-sentence update in the lead, and the body of the target article does not mention the topic at all.  Insufficient update to qualify for a main page notice.  If you fix this with a sufficiently in-depth update to the body of an article, consider this vote changed to full support. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the Clovis hypothesis was already disproved. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This assertion has been published within the last 24 hours. The scientific community has not had time to respond to this. It is good that it is getting all this attention, because more research in this area needs to be done and actual bodies need to be found. However it also could be a flash in a pan. I do not feel this one instance of evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia to assert humans in New Mexico 23,000 years ago as fact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why it's in the news. When new research results would start to corroborate this and gradually a pile of independent results is built up that's considered to be large enough that it's considered to be proven that humans settled North America much longer ago, then that won't make news headlines. The incremental scientific steps would likely also be considered too technical to merit big stories in the popular press. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is the first paper to publish on a theory that is contrary to one that has otherwise been accepted by numerous other anthropologists, even as a peer reviewed paper in a high quality journal, giving it presumption of being "right" by giving it ITN weight would be improper (I'll point to the current ongoing discussion related to the COVID-19 lab leak theory as evidence of why we don't give weight to one-off peer reviewed theories that go against the grain of long-standing scientific agreement). --M asem (t) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the job of the major media outlets, like the NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. to make these editorial decisions on how much coverage to give to certain science stories. We don't have to follow any single such news outlet, but we should use the criteria that a science news story must be published in a high quality peer reviewed journal and must also have significant coverage in the major news outlets. If we deviate from this too much, then we are censoring the news based on our biases. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But reading the NYT and BBC, their writing emphasis this is a possible result and not firm proof yet. Even a lead researcher on the paper is not certain of the result yet, from the BBC article ""One of the reasons there is so much debate is that there is a real lack of very firm, unequivocal data points. That's what we think we probably have," Prof Matthew Bennett, first author on the paper from Bournemouth University, told BBC News.". We have to be careful here about presenting a paper - which I'm not doubting has grounded scientific method behind it - as the singular source to change a theory that is the subject of debate, based on these sources. This is not censoring news, but upholding SCIRS for all purposes that as an encyclopedia, we're looking to summarize dominate views of the scientific community and this doesn't have it, even if mainstream sources are reporting it. --M asem (t) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's then for the blurb to convey the correct message. E.g., one can say that "A new finding suggests that humans may have arrived in North America about 10,000 years earlier than previously thought.". Count Iblis (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, haven't evaluated quality. It's a big enough deal that it's worth presenting as a piece of research, rather than established fact; "scientists find evidence", etc. Not going to dig through the archives at the moment, but IIRC we've posted other substantive findings when they occurred. FWIW, this paper isn't based on cutting edge techniques; the methods are pretty basic, it's the data that are interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if consensus develops to post, I'd much prefer wording describing how long before the present the evidence is from, rather than trying to spell out the difference between this timeline and whatever was "previously thought", since that's often controversial. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When we've posted scientific findings in the past, it is usually because those findings are not in challenge to an established theory or where controversy within the scientific community exists. I know we've posted anthropological findings in the past but as best I recall, when they were found they didn't radically present a change to current theories, only extending farther back when humans occupied a certain reason or had developed certain capabilities. Its clear from the sources that when humans were in the Americans is a subject of debate in the scientific community so we should be a bit more careful on giving weight to one paper. --M asem (t) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written As they say, a lot of people think a lot of things about where and when. I have a hunch about frost giants predating mammoths around Temagami. Regardless, a new paper, even by people who know what they're doing, seems unlikely to change any generally accepted timeline this quickly. In a scientific sense, I mean. Even frost giants from space could seem believable to folks who don't know how magnetic anomalies work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – FWIW, to a layman like me this all seems rather iffy and arcane. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here, try this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca, not that accessible or even interesting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support One small step for a man, one giant leap for Prof. Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even one of his selected works, nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant reunion you guys. Great, always a benefit to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "You betcha, Miss Piggy", (as they say in Hollywood) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And as seriously edumacated Wikipedians put it, GARCH! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Elliott

 * Oppose Quality issues. Giant orange tag, citation problems.  Usual problems.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The orange tag has gone, but there are still a few {cn} tags remaining. More REFs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tall el-Hammam and Jericho destruction by an impact event

 * Comment Could someone fix this nomination? It seems messy, although I cannot put my finger on *what* is wrong. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This research is fringe and highly controversial (see Fringe theories/Noticeboard), the sources are unreliable, and the linked article (Tall el-Hammam) is in a very bad state. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The Conversation piece you linked to was written by one of the researchers involved, so not an independent source. There are almost no reports in mainstream media - just churnalism recycling of the press release in some less-than-reputable outlets and some reprintings of the Conversation piece. The only vaguely journalistic report I could find was in Forbes but almost all of that is an interview with another one of the researchers involved, no comments from independent experts. This appears to be a sensational over-interpretation of the archaeological evidence, ideologically motivated to match a story from the Bible. In addition, the article is an orange-tagged stub, doesn't mention the impact idea at all, and attempts to add it have been reverted by multiple page watchers. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. I've fixed the nomination formatting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can find additional reliable sources written by reputable, main-stream publications, such as Smithsonian Magazine and Nature. The article itself, however, only has a single-sentence update, which seems to me to be insufficient given that we're supposed to be directing people to more information... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second link is the original paper (in Scientific Reports, a much less prestigious journal published by the Nature Group, not Nature), that's not an independent source. Smithsonian Magazine should be a reliable source but the actual article just repeats claims from the paper and interviews with its authors, including the Conversation piece already mentioned. I'm sure it used to be standard practice to get a comment from one or two independent experts on the subject... I guess science journalists are busy these days. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reason why there are no high-quality news reports with independent comment is that good science journalists approached independent experts, only to be told the research was rubbish and shouldn't be publicised. They don't run the story in that situation. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Under-sourced, not in the RS news, polemical, lacking general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose fringe froth, and Scientific Reports is not Nature (other end of the quality scale, in fact). Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-closing comment I seriously object to many of the comments above, rushing to denigrate the announced result. In fact, they are almost certainly BLP violations regarding the researchers involved.  For the record, Scientific Reports is not the "other end of the quality scale", it is more of an open-access online spinoff from Nature, which simply doesn't have room for all the top quality science being done, let alone 64 page articles. There is nothing about the paper that suggests WP:FRINGE, and hitting on that, or even the closer's remark that it is outside the "mainstream", is unacceptable. For the record, a much earlier city in the same general area was identified in 2020 (same journal) as wiped out by a similar cosmic airburst (Abu Hureyra, Syria, c. 10800 BCE). This is mainstream science, not fringe. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Abdelkader Bensalah

 * His bio in French Wikipedia (fr:Abdelkader Bensalah) is loaded with useful info. Is anyone interested in translating? Please go ahead and have fun. I'm too tied up in real life to do much on this front. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support His wikibio has enough to be published, IMO. Although it's true that there should be in-depth coverage of his political career. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Robert Fyfe

 * Suggestion: please expand the prose to at least double its current size of 766 characters. Stubs are not eligible for RD. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment also needs more sources in the filmography section- I've sourced about half of it, other half needs to be done. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Mansfield earthquake

 * Oppose no deaths, no injuries, minimal damage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Beaten to the nom Support - Rare for an earthquake this large to strike Australia. Widespread damage, lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Widespread damage"? The article says "minor damage", no injuries and no deaths at all.  No-one said "lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability" but "lack of anything = lack of notability". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not much in the RS news, as its effects comparatively minor. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Tree falls in a forest, no one is around to hear it"-type news. But this could be a DYK type entry. --M asem (t) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor damage, no casualties. Unusual event for Australia, but that doesn't make it an ITN blurb. I suggest you nominate for DYK instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gabby Petito
Consensus to post will not form. --Tone 11:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. There is zero chance this will be posted to the main page in any format, regardless of the insistence of a very small number of commenters. Leaving it open any longer serves no useful purpose. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)}}


 * Oppose The real news was at the time when she disappeared but that ship has sailed. We don't even have a stand-alone article about her, so this cannot be even properly considered for RD.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose people of no notability get murdered every day, e.g. four people in the UK yesterday. It doesn't mean they are of any encyclopedic value whatsoever, and this is not WP:TOP25 and this story is just another typical example of missing white woman syndrome, stuff of tabloids. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb or RD Per WP:ITNRD, RDs are generally for biographical articles—this is a page dedicated to her killing. As for the blurb, RIP and may justice be served, but let's avoid missing white woman syndrome.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD. Article is not a BLP. This could genuinely fit as a blurb, but I'm not sure that I support it even then. I find the above comments and their inclusion in the article to be examples of noxious racism attributed to normal human emotion. Why is there no Dead Black Man Syndrome article?130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to write it. Good luck. WaltCip- (talk)  13:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:655A:2E1F:3D76:8817 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD in principle - OK, so most likely this won't find consensus, but since it was closed very quickly, I am reopening it now because I would like to put a different point across regarding this. So it's clear that Ms Petito is notable only for the killing, and per the WP:NOPAGE guideline, it doesn't seem necessary to have separate pages for her and her death. But on the other hand, I think there's more than enough significant coverage of her life in the recent papers (and covering aspects like her boyfriend, travels and study) to satisfy WP:GNG. The coverage gives her notability in her own right, and the redirect would never be deleted, only that her bio is covered on another page. As such, she probably ought to be eligible for RD. The same would apply to Malia Obama for example, or Paul Elliott of the Chuckle Brothers. So while the strict rules say only standalone bios are automatically posted, I would support it in this instance as on that basis (other than the obvious quality concerns currently in the article).  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP1E, WP:VICTIM, and several other parts of BLP state that a flood of coverage about a person that was non-notable before their death does not give weight to their notability after death outside of extreme cases. --M asem (t) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Coatrack A page for a death/killing is not a WP:COATRACK for a full-fledged bio. A short summary is all that is relevant to understand the context—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was really hoping ITN would not give in to our latest bout of MWWS. I see that I am mistaken.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Subject would not have been notable prior to disappearance and death, unlikely to ever be the subject of a standalone biography per BLP1E. Perhaps a trial and conviction could lead to a mention but even this would be unlikely. I mean no offence by calling it a run-of-the-mill murder but unfortunately that's what it is, and we shouldn't really be adding those to the RD ticker. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like to resort to comparisons with other stories but it seems that readership/pageviews are part of some peoples' reasoning here. Currently looking at BBC News (even as a non brit it's still a major outlet) Petito's name is not present on their front page at all; another murder victim, not white and blonde, who has no article here, occupies one of their top sidebars. Vice's first story on the case is a specific look at how first nations and black americans are not receiving media coverage in the same circumstances. It's the third murder story down on the Grauniad's front page, nowhere on the Irish News, a footnote for Le Monde ... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why we constantly stress that ITN is not a news ticker, and we are not here to serve up the news that readers may be searching for, but articles that represent quality work on topics that happen to be in the news that thus may be what readers are searching for - that is, the reader angle is secondary over the quality and encylopedic nature that ITN's box serves on the front page. If readers are coming to the front page of WP to find news, they are absolutely in the wrong place, they should be going to BBC or CNN or whatever news outlet of their choice is for that. We're not a newspaper, and its stories like this that are difficult for us to deal with in the first place due to their gossip-y type nature, much less their presence at ITN. --M asem (t) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:ITN page says nothing about a "ticker" and one of the WP:ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Amakuru. I don't get why if non-standalone articles like Ian Brady are eligible for RD, then a standalone article that happens to be titled "Death Of" is not. There is enough coverage here to justify posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, it's not so much that it's not a standalone article; but that the examples given here--Brady, Paul Elliott, Malia Obama, etc--were at least notable enough to be the subjects, even if jointly, of articles independent of their deaths. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is one of those stupid "person disappears" gossip heavy stories that periodically flood the news media because it creates this sense of mystery about whether a person close to the deceased actually did it. None of the people involved were notable before and only because of the situation around the death created a news whirlwind around the event, but this is very much still in gossip-heavy territory. The persons involved still aren't notable (WP:BLP1E absolutely applies, its why this has to stay an event article, not a bio article), so this can't be an RD. And if it was suggested to be a blurb, I'd strongly oppose that because it is the fact this is the type of bad reporting that seeps into the news media once in a while (this happens in the UK too) that gives undue weight on the plight of one person while everyday people go missing or are killed and don't get any coverage at all. --M asem (t) 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm staggered that we even consider it appropriate to have an article on this.  It's a complete joke. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and delete titillating tabloid ephemera per Masem and TRM Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to take it to AfD. I suspect it will be swiftly kept.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD – Alternative für Deutschland? Why would those rightwingers be interested? – Sca (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it's befuddling. Tabloid missing white women syndrome garbage really belongs in an encyclopedia, doesn't it?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are old media but this case is more of an Internet phenomenon – see How It Went Viral. And Wikipedia is part of this new media. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD  - hey ITN regulars, stop quick-closing this. Just cuz the first few votes are oppose doesn't mean it's a snow close. Sheesh. Anyway, it is MWWS, and despite my personal feelings about this, it meets ITN's criteria and purpose. It's in the news, readers are looking for it (page views), and the quality is sufficient. My personal feelings about the news story shouldn't come into play at all. Levivich 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked at it? It's orange-tagged!!  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The single section undue weight tag? Meh. Btw I'd support this as RD or blurb but leaning RD . Levivich 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Addendum: In thinking about this more, I support RD but not blurb. 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD in principle, oppose on quality. Per what others have said, no reason why a "Death of X" article isn't RD-eligible when other non-BLP articles are, they're just not "automatically eligible", and so need a conversation to be had (rather than continuously being snow closed...). And her death most definitely is in the news, and we post based on reported date (so it is a "recent death" by our definition). That being said, the orange tag would need to be resolved before it could even be considered from an article quality perspective.
 * Strong oppose blurb Another mundane USA news that someone pretends to have an encyclopedic impact and value. Just another (possible) crime among so many that are committed in that country and in the world. There are more important things to discuss. RIP. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry if I've caused a shit-storm, but to be clear I'm not in any way advocating for a blurb. The story is not ITN material in that sense. I'm simply saying that she's notable. For one event maybe, but she's notable. As such, she should appear in the RD section. It's not our fault that the media has created significant coverage of her, and a lot of the opinions above seem to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't our mission here. If you think she's really not notable, then take the redirect to RFD. Or take the whole article to AFD or something. But don't blame the messenger.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between trying to "right great wrongs" and simply not wishing to further contribute to them. When the dust settles I'm sure we will have an article in line with others on deaths or, potentially, murders and which will satisfy GNG. I don't necessarily believe AFD is the right venue., that is not to say that this article should be given an exception to our usual RD processes—the supposed "great wrong" would be undue coverage of a non notable individual; going out of our way to make an exception and posting a non notable individual on the RD ticker would be incorrect; not posting it would not be an overcorrection but simply business as usual. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - RD doesn't apply here. The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death. Being kidnapped is not inherent notability. See WP:BLP1E.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:ITNRD say that? Levivich 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article" (bolded mine). WaltCip- (talk)  14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We already had an RD for "Barry Chuckle" at so there's precedence that the bit you highlight there isn't always followed. BLP1E concerns the subject of whether someone "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". It doesn't address notability in itself, which would be covered by WP:GNG, noting that not all notable individuals get pages, per WP:NOPAGE.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're wrong there too. Note 2 of that same page specifies "individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group)" are eligible for RD on a case-by-case basis. There was no error committed in posting Mr. Chuckle. But there are no notes nor exceptions granted for people who are notable only for being kidnapped. WaltCip- (talk)  14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it says it's case-by-case, and here we are discussing it so that sounds valid to me. You're welcome to oppose, of course, but I don't think your line "The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death" is found in the guidelines. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The full quote is "...if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is: 1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion. 2. Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death. 3. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." Death of Gabby Petito meets those three criteria. Per commenters above, I see no reason to think that this article is not a "biographical article" because it's called "Murder of". A person who is notable for how they died is notable. Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, like Ian Brady, that means that Barry Chuckle would be notable in his own right for a joint article, which still counts as a biographical article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is the first time I've ever seen one of the Chuckle Brothers compared to Ian Brady. So I thank you for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a biographical article. It just isn't. A biographic article has to not be focused on the event and has to be focused on that person, which is why the article on this is focused around the killing and not the person herself. That's why if you created a "Gabby Petito" article, it would be nominated for deletion. WaltCip- (talk)  14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "It just isn't" isn't really convincing me somehow :-P I don't see a difference between an article about a person and an article about a person's death. Saying the latter is about an event and not a person doesn't sway me because the event is the death of the person. A death article is about a person. In the same way, an article about the sinking of a ship is an article about a ship, and an article about a building fire is an article about the building. Levivich 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help you if you are choosing to interpret something with an incorrect definition, but literally wrote the book on WP:ITNRD. If you doubt whether my interpretation of the wording is incorrect, you could ask him. WaltCip- (talk)  14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:ITNRD page was created by and  has never edited it.  This is presumably the contradictory usage of literally. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously still a god, though? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "When someone asks you if you're a god..." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I didn't realise that ITN was quite so high in the clouds. But you wouldn't get far with a catchphrase like "This chick is toast". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ...."Who you gonna call? Blurb-busters!!"
 * TRM is a top bloke and knowledgeable on a wide range of topics, but I don't recall him being appointed as the overall God of ITN. My interpretation, and I suspect that of Levivich is that Chuckle Brothers, Family of Barack Obama and Killing of Gabby Petito are all in part biographical articles, because they contain the master record and are redirected to from various subjects who meet GNG but don't have their own page. Certainly I'd expect the BLP rules to apply to those parts of the article pertaining to the individuals concerned. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not a god, but for 100% certain, RD was never intended for this kind of thing. It's literally circumventing the regular ITN process because this is either a blurb (it's the event that's notable, for whatever reason, not the individual in any sense).  The target article is not a biographical article (unlike the Chuckle bro, unlike Brady etc, articles) and as such is not a valid RD target.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both RD and blurb – Purient police-blotter chaff. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Police blotter chaff usually doesn't get three stories on it in the BBC , plus BBC stories in Spanish , Portuguese , Indonesian , and Kinyarwanda . Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, neutral on RD. Human interest story, mainly national rather than international interest, missing white woman syndrome.  Sandstein   14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks to be in good shape and this story is in the news. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose blurb as gossip crap and that we are not WP:TOP25. And while we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we also don't post minor-celebrity gossip like the Branson/Bezos spaceflights. I'm also leaning towards opposing RD as well due to her not having a Wikipedia article before the incident and my never having heard of her YouTube channel unlike stuff like ScottTheWoz, PewDiePie (or even, ughhh, Gabbie Hanna), etc. We should wait a couple of hours, though, before closing this for the third and final time. In any event RIP Petito. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on lack of significance. A tragic case, but one strongly affected by missing white woman syndrome. Also oppose RD as she would not have qualified for an article prior to the disappearance - there's no biographical article per WP:BLP1E. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * RD comment For comparison, the death of a black man was rejected for RD, citing that it wasn't a bio.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good research. The bottom line is that RDs is for notable people and blurbs are for notable events.  This is neither.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb the article is good quality and the death is certainly in the news in the US (it has crossed over from tabloid news to mainstream news). I'm not sure what the rule is regarding posting "Killing of X" articles to RD, but the rule should be that they can be posted with consensus but not automatically.  Obviously not important enough for a blurb. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I suspect more traction might apply if it does get moved to Killing of Gabby Petito. But at least I now know what vandwelling is. Had assumed it was either something to do with V-Dubs, or else Wanda in Austria. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that deaths of people who only have a redirect are eligible for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no hard rule, it is the kind of thing that is taken on a case by case basis. It is not forbidden, and has happened multiple times in the past, for example this posting received universal support and no objections.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Though there, that target article is a bio article of two individual known only as a duo and not individually, and thus still technically a biographical article about a notable duo, while here, we're still talking about an event on a non-notable individual. --M asem (t) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was not the question that was asked. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings.  If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A member of a duo or group can be eligible per WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was not the question the OP asked about. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings.  If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your response positioned Siegfried and Roy as an example of IAR, and I responded to you that it was codified in ITNRD as a possible exemption.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD refers to biographies: An individual human ... that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is .... The nominated page is regarding an event, and is not a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A blurb for a murder victim, no. I was about to support RD but started to think that she is notable per her murder and all media attention, that does not make her RD worthy. SorryBabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The people who have flooded my social media feeds lately complaining about MWWS could have solved their own problem by simply not talking about this episode in the first place. The thing is, they're fearful they won't have as large a following if they don't obediently latch on to every topic the news media is pushing today.  The reason I mention this?  Wikipedia is evidently content to follow suit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a third closer volunteer? Consensus to post is even further afield than it was the first and second times. Time to put this horse out of its misery. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3C32:7D8B:2AD5:60CC (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD but Oppose Blurb -- I think RD is fair. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD There's a consensus at Deaths in 20xx that an article with a person's death in the title is as good as a bio for not getting deleted after 30 days. This same level of established notability should be recognized here, too, since the two systems are linked. In my opinion, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Throw it on the Main page now, knowing it can always get binned in 30 days' time? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It can't be binned. Not from the real RD list, per the title rule. From the front page, it'll be trashed in a day or two, maybe fewer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, that shows a failing in the Deaths in system, since per BLP policy identified above, such people are not considered notable and that that page deems to give them that sense of notability is a bad approach. There are reasonable exceptions, obviously. --M asem (t) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD. She's notable and she's dead, and that is enough. BD2412  T 23:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, she is not notable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I'll take this to AFD in a few months per WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM but I don't feel like dealing with the rain of "keep"s right now. There is nothing notable about this individual nor her death. Nothing. Agree with both re-openings though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNRD excerpts Per WP:ITNRD (color added for emphasis): In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gabby was not notable. Her killing arguably is, though. It is therefore not appropriate for RD, which requires the subjects to be notable individuals. Events like these where a white woman is murdered and it causes a media sensation happen semi-frequently, and are not blurb worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose RD General lacking notability of the subject, questionable significance of even having the article, and while it is allowed, I think the fact that the article in question isnt specifically on her somewhat hinders the case for RD posting. EDIT: Forgot to also mention that the general scope of this article is lacking. I recognize The Guardian is being sourced here, but are we still sure that the international implications/regognization of the situation is sufficient as well? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and RD per Masem. The need for the 24 hour news cycle to fill airtime with gossip neither does not make this unfortunate woman an encyclopedia subject.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to close I closed it earlier, but won't again. As of this writing, the consensus stands at 9 in support of posting, 21 opposed.  If someone uninvolved can interpret that according to their best ability and decide what to do here, that would be great.  It doesn't need to be any more of a time sink than it already has.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – User comments running 21 to 5 9 against posting. That's a clear consensus in the negative. Support close. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat hoping an admin will swoop in and post this so we can double the kilobyte size of this discussion. WaltCip- (talk)  12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some men just want to watch the world burn-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would but I am in no mood to be reverted for no reason today. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apropos swooping, my Halloween costume this year will depict a masked Wiki admin., purely imaginary of course. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcia Freedman

 * Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Melvin Van Peebles

 * Suggestion: There is a blue {under construction} tag. Perhaps we should not review this nom while the construction is still underway. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It needs work beyond that section.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, as needs quite a lot more sourcing, particularly Filmography section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks well sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few remaining {cn} tags in the prose, and orange tags about the lack of citations in the Filmography section and for the bullet-points following the table. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Garson

 * Please add references to the Filmography section. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * filmography and rest of article all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the new footnotes, Bloom6132. This wikibio looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * . Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Court ruling on Litvinenko's poisoning

 * Comment The mere outcome of the ruling has no long-lasting impact, unless it results in something that will affect the guilty party, so let's wait to see if the international community follows up by imposing sanctions against Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. By itself, this ruling is more a footnote to the larger story. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support we all knew this was the case, but a supranational court declaring it to be the case and even suggesting that it was sanctioned by Putin is noteworthy. If we had a story suggesting that Trump had sanctioned the assassination of Greta Thunberg using nerve agents in Stockholm (for example) then this place would be utterly mad for it.  Serious news and high encyclopedic value.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This court has no enforcement capabilities, and Russia is not a voluntary member. If it pays the fine, I'll switch. But it won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad you're here for the lulz, just one thing, as per the ECHR article, "International law scholars consider the ECtHR to be the most effective international human rights court in the world". But hey, why let that get in the way of a genuinely encyclopedic news article.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish you would learn what a joke looks like. I seriously doubt this verdict will be effective. But if I'm wrong, I'll admit you were wiser than me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can help but associate "joke" with everything you and Statler post. There's very little consideration of the encyclopedia in most of it.  Whether the "fine is paid" or not, is not really the point, is it?  It would be like suggesting that UN sanctions against Israel are of no encyclopedic value.  This is an supranational body declaring that Putin sanctioned a nerve agent attack on foreign soil.  Meh, perhaps that's just so de rigeur these days, like school shootings in the US, that we can shrug it off.  Never mind.  The blurb should also indicate the court's decision on Putin's complicity.  That would wake up some of the world.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a court has no authority to impose its sentence, it's basically a think tank. And this one didn't symbolically fine Putin. It fined Russia. You can't help telling those apart, either, both habits annoy me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how old you are, but it is abundantly obvious that the "fine" is not the point here in any sense. We have an international court now saying that the President of Russia sanctioned the use of a weapon of mass destruction on foreign soil.  And yet you think it's just about the fines?  It's clear we're talking about different things.  Probably best for you to get back with Statler in the peanut gallery.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you link a source mentioning this court finding Putin guilty of anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. But I guess it's 2 plus 2, sky is blue etc.  Fair enough, but suggesting that the only way this becomes notable is if Russia pays a fine is patently absurd, regardless.  Let's get back to new Tube stations and Gaelic football then.  Well done everyone! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's libel. And no, I'm not threatening to report you for it, I'm just unilaterally finding you guilty and ordering you to perform 60 hours of community service. I don't care where, when or what. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's libel"? Ok...!  See you in another universe where you start taking this place seriously.  Of course, you don't.  Your contributions rotate around trying to be funny and make no tangible improvements anywhere really.  But you've found a Muppet bromance and that's great for the people who tolerate your "input". You do you, I'll keep writing articles and improving Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have you know Bailiff Evans is just a guy from work, and I remain steadfastly loyal to my lovely civil partner of 35 years, Mokey Fraggle. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess this is an attempt at humour, from one of our regular muppets. Just highlighting it for those who aren't aware we have a couple of characters who do this kind of thing at ITNC.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Small text is attempted humour. Regular text is normally just a plain statement of fact that you can't understand, agree with or appreciate as such and insist on heckling obnoxiously instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support posting this determination of an international body. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on update quality; would be full support if more information had been added to the target article. The total added text involves one sentence in the lead and about 3-4 sentences to the body.  If this is a major, newsworthy event, surely our article we're going to post to the main page can tell more about it, no?  If this is all that can be said on the subject, it isn't newsworthy.  If there is more that should be said, but the Wikipedia article isn't including it, then the article is not properly updated.  IF this is fixed, consider this a full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Kiril Simeonovski. Sheesh, "who knew", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on coverage. While coverage is demonstrated, the sources themselves don't appear to be highlighting this. This event appears nowhere on BBCs frontpage, News nor World sections. This is not featured on the frontpages of: Izvitsia, Pravda nor The Moscow Times, and I would have expected coverage there considering Russia is the major party to this decision. In the US, the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post have unanimously decided this is not important enough feature. While the article is suitable for the Front Page, I and apparently most RSs, believe it's not something to feature at this juncture.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something significant actually comes out of this. Right now, all they've done is blame Russia for something everyone already blamed Russia for- not exactly breaking news. If something e.g. sanctions happens, then it would be ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Somehow, it's never the right time to post an ITN story that shines the light on the authoritarian abuses of Putin's regime. Not even when a supranational court makes a major ruling holding Russia responsible. Regarding the IP's comment above: There has been plenty of coverage of this story in Russia, e.g. Pravda, TASS, RT, Moscow Times. And of course NY Times did cover it too, as did WSJ , NPR, CNN, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Russian legislative election

 * Comment The article is in great condition. But the results section needs prose, there is some cn tag out there, the summary should include the results and maybe the "Reactions" section could be expanded. I guess in no time it will be completely ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Tonight at 11, gravity continues to function This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And it still rains more or less vertically in Canada, despite our legislature staying mostly the same, so what's the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly - article quality issues notwithstanding, this qualifies as ITNR even if the expected status quo remained, and so we would post it regardless. --M asem (t) 16:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Only two cn tags and one failed verification tag. Once those are fixed, this is good to go. Please note that "water is wet" is a valid reason to oppose most ITN nominations, but not if it's ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Pension reform" section has zero footnotes. The Results table has a couple of empty columns. Can these be fixed, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as per above comment. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on two grounds: insufficient quality and failure of the blurb (and the current version of the lead section of the article) to make clear that this election was not a free and fair election. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not ITN's job to dispute election results. It's Wikipedia's role to post the facts i.e. who won, and the article itself can deal with the questionable legitimacy of the result. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This subject comes up with every election of dubious validity(some still dispute the last US presidential election). I think there are ways to get the point that the election was not fair across, but there is no consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That the election was not free and fair is "the facts." I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "the facts i.e. who won", though. I also think that's the main takeaway. No objection to adding the runner-up party, if that seems fairer. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's never been a consensus way to assess the validity of an election, as Joseph2302 states, and it's ultimately not Wikipedia's job to do so in a blurb that is in WikiVoice. People generally already know how Russia works, and those who don't can read the article for more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easy to make clear in a blurb that an election is not free and fair (when, as is the case here, the sources support it). It is our job to have a blurb that does not mislead the reader or rely on the reader having background knowledge that he or she may not have. Neutralitytalk 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment could we just remove the 'pension reform' section? That would leave a handful of cn and fv tags which should be much easier to address. Some prose in the results section would help too. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but just an FYI to the nom, "largest" in terms of human geography usually means "most populous", not "largest in area". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you and it's probably the case in almost every Indo-European language, but my preference is to always use "most populous" rather than "largest" in that context. If you google "largest country in the world", what you get is obviously Russia and not China. All in all, it's a matter of personal preference.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once dubious information is properly cited or removed, per comments above. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose about actual results, only about background, procedures and campaign launches. Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Mills

 * Support Looks good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Minimal depth of coverage in terms of the subject's scholarly work, could use some expansion regarding his ideas.  Spencer T• C 22:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added Charles W. Mills. How does it look to you now? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 23:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helmut Oberlander

 * Support Unusual story, fine article, not supporting Nazism. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well written and referenced. Another time when we must post based on how good the article is, not how good the subject's actions were. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Too bad his wikibio is of better quality than what his life was. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. ( if you fill out your name in the nominator slot when you nominate RD items, it is easier to give you nom credits. Cheers,  Spencer T• C 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sarah Dash

 * Oppose per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's wait. No need to rush in an assessment, which can begin upon notification here that the article has improved sufficiently. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, we said "at this writing". If dashing in turns out foolish later, any vote can be dashed out. I might even regret that pun when I'm sober, who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. There are merely 5 footnotes for almost 2000 words of prose. I hope someone can dash in and add more refs soon. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PFHLai, for making room for this nomination. Turns out, that someone won't be me. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all standard practice for RDs. They don't get closed until they're archived, seven days after the death/announcement, and "opposes" on quality are always taken to be void once the article is brought up to scratch. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * YMMV. I nominated a recent death above and it was peremptorily closed in less than two hours.  If Amakuru thinks that the process is to keep them open to allow full time for discussion and improvement then please could they oblige by re-opening the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an RD nomination, it was a blurb nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted, Gabby Petito doesn't have her own article, so it's not automatic that she's eligible for RD. That said, I think this may be a bit of an anomaly in the rules. It probably still won't be posted, but I have boldly reopened the above nom to put a slightly different point of view across. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More refs are still needed for the many footnote-free paragraphs, but time is running out. It looks like my hopes of seeing Dash on RD have been dashed. Oh, well... Let her rest in peace. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Canadian federal election

 * Wait until the morrow Detailed election results (a major part of the article) are still very incomplete at this time. See further below RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until full updates to the article are made per RandomCanadian. Added Trudeau picture as was added for 2019 blurb. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Results need prose and there should be a section on "Reactions" and/or "Aftermath". It would be interesting if somewhere there was also a section/sub-section on the anti-COVID-19 measures that have been implemented for the election day. At least when I edit articles about elections I try to put this kind of information. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Several sources relate criticism that this snap election was expensive and a waste of time. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is lacking, and should be added by anybody who has time later today, but the rest of the article, once we can at least put the final number of seats, seems OK enough (the standard for ITN is not FA); and this is a major enough event (national elections) that it probably warrants a wee bit of leeway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't care if it's "R" or technically "in the news". Nothing changed. As a voter, I can confirm earlier reports: This snap election was expensive and a waste of time, and that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support once final results come in This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. There's no prose synopsis of the election, its results, etc.  It's a giant article of tables.  If we want to post this article, someone should fix that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still quite thin – mostly tables & background. – Sca (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support WP:ITN/R is pretty clear that all general elections of sovereign states should be included. No exceptions for snap elections, or re-election. The 2019 UK snap election was included and nothing changed. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. General elections are ITN/R; it may be disappointing to some that nothing major changed, but re-elections are still general elections nonetheless. It's in the news, even if it's underwhelming or boring news. <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> 💙 01:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our required Results section is a total of 2 sentences, which might as well read "see previous article". There must surely be something more to be written of the outcome.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support --though it's rather annoying that parliamentary systems could conceivably spam ITN by repeatedly calling snap elections or being unable to form a government, it's in ITN/R, so it should be posted. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is just about decent enough- it has the results and info on the undeclared seats, which is just about enough information. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. There should be at least a tiny section called Reactions. Now, the only substantial prose is in the intro and background sections, which is not enough. --Tone 07:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready per Tone. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support As mentioned by other users, elections should always be featured. Additionally, the window for this event being current is slipping away as we speak.  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  13:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's safe to say it's a projected minority government. Perhaps the mention that some ridings are still being counted due to close races/mail in ballots etc. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The official results have not been announced as it takes days to count the postal ballots. Unofficial polls and projections are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't wait for official results to post, because the news does not. We posted Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election once it was clear he won, not when Congress officially certified the result. We also did not wait for legal challenges to conclude. If the projections are that far off, that would likely be news itself. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not ready. The sourcing of the results is fine, but there is literally one sentence of prose discussing the results, reactions, aftermath etc. That's not good enough to post - there needs to be at least a full paragraph with references. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There's now a half-decent lead; results are quasi-final; and there's also a decent enough background section. For something of this significance, that seems enough - waiting further would defeat the point of this being ITN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose No prose in main body apart from the background Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is pretty good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Reactions section now has plenty of prose, so the article passes on quality. Deservedly in ITN/R as a national election article. - LtNOWIS (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Paul Rusesabagina convicted of terrorism

 * Leaning oppose - the guy was arrested last year, claiming he was abducted by the Rwandan government, and he's been an outspoken critic of said government for some time. I don't regard today's development as at all unexpected, to be honest; the Rwandan government has a bit of a reputation with Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and so on, for locking up political opponents. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It's like the case of Raman Pratasevich which we posted in May. And it's certainly in the news -- I was listening to a report on the radio just now. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support but oppose blurb as written. Paul Rusesabagina is considered a political prisoner by the European Union, and his arrest was essentially the same thing as Roman Protasevich, as both involved hijacking a flight.  I think the high-profile nature of this arrest makes this noteworthy enough for ITN.  However, political neutrality in a blurb will be difficult to achieve.  To fail to mention that his conviction was controversial is to give legitimacy to the Rwandan regime's show trial.  On the other hand, to do the opposite would be biased in favour of the west.  A good, neutral blurb that mentions the controversial aspects of the trial is best here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article which is a BLP is under-referenced, amongst other issues. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose sourcing is lacking and also quite a chunk of refs are to his autobiography Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Northern line extension to Battersea

 * Support Congrats, London. Great news, Govey (irony alert) . Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. "first major expansion of the underground since the Jubilee Line Extension opened in 1999"
 * Oppose ITN is not WP:TOP25, nor should it be. Two new stations on top of nearly 300 which already exist.  Of very limited parochial interest and practically zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm certain that a tube extension is surely one of the least blurb-worthy things to be nominated. Not even the linked article has any page other than the English one. And just because it's the most popular story on the BBC doesn't mean it can be globally. Good luck if you manage to change my opinion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have much competition. We've been blurbing a Gaelic football match for over a week now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SFC is blurb-worthy because this was decided by the users of Wiki, who surely did so considering its notability and popularity. Feel free to propose to remove it from that list. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - the first new stations to open for more than 20 years, on one of the world's most notable rapid transit systems, is significant enough for ITN I would say. This is the kind of encyclopaedic topic which it's good to cover. I would include Nine Elms in the blurb though, as the extension doesn't only serve Battersea Power Station. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The first extension to the oldest metro system in the world in over twenty years, and reading Northern line extension to Battersea it is obvious the project has had sustained news coverage and attracted attention both good and bad. "Zero encyclopedic value" is subjective, I completely disagree with 's comment and point to the 89,000 byte long encyclopedic article that has been written about this topic. 's comment appears to oppose inclusion due to a lack of global appeal, one of the arguments to avoid listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with me by all means, but don't feel obliged to ping me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I'm sure when the Kongō Gumi opens a new headquarters in I-don't-know-where, there will be blurb and you will support it. It doesn't make sense. This is not for a "London Main Page". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Had they considered Battersea?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre comment. The London Underground is not only old, it is an iconic system and I reckon the trains, stations, roundel, etc would be recognised internationally. However, as I already pointed out, items do not need international interest to appear here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's truly ICONIC, it's a shoo-in. Has the International Iconography Commissiion certified this status? – Sca (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * London Underground is a Level 4 Vital article. That has to count for something, right? WaltCip- (talk)  12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you'd have to ask the three or four people who own run the vital articles "project"... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess a link to Level 4 Vital article might help to get a blurb on Main page. But if the proposed bold link was to a new article for man spills another cup of coffee on the Northern Line, maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on how hot the coffee is. WaltCip- (talk)  17:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support. It's a fairly underwhelming story but we do need new blurbs and the article is in good shape. I've added an altblurb - it's not appropriate to use an image of the power station to illustrate a blurb about a railway line that was built decades later, nor to WP:EGG link to the tube station and call it the power station. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't just serve the power-station-which-is-no-longer-a-power-station anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can't recall the last infrastructure blurb we posted for comparison, but an extension to an already-extensive network feels far less groundbreaking than where the bar, at least on gut instinct, should be—something on the scale of the Øresund Bridge would probably merit inclusion but not this, for me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - a good example of a metro/subway in the news would be something like "an new extension to the XYZ Subway has made it the largest network in the world" or "first Metro in region ZYX opened today" Turini2 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The biggest impact of this extension is that literally millions of Tube maps now need to be updated.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Personally a big fan of this extension - I did a big 5x expansion on this article in the last 2 weeks or so. But an extension to the London Underground surely isn't one of the most important news stories around. Isn't the Canadian federal election today? Turini2 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, yes .... and other big surprise election news just in!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Absolutely. We would post major renovations to New York's metro system, especially if it came to something like replacing its outdated switching system.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We absolutely would, because it's New York. It would at least get nominated and last long enough to not be SNOW-closed. WaltCip- (talk)  17:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, my opinion would be exactly the same. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per TRM. Not even middling whelming. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose being probably more interesting than gaelic football isn't a reason to post this(we should judge on ITN-worthiness rather than comparison to other articles). If this were an extension to any other country's large metro system, don't imagine we'd consider posting- Paris is planning 4 whole new lines in the next few years, NYC had multiple extensions in last few year, and I doubt anyone would consider nominating any of these for ITN. Outside of London/England, there is almost no coverage of this event, and the coverage inside England shows this isn't an "earth-shattering" event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good for Londoners but irrelevant for the rest. I don't see how this affects 99.9 per cent of the world population living outside of the city, and the benefits measured in 20,000 new homes and 25,000 new jobs can't change my opinion. The article is in excellent shape, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, do we have an agreed residency percentage criterion for posting new infrastructure projects? Might prove a little contentious? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't remember to have ever supported posting the completion of an infrastructure project, and that would probably happen if the final product has the distinction of being 'largest', 'longest', 'tallest' or 'deepest'. In this case, nothing makes this extension, not a completely new project, even close to it. Beijing and Shanghai have rapid transit systems with 13 times the total annual ridership of the London Underground, but we didn't even consider posting their most recent expansions a couple of months ago. Similar extensions with much greater impact are being carried out around the world all the time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did they make the news? Did they even get updates in our articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably worthwhile to point out that (nothing wrong with this) WP has a number of railfans here that have worked to extensive build out articles on the UK rail system to this level of depth that doesn't happen in other systems. So that this new line has a well developed article is of little surprise while similar expansions elsewhere probably got one or two sentences at most. But that's why we're trying to judge on the overall impact here, and the expansion of one metro public transit system has rather limited world impact. --M asem (t) 14:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support Trying to understand the standalone clarity ("tube" or "line extension" because of the power station mention) of the blurb. Is this something to do with trains or electrical infrastructure? Maybe something to the effect of " In rail transit, service of the London Underground is extended by two miles to the south London district of Battersea" CoatCheck (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Rambling Man. "very limited parochial interest and practically zero encyclopedic value" 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:10EC:7D8E:A977:ED64 (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. One would have to ask if there would be a similar level of support if the NYC Subway opened a new station in a similar fashion. --M asem (t) 14:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I personally would find that more newsworthy than some of the items on the main page today. NemesisAT (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Transport networks are routinely expanded everywhere, especially as population generally is increasing. No indication of any technical/engineering advance or notability Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it's interesting to note that the OP's suggestion that being in the BBC's "most read" is a good way to find the best stories, but it's no longer in the top ten, even just a few hours later. I suppose it's all about "today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip papers" with respect to this particular piece of rail trivia.  To be fair, it is the 30th story on the UK page of the BBC News website, but so far "below the fold", and way below "BBC Weather presenter pulled over by dog on live TV"... I'd be surprised if it remains there much longer....  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Has made the Evening Standard. Am tempted. Ticks many boxes. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH I would support the nomination of this "doggy affair" for the Main Page. Worse things we've had to see around here. And dogs are cute. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As predicted, the Tube story has now rolled off the bottom of even the UK page, and is now 15th on the England page. This is one of the "best stories"?  I think the weather presenter/guide dog combo has edged ahead....  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because a rail line being extended is commonplace & nowhere near important enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment in fact, we would not post the same thing if it happened in New York --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The newest NY subway thing was Ida or amongst subway-only things, the yearlong partial L shutdown to repair hurricane damage which wasn't posted. Besides weather stuff it was a replacement NYCS-bull-trans-1-Std.svg station (which was 20m from Twin Towers, far closer than any other subway, crushed by their east wall(s) and was the final train thing to return to normal), it was closed @ 6 opposed no support. The newest besides that was the aforementioned phase 1 of the second East Side Line which had been vaporware for 100 years, relieved massive overcrowding of the East Side Line (25% of the rides in like 4-5% of the miles) and wasn't posted. The newest thing before that wasn't nominated and allowed NYC's 3rd biggest skyscraper forest+3rd tallest building to be built in a subwayless area by connecting it to the busiest subway nexus and completing its 8-way intersection of subways (9-ways including "double bonds"). The new thing before that was an all-new 2009 station that replaced an old one in the same location (meh) and wasn't nominated. The new thing before that was a short stationless bypass cause the wealthiest Queens line was approaching capacity of 2,000 adults/train, ~2 trains/minute and this was cheaper than becoming Earth's first 6-lane subway (hexuple-track/dodecuple-rail). ITN didn't exist then (2001, the first new subway thing since 1989). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per many above, does not seem remotely notable enough for ITN. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm disappointed but not surprised that this even got nominated. If there are two things that ITN loves, it's mundane U.S. news and mundane UK news. Mlb96 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Perm State University shooting

 * Oppose -- nothing about this shooting seems notable enough to warrant a post; especially since this is at least the second school shooting in Russia. We would oppose posting this if it happened elsewhere. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  09:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded. School shootings anywhere on the planet except for one notable exception are incredibly rare.  According to Category:School shootings in Russia, there have been a grand total of four.  Article is way off at this time.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We've not had a school shooting which killed 8 or more people in the US since 2018. Russia had one this year. This is disingenuous. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  10:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The statistics speak very clearly for themselves.  You have literally had hundreds of school shootings in the last couple of decades.  That is simply not the case anywhere else on the planet.  Defending the indefensible once more.  Thoughts and prayers etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet very few of those resulted in deaths. We already posted a school shooting in a Russian school just 4 months ago. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MissingThePoint.com. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2008 Jerusalem yeshiva attack (8 dead), Yeshivat Otniel shooting (4 dead), Ma'alot massacre ("When they broke into the classroom where the students were being held, Haribi grabbed a student, Gabi Amsalem, and held him at gunpoint on the floor. Rahim was shot dead but Linou managed to reach the classroom, grab several magazines from the teacher's desk and reload his weapon. He then sprayed the students with machinegun fire and tossed grenades out the window. When a burst of fire broke his left wrist, he threw two grenades at a group of girls huddled on the floor. Several students leaped from the windows to the ground, some ten feet below."), Avivim school bus bombing (3 gun deaths in school bus), Shaar HaNegev school bus attack (27kg missile, 2kg tube). Likely incomplete, with 57 times more population this is equal to 285 similar school gunmen attacks since 1970 in USA or 5-6 per year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this is true, and yet has no bearing on the current discussion. Naming random other school shootings neither a) produces news coverage about this school shooting or b) produces quality, referenced prose in the Wikipedia article about this school shooting.  Those are literally the only things we need to assess in order to decide whether or not to post this on Wikipedia's main page.  There's no need to discuss other matters.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake, wrong indent. Was giving counterexample to "School shootings anywhere on the planet except for one notable exception are incredibly rare.". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still not actually relevant to the discussion on this page, which is where we are trying to decide a) are reliable news outlets covering the story in an appropriately in-depth way and b) is the article quality good enough. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the counter-examples. The rarity of them in locations other than those which are almost literally warzones is more than amply exemplified by your list.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So can you say except warzones and near-warzones when you say we're the only ones? Thanks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Peruse the list; the last school shooting in the United States that killed at least 6 people was the Santa Fe High School shooting in 2018. Before this shooting, the last school shooting in Russia that killed at least 6 people was the Kazan school shooting in May of this year. How is a school shooting which kills 6 people notable in Russia but not in the US? --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because literally of the sheer volume of school shootings. If you have a hundred a year, then you'd statistically expect one of them to be be bad.  If you have two per year, or like in the UK, one per decade, you report them.  They're unusual, anomalous events.  School shootings in the US are just part of everyday life, regardless of the outcome.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6 people is 0.0000041% of the population in Russia. That's equivalent to 13.628 people in the USA! And of course, everyone in the US has a gun. Several, I think. Russians just have those old Soviet guns that don't work very well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes everyone, even premature babies. Except me, I must be the only one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is clearly more notable than similar events in the US where shootings are a daily routine, so the set of criteria for posting shootings there is simply not applicable to this. However, the article is a one-line stub with absolutely no relevant information and there's long way to go even if consensus develops on its notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per now Agree with TRM and Kiril. There's a lot of work to be done on the article so that it can be on the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality obviously we won't post a one-line article, but unless people actually improve it then the discussion of importance is moot. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joseph2302. The article is a stub. Unless that improves substantially there's no point in discussing the importance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Pending expansion of article. Arguably significant due to rarity, but motive unknown at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support This thread is embarrassing. I get that the democratic party operatives writing this encyclopedia would much prefer this massacre to stay hidden because it runs against their narrative of school shootings being a product of lax gun laws, but the arguments these people try to come up are embarrassing. This event doesn't deserve a mention because it's the second major school shooting in Russia in 2 years? Come on. This is just lazy Daikido (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the opposes so far have been on quality grounds, so your indignation here seems a little misplaced. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What did I just read? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your !vote violates WP:NOTFORUM and not incidentally WP:NPA. I urge you to strike it before it becomes hatted. WaltCip- (talk)  15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – If the shooter – who was wounded – turns out to be a stereotypical 'disgruntled' loner, it probably isn't ITN/significant. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure that matters much to the dead people (or their families)? Better to be murdered by a nice family man? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if his motive was personal rather than ideological, which seems likely since he was a student there, the import of the event would seem somewhat less weighty. (My personal choice: Being blown away by a jilted ex-lover, if I had one. Alas...) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you can get them ready jilted (for small extra fee). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support pending article expansion. Article is a bit on the short side, would be full support if it were more fleshed out, but it's long enough for the main page and fully referenced, IMHO.  The topic is receiving news coverage, so it passes the significance criteria as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because a killing with a single-figure death toll that doesn't have an ideological motive is usually not important enough to post. Deliberate killings of this size happen many times every year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many times a year. In which countries? Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean in the world as a whole. They're far more common in some places than others, but its relative rarity doesn't make it notable enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah right. I thought you meant in Russia (where it would be rare).  Obviously a shooting like this would be inherently non-notable in the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are all the "other" countries with all these regular school shootings please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, perhaps you missed this, where are all these "many times a year" school shootings happening? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So by this logic, we will post the first school shooting for each of 200 sovereign states, as they are rare in that state. And each state gets one train derailment, and a flood, a military coup...what else? A common place event does not become notable because it's been awhile since it happened here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "its relative rarity doesn't make it notable enough to post." this is literally the best thing I've ever read at ITN. It supersedes anything I've ever read before.  By an absolute mile.  I guess this was written ironically, but good grief, some of us reading this would think this was utterly insane. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I said killings with a similar death toll happen many times a year in the world - I didn't narrow the scope to school shootings. If the same number of people were killed in a house or bar anywhere in the world, it's unlikely it would have an article & even less likely to to be nominated. Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority. Its tiny stub article would have no chance of being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well your "scope" is irrelevant to this context then. This was a school shooting.  And yes, we know it happens all the time in the US.  It happens, but rarely, anywhere else in the world.  It's a complex equation, I know, but when I'm looking at the context of a news story, it involves context, and for school shootings, if it's not in the US, then it's almost certainly significant.  If it's in the US, then it's business as usual, unless the death toll gets to maybe more than 20 or 30.  I think that's just standard here.  And suggesting that "Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority" is utterly missing the point.  It's context that's important.  And the ignorance of the "vast majority" is not something we should be using as a gauge against which we decide what is and what is not of encyclopedic value.  The "vast majority" of readers live in a country where gun crime is accepted and a daily routine, where kids are taught how to deal with "active shooters" etc.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence backing your claim that the vast majority of (English language) Wikipedia readers live in the US? Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You first, do you have a shred of evidence that "Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority"? Let's see evidence for that and then we can go on and discuss that Ameuricans are the most likely readers of Wikipedia.  After you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mass murders in those cities are very common. Many of them don't have articles & most of those that have articles are short, with few editors. Most aren't nominated for ITN & when they are they're typically quickly rejected. The July 2021 Baghdad bombing, which had a death toll of 30 plus the bomber, was rejected at ITN & has since been turned into a redirect. Jim Michael (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked a long time ago only 46% of readers were American and it was decreasing. That's not a vast majority or even a majority at all. Also I've never been taught active shooter survival ideas at school or had shooter drills or over-the-top wargames with 14-year old girls with a fake gun wound on their head and I'm a millennial, I think that's a modern thing. I did have monthly drills of walking out of the building to practice combustion escape (even if the building is brick) and some places have earthquake and/or tornado drills. In Florida and the Gulf alligators are almost everywhere and can even kill grownups so they teach primary schoolers to zig-zag if one's trying to eat you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 46% would be a massive majority ahead of all other demographics. Wow.  Thanks for letting us know that. 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the biggest minority doesn't make Americans a majority, it makes them a plurality. But I think I remember something about majority having a different meaning in England now so this could just be American English difference. USA has a massive plurality cause it got lucky several times: 1. In 1781-87ish, USA could've split into 2 or more countries if the "distant national capitals are bad" sentiment had turned on the US capital more but after Shay's Rebellion a large group of men haggled like fuck all summer till they could agree on a constitution of (vaguely) unleavable union that a majority of each state might ratify (it took 3 years for state 13 to ratify, 1 year before the the weird right to keep+bear arms shall not be infringed law was added). 2. The leader of the 13 colonies' rebellion AKA POTUS 1 was willing to (and did) send an army to the Whiskey Rebellion to enforce this hypernew constitution even though to be honest it was deeply unfair for so much of government funding to be whiskey tax when for mountain transport reasons maize whiskey was the main "export" of the hinterland which is why they rebelled. Imagine if he left them alone, separatists would be emboldened and USA could be tiny now. Pittsburgh could've been a national capital. 3. Napoleon offered land to POTUS #3 (the size of 16 Englands) for slightly more than he was willing to pay for just the port of the land but he almost turned it down cause the Constitution explicitly allowed treaties and helping trade but didn't explicitly mention enlarging the country. This is your brain on right-wingism. 4. An earlier Civil War would've likely succeeded if the North/DC didn't back down several times. The North's Industrial Revolution and population boom was decades behind Britain so the slave states could've become their own country if they rebelled soon enough. Who knows if the western states would even be USA now if the east was like a DMZ? On the other hand Europe doesn't want to fuse into a country which is the only thing keeping our "majority" massive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I once heard it said that two thirds of readers are American. Or perhaps it was two thirds of editors? I have no idea of the truth of it, anyway, so this is a pointless comment, but that would be in keeping with quite a bit of this thread. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Of course it would. For example, a earthquake in the UK that killed 20 people would be notable because it literally hasn't happened before. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In 1931 one woman in Hull had a heart attack. And Dr. Crippen's head fell off at Madame Tussauds in London. Does that count at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, a coup, even in a country where they happen often, is inherently notable. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Successful coups (but not attempts) should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More incredible opinions. If there was an attempted coup in the US (!!) it should probably be posted, right?  Or in the UK, or France or Germany or Switzerland?  Are you being serious?  I think we've heard enough from you about these kinds of things to judge your opinion going forward..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still opposing; barely enough stub level but not enough detail to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also opposing on significance; six deaths is not normally enough to post going by previous shooting nominations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support What is in the article should suffice for the time being and this is not the US. Brandmeistertalk  07:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks broad significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No longer a stub. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing 6100 bytes of readable prose, we're usually looking for around 15000 to get out of stub range. --M asem (t) 13:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The readable prose tally is currently 1794 according to the tool I use, with 1500 being the threshold at which we usually no longer consider it a stub. The article is still sorely lacking in detail of the event, however, so I wouldn't advocate posting at this stage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm now about 10 times more or less confused than before. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's a shrink you need, I can recommend Dr. Pangloss He even made me feel good about DYK. – Sca (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Beyond a stub, and there may not be much else to add at the moment. Event is more notable than some of the other shootings we have posted in recent times. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still less than 400 WORDS (as opposed to meaningless bytes) – no longer a stub, but pretty thin for a supposed internationally significant event (which it ain't, IMO). And what's up with "at least" – don't the Russians know how many were killed? Not good enough. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article says six; the proposed blurb just needs to be modified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't give a flying fuck what country it happened in, so spare me the discourse. Shootings with such small death tolls are not noteworthy without something more to it. For example, if it were a terrorist attack or motivated by racism or sexism then it might be noteworthy. But there's nothing like that here. Mlb96 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree; without an ideology, this isn't more important than the many other mass murders this year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I've added a bit more detail from an ABC article on the subject. I think all the known material is there now, and it's well above stub size at this point. There are a few opposes on notability, but I think there's a rough consensus above that this one's good to go. I'll leave that to an independent assessor though! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is now 3437 characters- more than twice was it was yesterday, and certainly good enough quality for the front page. The story itself (mass school shooting) is also ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per User:Rockstone35. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, we originally thought 4 in Belgium was not enough. I guess now 6 in Russia is not enough.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In a country of 146 million, six is not a big number. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not really sure personally where the bar is/should be in regards to size and impact but I think we're well above stub level here; 573 words and with a fairly thin lead section that means it's not including any real reduplication. It seems from the article as well that it will lead to further legislative changes so the impact is more than simply a tally of the dead. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Very thin content on the impact of the event. STSC (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance (or lack thereof). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- it appears that there won't be consensus to post this. Can someone uninvolved close this discussion? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: András Ligeti

 * Support - looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: first please look at Bussotti below, by far the more influential person, celebrated NOW (20 to 25 Sep) with a festival in his hometown - and not even a comment yet, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Urgent: Only 5 hours. Grimes2 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sylvano Bussotti

 * Eh... I looked around a bit and couldn't find anything obviously public domain. In my humble opinion, the current photo doesn't look that bad, especially compared to the one on the Italian Wikipedia. Sure, he has (some) hair in that one, but it's much lower resolution, and he's looking off to the side somewhere. It is marked as if it could be copied to Wikimedia Commons, on the theory that it's a "simple" Italian photo before 1976, so if you really want I can do that. It'll be debatable but probably survive review, though the rules for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Italy are a bit vague on what it means to be "simple". (For example, it's clearly posed, costumed, etc, but film frames, which are usually posed and costumed, are specifically called out as simple.) --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking, but don't bother if you don't like it. From the article I get that he was a fascinating vital man, and on the crop I don't see that, mostly to those reflections in his eyes. As you probably saw we have one more on the commons but that seems sort of stretched. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ps: I wouldn't take the "young" one for the lead, but for illustrating work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Several more refs - in English! now added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Sourced, but the reference Granmilano was invoked but never defined. size ok, lead ok. Grimes2 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just made a typo, it's defined but Gramilano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The prose is long enough for RD purposes. There are quite a number of footnotes in the prose and quantity-wise they appear adequate for RD purposes. In cases where a sentence ends without a footnote, I assume (AGF) that the footnotes in the following sentence would apply. However, I'd suggest that the bits about the prostitute and his sexuality should be specifically footnoted, too. Also, do we need refs for all the bullet-points in the "Works" section? None of the "Other compositions" is currently referenced. --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I looked now, the "Other compositions" were referenced, also they are covered by the Ricordi reference for all works. - I have a problem with the 1991 event. I found it like that, and it's repeated all over the internet, so we don't know what came first, Wikipedia or any of the others. Can we comment it out for now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Grimes2 has taken care of the referencing and commented out the questionable 1991 event. As far as I can see, this wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Primetime Emmy Awards

 * Oppose lots of unreferenced tables, practically no prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per now ITN worthy, but article is not ready. And why the blurb focuses only on Jason Sudeikis and not also on Jean Smart, who also won the same award but as Lead Actress? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The news coverage highlights The Crown and Ted Lassoo as the two outstanding shows at the awards. The Crown doesn't provide an appropriate picture so Sudeikis seems the best choice, as he's the creator and title character for Ted Lassoo. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's usual only to mention the best picture for hooks of this nature, or the one which "sweeps" the awards. If we're going to mention best actor then we certainly have to mention best actress too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to mention Ted Lasso as the comedy winner rather than single out Sudeikis, although both shows were able to win all the acting categories for which they were nominated (maybe next season Ted Lasso can get a leading actress nom). rawmustard (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggested altblurb reading the headlines, there's so many different ways that the news is focusing on how the wins worked out (victory for the streaming services, sweeps for the Crown, etc etc.) that compared to other cases in recent past where we are calling out a notable factor beyond just the ITNR part (the qualifier winning grand slam, first female jockey to win a major horse race) that it was clear that notable factor was singularly called out by the media, there's just no singular agreement what's the big first here for the Emmys. As such, it is probably best to fall back on how we usually do it and not try to second guess what is important. That is, Best Drama + Best Comedy. --M asem (t) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs serious expansion of prose in main body of article to be main page ready. If someone fixes that, it can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cumbre Vieja eruption

 * Wait I was going to nominate this as the last eruption of this was 40 years ago, but the extent of the eruption is yet known. --M asem (t) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely something that's rapidly evolving - not sure at what point the extent would count as big enough?. Anyway, I'd recommend not driving near it... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh this could potentially be an issue, and I know they are evacuating people now, just that could be an interesting thing to watch live streamed, or could be the fear of that major tsunami if it really went. --M asem (t) 15:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Masem, have a look at this if you want to see it live. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters has a vid too, but so far it's just smoke. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm watching (in Spanish), definitely not just smoke - easily visible lava flows!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait I agree that we have to wait to see what impact it has if we conclude that the eruption of a volcano for the first time in fifty years and in a very little volcanic and seismic country is not noticeable enough. In fact, until a few hours ago it has been a bit "missing" in the national news in Spain. In any case the quality of the article should be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. About 1,000 to be evacuated, says AP. – Sca (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, over 1,000 people have now been evacuated, with more expected. The eruption is continuing, and has affected properties and roads. Still not sure what the threshold for this being ITN is. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A volcano causing evacuations is not a surprise. There is the concern, slim as it may be, this could cause tsumanis that could hit the US east coast if the eruption is large enough, but that hasn't happened yet. --M asem (t) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is 'In The News', not 'This Is Surprising'. Tsunamis seem unlikely, and I've not been focusing on any of that here - just that there is a significant eruption. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to some sources, there are already 5,000 evacuees and this figure is likely to double . Several houses and banana crops are burning, so it could be serious also because this will be for many days/weeks or months. It would be great if more users would join this discussion because I find it very interesting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Europa Press says that the evacuation of 5,000 is under way (not completed), which is consistent with what I've said above (1k so far) + added to the article. It's now night here, so I suspect most of the evacuations will happen during the day tomorrow or a bit later. The total number depends on the area affected, so it's not a final number (worst case is if the flow goes north towards Los Llanos). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait untill death count becomes clear. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 20:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The AP report, updated about 21:50, says 5,000 evacuated, eight homes destroyed, but doesn't mention any casualties. Reuters, updated around the same time, mentions "at least three incandescent orange rivers" of lava, but likewise no casualties. – Sca (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the Cumbre Vieja wikipage is going to be the boldlinked article in the blurb, please address the {off topic} tag under Cumbre Vieja soon. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Glad to see that the bolded link in the blurb is now pointing to 2021 La Palma eruption. --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing I've been following the similar eruption in Iceland which has been evolving for months now. These things can last for years and seem quite unpredictable so ongoing is probably the best place for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I don't think there's a blurb-worthy impact here (yet), but it's certainly in the news and events are continuing to unfurl. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as either blurb or Ongoing: at least 5,000 evacuations, 20 houses already destroyed by lava flow. New article 2021 La Palma eruption should be the boldlink IMO. 46.114.1.172 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I just fixed the blurb nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image: Crater del Hoyo Negro isn't the same as Cabeza de Vaca, I think that was from an older eruption. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Real news, at last. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that Spanish Tourism Minister Reyes Maroto called it "a wonderful show." – Sca (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. There's No Business Like Volcano Business!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the moment, no demonstrable impact beyond any run-of-the-mill storm or bushfires that never get posted Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only bushfires . A volcano has erupted near villages, not a little rain has fallen on an island. Let us not trivialize something that is serious.  _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not so much trivializing it, but people residing on a island with known volcanic activity are already at risk. The specific factors here would have been if there was no time to conduct an orderly evacuation (like if the volcano created a lahar), and the potential impact on the surrounding area including the eastern US if it created tsunamis. That homes were destroyed and flora burnt, but no other major lives lost makes this a curiosity in terms of larger news for the time being. But it is still spewing lava and thus far from over. --M asem (t) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, at least from my point of view, the point to take into account is that, although it's a volcanic archipelago, its low level of activity makes an eruption of this magnitude historical and disastrous, even if there are no fatalities (and I doubt it will happen because the management of the warning to the population has worked wonderfully). At least this is how it is being perceived in Spain (something obvious, of course). So I do not think that the possibility of a tsunami reaching the coasts of the American continent is what is remarkable because the probability of it happening is extremely remote. Let's wait and see. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose for now. The text of the article does not indicate that this eruption has had enough impact to make it a major story in reliable sources, it's barely above a stub.  There are some stories out there, but this does not appear to be getting the level of coverage I'd expect from an ITN item.  Significant expansion of the article would likely convince me otherwise.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Jay, Bumbu – Impact much less, so far, than many other natural disasters. – Sca (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Short-and-sweet quality, hot like volcano news and there's more to this world than death. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is still in the news and the article is being updated by colleagues and me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment II Habemus pic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The paragraph on lava flow needs refs, otherwise this article looks ready for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is interesting but really not ITN-type disaster (no lives lost yet, only destruction of some homes/buildings and land). It could still get worse, but I think most news covering it now see it as an interesting spectacle (seeing the damage that an active but rather constrained lava flow is doing to human-built areas) and less about any plight of the people on the island since this doesn't seem like it is intensifying in any dangerous way yet. Looking at recent articles, the last eruption lasted three weeks - and there it was just general spewing of lava over that time until it petered off. This is absolutely ripe for a DYK, I would think, if ITN is not proper. --M asem (t) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The size of the evacuation was enough for me. No one needs to die to qualify for ITN, imo. Deaths would simply make the case stronger. --PFHLai (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maintain oppose I don't think there is any consensus for this. If natural disasters that wipe out 200 houses/4 square kilometres and forces 5000 ppl to flee, then there will be at least 20 bushfire articles just from Australia each year, and probably more hurricane articles in the US, and likely even more in monsoonal rivermouth places such as Bangladesh Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference is that fires in Australia and hurricanes in the US are common and a volcanic eruption on that island is exceptional and historic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Volcanos erupt all the time too; most don't affect human settlements obviously. The point of interest of this specific volcano is the projections that should it be a big eruption (not the current level of lava spewing) of the potential for tsunamis that could reach the east coast of the US and cause damage there, and hence there are eyes on it from that angle. And while upwards of 10,000 people have been evacuated and dozens of homes lost, its really not a major disaster in terms of things, yet. But that's why I pointed out that this same volcano's eruption in '71 ran 3 weeks. Something worse could still happen, and if that does that could likely be in the news, but right now, this is mostly a point of interesting spectacle which makes for a great DYK as a new article but fails ITN as lacking major impact or interest on the world. --M asem  (t) 14:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'have said on that island. The fact that Etna erupts very often does not mean that if a volcano erupts for the first time in fifty years it ceases to be important. And forget about the tsunami to the United States. It's a pretty rejected theory. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this seems to be unlikely to be accepted here, and we now have a new article specifically about it, I've posted a DYK nomination for it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Challis

 * Comment needs a lot more sourcing. And date of death not supported by sources (which say he died over the weekend). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Date uncertain, but looks like a choice of two. (It is still the weekend). Feel free to improve sourcing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current state: page needs serious work from dedicated authors. His entire TV career pretty much is condensed into a list sentence. One would think there would be more to write about somebody who published two autobiographies which, presumably, covered his TV work. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you a dedicated author? Do you have his autobiographies? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said I was either, and I don't see why that prohibits me from making a vote on the suitability of posting this to the main page. If you are defending the quality of the page and believe this is post-worthy, I disagree. Nothing against you or Challis Unknown Temptation (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your Talk page suggests that you are more than just a drive-by ITN voter. Any improvements you could make would be very welcome, whether or not that amounts to "serious work" or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also shouldn't be posted until date of death issue on talkpage is actually resolved, rather than people just assuming that it happened on 19 September, as that was the date is was announced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The way I'm reading this, the exact date may not be known for a few days, the family kept the death quiet to have a few days of mourning to themselves, and so unless its resolved in a few days, ITN is fine with posting on the date the death was first widely reported. --M asem (t) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the article states outright that his date of death is 19 September, and keeps getting reverted to this. Which is not acceptable for ITN to out on front page, when there's currently zero reliable sources for that death date (that's the announced date, and The Sun (United Kingdom) also claims it's the death date, but they're a depreciated source). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there's a written rule that says we cannot post until a date of death is fully sourced? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but we shouldn't be posting an article with an unverified death date on the front page. Would have no objections to it being changed to September 2021, if no source currently exists. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Date now verified by independent.ie source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve added The Times to the article, which says 19 Sept. (See here) for verification. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4F7:4D9C:9851:1878 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's behind a paywall. The current source, which was SkyNews, did not seem to give a specific date, so I have reverted it. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone with subscription could check out the Times source, would be good thanks. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have, which is why I added it. There is nothing to say behind paywall sources can't be used. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It might help if you added a relevant quote from the article into the ref. The date is also now supported by the indepedent.ie source, which has no paywall, anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's no point in adding a quote: it's just a date, nothing more. Repeating it in the reference just needlessly bloats out the sources section. Just because you can't see what it says, there is no basis for you to remove a reliable source - just don't do it please. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PAYWALL is pertinent here and explicitly states not to discount a reliable source on account of cost to access. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a quote shows that someone who has access has verified the pertinent fact?. It's standard practice. I don't see any "bloat" problem. When did I remove a reliable source there? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Quote=19 September 2021". That's not at all useful to anyone. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Refs are needed in the prose for his many other roles on TV and on radio (two footnote-free paragraphs), as well as in the Personal life section for his 1st and 3rd marriages. The Filmography table also needs more refs, too. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no more {cn} tags left. The Filmography is mostly referenced. In my books, this wikibio is READY for RD. I suggest removing the orange tag atop the wikipage and hiding the few unreferenced items in the filmography table before posting a link to this wikibio onto MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More references added. Could hide {cn} items if required (all have unused IMDb sources). Also suggest this is READY for RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: has been here a week. 7 hours before this drops off the bottom of this nomination page? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now 5 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasons given for opposing have been addressed. So not sure why this can't now be posted. 3 hours left. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are at least 5 cns on the filmography tables. And the suggestion of just removing those (unless there is serious doubt that he actually appeared in those shows) is not an appropriate step for fixing that. --M asem (t) 20:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then let's all say goodbye to it appearing in RD. Or if you can find any non-IMDb-backed sources, please be my guest. I couldn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support I still see more than half a dozen [citation needed] tags in the second table. But it's in much better condition than when the improvements started.  Suggest you ping WP:AN for assistance from a passing admin.  We could always comment out the appearances which need references, unlike Masem above, we have plenty of tags which say stuff along the lines of "unverifiable material may be removed".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has 7 in total. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All 7 instances have just been commented out. Please restore them when refs better than IMDb are available. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Greaves

 * Support - Article is a GA, no issues I can see. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good for RD, RIP Greavsie JW 1961 Talk 10:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good and high quality.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment some lines need sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support there are 3 citation needed tags on an article that long. That shouldn't hold up this RD, as per In the news: one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. It's a GA after all, so clearly good enough for front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags left. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment RIP Greavsie, a staple of my Saturday viewing as a child. In future, though, could we please fix the citations before posting. That line quoted above does not match modern practice, which is that all uncited material needs to be fixed before posting. GA or otherwise, this is a nadic basic requirement of material we're presenting to our readers on the most visited page of the project. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall we get In the news rewritten? --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as Joseph points out above, on an article of this size, a few CNs, particularly on statements that are more factual than subjective in nature, and where the rest of the article is impeccably sources, isn't a holdup for an RD posting. Posting was reasonable. --M asem (t) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't reasonable. There's no excuse for posting articles that aren't fully cited to the main page, and fixing the citations isn't hard at all when there are only a few of them left. (Unless the facts concerned are unverifiable or inaccurate, of course, in which case it's a much more egregious error to be posting with them included). As PFHLai says, let's change the guidelines because they're out of date. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A small number of cn tags in a long and otherwise high-quality article is not a reason to hold up posting. It doesn't have to be FA standard. In the news is correct and does match current practice. The same thing happened with Clive Sinclair just a few days ago. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This just isn't correct. If the article has cn tags, then that means someone has actively identified claims in the article which require citation and don't have one. It's not the same as saying a few odd unimportant details are uncited, it means that more citations are actively needed. We have a template for this, which is More citations needed, and that's an orange-level tag and therefore an automatic blocker for ITN. DYK and OTD operate on exactly the same principle. If I had seen Jimmy Greaves before posting, then I would certainly have opposed and asked for the necessary cites to be provided, as Alsoriano97 did above. This isn't rocket science, it's a basic main-page standard. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the situation is bad enough that the orange-level tag is (correctly) applied, that would preclude posting. But three cn tags on unimportant details in a 4000-word article, that was already assessed as GA, does not justify the tag. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Only 1 {cn} left! --PFHLai (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dinky Soliman

 * Posted to RD. CN tags addressed.  Spencer T• C 00:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jolidee Matongo

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While it's okay not having additional info for his final position since he was only in office for a month, the article should have a little more detail/depth about what Matongo accomplished in his prior roles.  Spencer T• C 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a few sentences on some things he did as MMC of Joburg. Let me know if that's enough- cannot find much more. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sabina Zimering

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Kalora

 * Support - short but Start status. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thanu Padmanabhan

 * Support - fully sourced and ready for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Blurb Posted) RD/Blurb: Abdelaziz Bouteflika dies

 * Support RD - Article is well sourced. I don't feel this is blurb-worthy, but it is undoubtedly RD-ready. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 01:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Massively influential figure in Algerian history since the 1960s, and a longtime head of state. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably blurb. What I am missing are some sentences about his life after the resignation. Otherwise, the article is immediately ready for RD. --Tone 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I understood from obits and some articles dating after his resignation, he made few appearances before his passing due to failing health. His BBC obit says that after his resignation he became a recluse. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, please add 2-3 sentences on that and we have the section covered, until we get the details on the reactions and funeral. --Tone 07:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a few minutes after your first comment :) backed with the BBC obit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. A 20-year executive president is someone who does pass the unofficial Mandela-Thatcher test for blurbhood. Article looks in decent shape too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb he was not only notable in his country, which he ruled in an authoritarian manner for 20 years and his resignation marked the end of an era, but also in the entire Maghreb. If he is not blurbworthy, I no longer know who should be. The wikibio is in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A notable politician who ruled a country for 20 years is a textbook example for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb article is in good shape, and long-time leader is blurb worthy (especially when he only left office two years ago). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak oppose blurb I don't think Algeria is one of those "autoblurb former executive" countries like the US, UK, Russia, or China are, and I would not take this posting to set a precedent to that effect. That said, Bouteflika seems to have had a transformative impact on Algeria from its independence all the way to his resignation so this isn't terribly egregious, and I would not pull unless there is strong consensus to do so given how bad a look it can be. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Algeria is not a small country, and this guy was its leader for 20 years. He's had a much larger effect on the people he ruled than Gordon Brown, say, even though you're apparently set to "autoblurb" the latter. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against autoblurbing deaths, but he was leader for 20 years (which is unusually long), in a country of 44 million people, and he only left office a couple of years ago (which makes it better for the blurb than someone who left office and has been out of the years decades ago, in my opinion). Which is why I supported it, and I think why others did too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but I wouldn't consider Algeria a "top-tier" country like the US/Russia/China, where such long tenures are in any event uncommon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But also it is important to take note about the individual's impact on not only their country but on a global region in which Bouteflika has through his peace treaties with African nations, his grip on Algeria and was deposed during the 2018–2021 Arab protests (a notable protest in the Arab world. His tenure as president is also important to keep note (we posted Hissène Habré and he'd been leader of his country shorter than Bouteflika but nonetheless had a notable impact in Chad and the African region). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The guy was convicted of massive embezzlement and his last term was a sick joke as he was almost dead. He was clearly a figurehead for a corrupt elite and so fairly feeble for an African dictator.  The idea that he was in the same league as Mandela/Thatcher is ridiculous. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All this doesn't in any way exclude having or not having blurb. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * per Alsorian97, this isn’t a valid justification for opposing a blurb. The merits for a blurb isn’t if a person has been a good or bad guy, it’s about how influential the person is. When we compare someone using the Mandela/Thatcher rule we are not comparing them based on their “morals” but influence and impact. This man’s influence on the Arab world, African politics and Algeria is evident in his article and global obits being published. Your opposition reasoning holds no merit to exclude him from a blurb. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he wasn't as bad as Thatcher, but few are!  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through The Times yesterday and it didn't mention him whereas the death of Sir Clive Sinclair got a special entry in the editorial. Even with a blurb on the day after his death, the Abdelaziz Bouteflika page only got 27,590 readers.  That's not much more than Thatcher or Mandela get on an average day, years after their death.  For our readership, this guy is less significant than Clive Sinclair or Boris Johnson's mother whose peaks were both higher.  While the really big death lately is Norm Macdonald.  He's the one in the big league, getting over a million readers per day.  But, of course, ITN is not running him at all.  It's broken. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware that’s not how ITN works, or is even supposed to work. The only thing that is broken is the broken record of your comments when you don’t like the consensus of how ITN works. Stop whining about it all the time and open an RfC. If it still comes down against you, carrying on not whining. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4F7:4D9C:9851:1878 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding us. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be encouraged to fix up the "broken" Norm Macdonald page so that ITN can run him. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe The Times gave special attention to Clive Sinclair for being British, as I don't imagine there was the same coverage in the New York Times, Times of India or let alone a non-English newspaper. Johnson's mother and Norm MacDonald also appeal to English Wikipedia's English-speaking audience. Should ITN stop covering science and world politics that get comparatively low viewer counts, and instead cover what's in the WP:TOP25 - the guy from Blue's Clues making videos again, a new Matrix movie, wrestling and Marvel? Would that make it less broken, because we have to cover the most-viewed pages, not the best-written ones? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's usually a lot going on but ITN covers little of it because it's so broken and unproductive. For example, the top read page yesterday was Robert Durst because of his high-profile murder conviction.  That page was read by about quarter of a million people yesterday because it's in the news but it wasn't even nominated for ITN.  That readership was about ten times the supposedly big news about Bouteflika. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN is not meant as a most-read-article list. If you want to replace ITN with an automated ticker of the most read articles, please formally propose that. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That has already been done in the Wikipedia app which I browse every day on my phone. That doesn't show the ITN list; instead it shows the top read articles.  They are a different mix due to a variety of factors.  For example, yesterday the top 5 was Robert Durst; Sex Education (TV series); Michael Schumacher; Norm Macdonald; Cleopatra.  I understand most of these but don't know why Cleopatra is attracting so much attention currently.  Anyway, ITN is not just missing stuff like Durst.  Its other problem is that it's listing stale stuff which just about no-one is reading.  For example, the blurb item 2021 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final only got about 1000 readers yesterday.  That event wasn't very popular to start with and that was over a week ago and so it is no longer in the news.  We shouldn't be telling people that something is in the news when it isn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors often argue events are not in the news. You are free to do so. If you prefer an automated ticker of most read articles, power to you. ITN is not that and should not be that. It's a way to highlight improved articles about topical subjects. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN is certainly not ticking; it's more like the stopped clock that's only right twice a day. Here we are another day later and Bouteflika is still the top blurb.  The readership is already dropping from his low peak and this shows that his death is no longer in the news.  This is not quality; it's misinformation.  No other main page section runs the same stale stuff day after day and it's embarassing that the one section which should be following the news cycle fails to do so.  The volcano looks like a good story but that's already yesterday's news.  I'll help you out with another nomination to get this thing ticking again... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination. ITN is not and never has been a continuously updated list of news stories deemed the most important. It is a way to motivate the updating of articles and highlight said articles as examples of decent work on topical subjects that happen to be in the news. I again stress it is not a most-read articles list. We can only make new postings when articles are nominated. If you want to see faster turnover, or different things posted, please continue to participate. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the ITN guidelines make it clear that it is for "notable" topics which have recently been in the news and which have decent articles. The nom process might be a bit slow agreed, but that is reasonable to bring articles up to shape and consider their inclusion. This might disclude a number of articles which gets tons of views and are technically in the news but that is hardly "misinformation" (not to mention that most of the articles that are receiving views would not be notable). Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb - after posting. Definitely blurb-worthy. Very notable politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If Bouteflika is so notable then how come people aren't reading the article? Here we are three days on and the African dictator in the news now is Paul Kagame and his latest victim Paul Rusesabagina, who inspired Hotel Rwanda.  We have a nomination for that story but it's mired in negativity, nitpicking and nonsense, just like my nomination of the Emmys.  That's what's actually in the news and our readers know it because Emmy-related topics are dominating the top five, as the Wikipedia app tells me.  Ted Lasso is doing best because I suppose many readers, like me, hadn't heard of it before as it streams on Apple TV.  The key concept of Ted Lasso is that someone who knows nothing about soccer is put in charge of a Premier league team.  The idea is he will be so incompetent and dysfunctional that the team will fail.  ITN seems to be trying the same strategy!  The funny thing is that we just had a football story in ITN too.  But that wasn't soccer, it was Gaelic football.  So we ran it for over a week, even though no-one was reading it!  It has been pulled now – presumably to spare further embarassment – but no other blurb has replaced it.  Someone should really make a comedy show about Wikipedia... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you still don't understand anything, even when so many users have tried to explain it to you in the best way. And that's fine, we all have the right to understand things the way we want. If you think Wikipedia is a comedy to laugh at, you have the "Log Out" button at the top right of your monitor. And don't take this the wrong way, it's humble advice. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We've told you, Andrew, what the purpose of ITN is and how things work here. If you want to work to change that, to force us to consider what articles are trending at any moment instead of the current purpose, or taken to the exteme, just replace ITN with a ticker of the most-read articles, please go to the talk pages. Note that you are free to support or oppose a nomination based on article readership if you so choose. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it's day 4 now and Bouteflika's blurb and picture is still the lead headline. Its meagre readership continues to slide and the death is certainly not in the news any more.  Browsing the actual news, I pick up on some interesting stories about Emmy-winner Ted Lasso which indicate that the show is now something of a shibboleth.  This is an interesting insight and perhaps explains why ITN would rather keep running a dead dictator than post Ted's picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have elections in Russia and Canada pending some fixes, then there will be a photo of Putin or Trudeau. --Tone 09:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those election stories are boring because the incumbents won and so they are "totally expected and uninteresting". I've nominated another story of more interest to our readership and which has a better free picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Would there be any way for this discussion to be closed? It's necessary so that a pArticular user stops making hostile contributions against the purpose of the nomination and generating an unpleasant environment. I hope it's not because of possible racist connotations. Thanks. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Casimir Oyé-Mba

 * Comment: This article is really close, but there's a huge gap in coverage between 2010 until his death in 2021 when he was (from what I can tell) in a political role. What happened during this time?  Spencer T• C 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * During that time, he was one of the leaders of a major opposition party. I have added some points about his involvement in the 2016 elections. Joofjoof (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jane Powell

 * Comment I've added some more tags. The "Filmography" section it's a bit unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The bullet-points below the table in the "Filmography" section are unreferenced. And the orange tag for {Primary sources} needs to be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Bahamian general election

 * Oppose on quality and length. Besides, how many seats did the PLP win? I can't find any info here or on Google about that. FWIW, the article about Davis has 3 unsourced sections out of 4 (though it's not bolded). Tube·of·Light 09:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs basic information like the actual results- the infobox needs updating, as it's saying the winner has 5 seats out of 38? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment while the PLP has won a majority, not all seats have been declared . We should probably wait until it is completed. Joofjoof (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated with the official results. Joofjoof (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Background section needs to be updated/needs cleanup: The Bahamas has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Biometric cards are expected to be used.[4] In January 2021, it was reported that the PLP was expecting an early election.[5]  Spencer T• C 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clive Sinclair

 * Comment I went in a Sinclair C5 once, back in the 80s, so blurb blurb blurb! (Just kidding). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a rubber-keyboard 48KB ZX Spectrum. Best.  Thing.  Ever.  RIP Sir Clive.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's what I learned to program on. (Even now, off the top of my head without thinking I can tell you that LD IX,#4000 LD DE,#1B00 LD A,#FF SCF JP #556 will load the screen from tape). In some way, the Raspberry Pi is its spiritual successor. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I never had a ZX Spectrum myself, my parents managed to secure a fancy Macintosh Plus machine from their work instead. You could program on that, but only through an IDE such as Microsoft QuickBasic, which lacked the raw joy of the command line. There were BBC Model Bs and Masters at my school though, connected together via the ubiquitous Econet, so lots of fun to be had there. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Spent the last hour+ buffing up the article and referencing it. It should be better (I know it can be improved). --M asem (t) 23:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wonder how big of an impact Sinclair has had on the world. The only reason I know his name is because of a passing mention in a printed encyclopedia. Personally, I would be inclined to get this blurbed once quality is improved, but still, are there any people who can give a more detailed tl;dr on the most important things this guy did (I'm guessing he is the UK's most well-known inventor from the late 20th century)? Tube·of·Light 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't impact Canada, even to Commodore levels, and only later became marginally interesting here, as a retro gaming figure. No blurb. Still a great keyboard, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ZX Spectrum was really what he is best known for. Represented the dominant low cost microcomputer in the UK market. They were widely knocked off in eastern Europe. The ZX Spectrum had almost no impact on North America but given the highly balkanised computer market at the time not really surprising. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aight, so he wasn't really as well-known as I thought he was. And for some reason, I forgot that Tim Berners-Lee could be considered to be an inventor! :-P Tube·of·Light 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I just learned Rick Dickinson invented that fantabulous Spectrum keyboard. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Well written and meets the criteria.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 05:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Several" is an exaggeration (unless it can mean anything above 2). I found 3 cn tags all for relatively minor statements, so it's almost ready. Tube·of·Light 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The small number of cn tags are acceptable in an article of that length and they're all on minor points. Good enough IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have addressed the remaining "citation needed" tags. I can't really support a blurb because Sinclair wasn't big globally, just in the UK and later on in Europe, as opposed to Steve Jobs who was well-known just about everywhere. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dušan Ivković

 * Comment needs a lot more sourcing, have orange tagged for more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now just the "Career achievements" section that needs sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Others have added some general references. The English source seems to cover most except the assistant coach ones; the other two sources are non-English.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antony Hewish
Support, there is no major problems with the article and it is quite long. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment it should not go unnoticed that the coverage of the professional career of this Nobel laureate, exclusively, are four lines. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it thin, too, but not bad enough to disqualify the nom. --PFHLai (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your monitor must be extremely wide for those two paragraphs to fit on four lines. The article could certainly be expanded, but he really was famous for a single discovery. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Satoshi Hirayama

 * Support Article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lou Angotti

 * Comment: This wikibio is long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, and therefore is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * was ready to go before the last 3 RDs posted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Bailey (bass-baritone)

 * adding: in the list of Deaths we see "death announced on 16 September", however, an IP had posted 15 September as DOD on 15 September, without a ref. Quite likely, if you ask me. So I leave him here for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a supporting ref now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - all looks in good shape to me. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting, all good. --Tone 09:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Aukus

 * Wait Article doesn't yet explain what the US gets for the subs, or how the UK even figures in, nevermind the arguably bigger "key areas" the lead just casually rattles off once, in passing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article does not explain why this is impactful, apart from boilerplate diplomatic statements.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle based on this Guardian report which shows it's a major development in international relations and has nuclear proliferation implications. However I agree with comments above that the article is not ready. What's there is well cited and long enough on first glance, but there's very little information about the actual agreement, most of the content is diplomatic reactions. The focus is entirely on the submarines - which are only part of the deal. There's a blurb-worthy story here, it just needs a more informative article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The global impacts of this deal seem likely to be quite limited. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m pretty agree with Sca (again lol). Why is this agreement more relevant than other international agreements that may be concluded daily? Affecting in the end only Asutralia, what international implication does it have? Is it really the most important thing that this country can build submarines? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, and news sources are covering the topic in a prominent way. Meets all criteria.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support there is ongoing coverage of this (not least because France are pissed about it), and article is good enough now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this is ready. The reactions from the US and UK would fit in, if there are reactions from Australia. Also, are the subs the key thing? According to the intro, they are one of the things in this pact, together with artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, underwater capabilities, and long range strike capabilities. The blurb should reflect that. --Tone 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The subs were a major point of contention and the main focus of many of the news stories, as the dust-up with France over the matter; Australia suddenly cancelled a large order for French submarines upon signing the pact. See, for example, , .  It's the part of the treaty receiving the most news coverage.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Status update I've been busy yesterday, but I've expanded the article, and added a para on computer technology. I could only find one analysis article on it, since everyone has been preoccupied with subs, but not surprisingly the countries are worried about Huawei, Chinese hackers etc etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent shape, and currently causing a very big international relations scandal, with France recalling their ambassador. I suggest mentioning that in the hook if this is posted. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and this is developing international coverage/reaction. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 03:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering the diplomatic fallout of the deal is at least half of the story here, I think the blurb should be updated to include something about the reaction from France, which is unprecedented. Yakikaki (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. What has ended up being more remarkable is the diplomatic crisis with France (and thus indirectly with the EU) than the fact that Australia can build nuclear submarines. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. The EU also has its "panties well and truly in a bunch" over not even being informed . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Inspiration4

 * Support actual history, unlike the Branson/Bezos spats. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Should wait until confirmation of launch, but should be support once happened. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the exact procedure for ITNR, went through a few minutes ago. 2A02:2F0E:D31E:5B00:CDA1:9A50:3A1C:F745 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 blurb It's launched. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 01:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Support alt blurb II Very important mission for spaceflight industry and history. Alt blurb sounds better in my opinion; '100%' seems a bit of an odd thing to say. I would prefer if it says "orbital flight" instead of "orbital launch." Lyrim (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per Lyrim above — prefer "orbital flight" to "orbital launch". Also, replace "entirely civilian" with "all-civilian"? &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . "the first orbital launch of an entirely civilian crew" can be truncated to simply "the first all-civilian orbital spaceflight". It would also be in the best interest to include a mention of St. Jude's fundraising efforts, as it's an important part of the mission; something along the lines of "​SpaceX launches Inspiration4, the first all-civilian orbital spaceflight, as part of a fundraiser for the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital." — Molly Brown (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added as altblurb 2. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've now changed my vote to Support alt blurb II. — Molly Brown (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any reason St. Jude was ignored here? — Molly Brown (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see St. Jude mentioned. Lyrim (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The notability is that 4 civilians went into orbit, the charitable aspect is incidental. Stephen 04:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be inappropriate to mention the hospital. Is 'entirely civilian' correct though? The article phrases this as 'private citizens' - it's unclear to me if there's a deliberately distinction between the two. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Civiiian" (and "all-civilian") seems correct, per Reliable Sources. "Civilian" currently appears 10 times in the article, each time in the title of a RS being cited (but currently never in our own editor-created text). By contrast "citizen" currently only appears 3 times, each time in our own editor-created text. So any problem (if there is a problem) would seem to be with "citizen", not "civilian" (but the place for any discussion about that possible problem would be the article's Talk Page, and not here).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the article has been adjusted back to "private citizens", which is more correct. It's unfortunate that the "all-civilian" tag has stuck, as it is demonstrably false. See the comments on this in https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/four-private-citizens-launch-today-further-opening-new-era-of-spaceflight/. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – How does this affect life on Earth? – Sca (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not why we post things on ITN. We post things on ITN because they are in the news, AND there is a quality article about them.  This meets both qualifications.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support – per Jayron22, and per the fact that there was (and is) a clear consensus to post. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support – per Jayron22, and per the fact that there was (and is) a clear consensus to post. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ida Nudel

 * Long enough and has footnotes where refs are expected, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * was ready to go before the last 3 RDs posted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Sorry was interrupted when reviewing ITN/C earlier.  Spencer T• C 01:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * no worries! Thanks for replying promptly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 California gubernatorial recall election

 * Comment The article currently lacks any prose for the results section which is a must for election articles. Agree in the historic nature of the election as it only happened the second time. Even though it may not be a national election, it may be notable enough because of California's size and economy. Showiecz (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily because the status quo was retained, and by a rather healthy majority (63% to 36%). I know there was concern it was going to be tight, and if it actually went to recall as to lead to a potentially GOP governor of California, would drastically flip the US situation around, but that scenario wasn't even close. --M asem (t) 16:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a non-national election, we have rejected Indian state elections with similar populations for the same reason. The BBC source isn't on the general front page (which encompasses all the important/breaking news), only accessible in the subsection for world news. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Lacks prose in the results section.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is, in fact, a run-of-the-mill statewide election - and not even technically an election at that. It may have been newsworthy if the recall had succeeded.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing too but... what? A special election cannot by definition be "run of the mill," which means ordinary. And California has officially called it a "Gubernatorial Recall Election . Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this list and you'll see that, while recall elections have only been brought to ballot twice in California, there have been many, many attempts by California assemblymen to recall the Governor or a similarly highly-ranked elected official in the state. This is not an especially uncommon practice in California. WaltCip- (talk)  19:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize the argument I'm making is a stretch even for myself, so I've struck the offending part of my comment.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There has to be a very good reason to post a non-national election, and as this was a comfortable victory for the governor I'm not seeing the significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, suggest close regardless of the result; we don't post any subnational politics, and if Cuomo didn't get posted neither should this. Nor are Newsom's statistics as impressive as they initially sound; he's only the fourth Governor in a recall election in American history because only a handful of states even have recall provisions. Also, while I agree that California should be a Level-3 Vital Article and isn't due to what I consider stupid BS, many Chinese provinces and Indian states have "populations bigger than Canada", and we've never posted their subnational politics before. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sub-national politics or elections. There are other issues with the nomination, but that's the fundamental one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, we don't post sub-national political elections. I could maybe see the argument for posting the election of an autonomous region, or a region that is independent in all but name (e.g. Somaliland), but California is not that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Norm Macdonald

 * Comment Patchy referencing, as is common of entertainment bios. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Longer articles will always have worse referencing, which is why RD is usually filled with crappy stub-adjacent articles about people no one has ever heard of because those articles are incredibly easy to source. Mlb96 (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Honestly, article is more than adequate. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many citations needed, including that filmography section, and the tone tag needs to be addressed. There seems to be too much in the section about his leaving SNL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nearly all of Works is unreferenced, and deserves the unreferenced section orange tag. I disagree that the SNL details are UNDUE; That was a significant event in his popular career, which was otherwise a pretty standard one for a stand-up comic.130.233.213.141 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost unsourced filmography, and "Leaving SNL" could be shortened slightly as it is too long for one incident- even if that incident is important, seems WP:UNDUE to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait As the only comedian who ever inspired me to better myself, and my second-favourite peripheral celebrity of the 20th century, I can't in good conscience oppose getting his name out there. But yeah, our feature on the man, the myth and the legend isn't one of the better the Internet has assembled, to date. Keep on Googling and "borrowing" Norm Macdonald material, though, and I think there's hope for our profile yet! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article will be swiftly improved, it's Norm Macdonald man. As it happens I feel like this rule should be lightened Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The intent of ITN is to improve articles. The incentive is posting to the main page. Posting without fixing is counterintuitive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- this article seems ready now. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  02:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are still 8 {cn} tags. One of the sections carries a {tone} tag. The Works section and the As performer section are largely unreferenced. This wikibio is not ready for RD yet. --PFHLai (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Wein

 * Support – article is well-referenced; now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Littles

 * Comment - generally fine, but I feel like the "Playing career" section is a little bit too short. For someone who played six seasons, it seems like there should be a little more than four sentences about his career. Other than that, no issues that I can see. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * done. I've added a couple of sentences re. stat highlights. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Supporting and marked as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruly Carpenter

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots. This nom is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Stanfield

 * Support Good depth of coverage of subject, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

(Update) US Open: Medvedev wins men's singles

 * Oppose Still no meaningful prose update at 2021 US Open (tennis) for either the women's or men's singles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. Raducanu was posted on the basis of the unique circumstances of her victory. Medvedev has no such claim as he's been a top player for some time. If and when the 3021 US Open tennis article is updated satisfactorily, we can add it to the blurb then. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (looks like quite a long wait then). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By that time I believe tennis would've been gone and replaced by something else... --180.244.168.241 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging from the archives, it looks like the US Open hadn't been posted for years until 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the US Open is listed on WP:ITNR (and traditionally, we wait until the conclusion of the men’s final on the Sunday, but there’s an understandable reason to break from tradition for once) so the only consideration should be article quality. Sceptre (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Amakuru. The event article is not good enough right now to be on the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why it was foolish to post Raducanu before seeing whether the men's tournament would be in a fit state to post. We shouldn't put either on them on the MP unless/until 2021 US Open (tennis) has fully referenced paragraphs on the men's and women's events. Now it looks stupid to post one but not the other. We should not be bolding either individual's articles, but it makes no sense to make an exception for Raducanu but not Medvedev. This is a complete mess that can only be sorted out by someone updating the tournament article. It shouldn't be difficult, maybe an hour's work - I just don't personally have time to do it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Raducanu achieved something that had never been done before (in the Open Era of tennis, which began in 1968)- that was worth posting, and her article was good enough. The thing that's ridiculous is that sports events like this get ITN nominated immediately after the result, and nobody ever bothers to do anything to improve them, like write any prose. Regardless of whether the tournament was ITNR or not, Raducanu was ITN-worthy. Certainly the most widely covered aspect of this tournament... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What was interesting about Raducanu was that she won the US Open, not how she qualified for that event. The outcome of the tournament is the story here. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And it also makes us look baised to not have the mens' result there given it was the same effect event (one day later). That Raducanu happened to be the first qualifier to win a Grand Slam is an interesting bit of news, but its also still acknowledging the winner of the womens' US Open, and that leaves us hanging on who the mens' winner is since most know that happens at the same time. --M asem (t) 14:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it happened 'at the same time', that might be better. But it doesn't, it happens the next day. (ah yes, a whole day to improve 2021 US Open (tennis)!) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All that is really needed on the Open article are recaps of each major tier (in comparison to the 2020 article). That's a few hours of work at most, and most of it save for the mens' bracket could have been done following Raducanu's win. --M asem (t) 14:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what was "stupid" about it. Raducanu was the bigger story and deserved to be posted in a timely fashion - consensus was to bold the non-ITN/R player article. That no-one is apparently interested in improving the ITN/R US Open article is a shame but has no bearing on the first posting. I'm pleased that this time we avoided the dull "X wins the women's while Y wins the men's" formula and actually highlighted what was notable about her achievement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. We voted on the Raducanu story as a newsworthy ITN blurb in its own right, and it was posted. That has nothing to do with the separate fact that the US Open itself is ITN/R, and it is not a "complete mess". It is simply Wikipedia highlighting a story that has been much talked about. It's a shame that nobody has bothered to add prose to the US Open tennis article, and the men's result is therefore lacking, but that doesn't take away from Emma Raducanu's highly unusual feat. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We would not have posted the Raducanu story if she hadn't won a Grand Slam event - that's what was notable about it. The tournament clearly has great bearing upon the blurb, I don't understand this assertion that it didn't matter. Posting the women's champion but not the men's looks really bad - not as bad as if it had been the other way around, given our well-known systematic biases, but that doesn't stop it looking stupid IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The conversations here seemed to have halted somehow... Is the Daniil Medvedev article ready yet? Or the prose in 2021 US Open – Men's Singles ready? (More footnotes would be nice for each of them.) Or 2021 US Open – Women's Singles? If 2021 US Open (tennis) is not ready, perhaps we craft a blurb around articles that are ready for ITN? Hopefully before the current blurb scrolls off the ITN template. --PFHLai (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The conversations have halted because nobody has taken up the mantle of getting the 2021 US Open article up to scratch. The Daniil Medvedev article is not relevant here, because it's the event article that needs to be improved, there's nothing momentous about Medvedev himself, as there was for Raducanu. And to be frank, it's already almost a week, so it seems unlikely it's going to be done at this point. No further action is required. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. If no one is working on the relevant articles, then never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marianne Battani

 * Weak Support Article looks ok for now. Pyramids09 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A little short, but still okay for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know it's too late to oppose but just wanted to point out that, yet again, the issue of notability is thrown out of the window whenever some obscure american personality is concerned 86.238.248.20 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The RD template itself states "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post" – concerns about notability should be brought to AFD. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlotte Johnson Wahl

 * Oppose: I very highly doubt she'd even have an article if she wasn't the mother of Boris. The article isn't well-written too and is too small. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N concerns should go to AFD. A mother three WP:N subjects with independent RS coverage since at least 2008 doesn't seem like a successful case. At 3,8 kb prose, it's more than a stub, and only a bit shorter than the shortest BLP on RD right now (4,2 kb). What's in the article is fine and spot checking references looks good, but some additions may be helpful.130.233.213.141 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks fine to me, it's definitely more than a stub, and I think her paintings (and, more importantly, the coverage they've received) are enough to show coverage independent of Bozza. Anyway, as noted, the venue for notability discussions is AFD, not here. Marking as ready, because with myself and the IP I think this one's good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian election

 * Support, heard this on the radio this morning. Article is a bit short but okay. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose more sourcing needed, particularly on the "Electoral system" section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Labor in talks with two left-center parties to form coalition govt. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Important story This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, but we should wait until a coalition govt. is announced. – Sca (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the Moroccan news above? A government has not been formed yet.--Sakiv (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Moroccan PM's been announced. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, why is it important to mention who will be PM? Well we can paraphrase the news. We are talking about a new alliance that has not won the election since 2009, which is important news.--Sakiv (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PM in charge of forming govt. – Sca (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Lots of citations needed. After that, should be OK as it's ITN/R. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – As of Wednesday, seems the Norwegian politicos are still talking. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. In principle I would favour posting now and updating with the PM if/when negotiations conclude, but there are unfortunately too many cn tags on the article. The 'aftermath' section could do with a bit more on what the outcome was, not just the opponent's concession. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's give them another cycle. Maybe they'll gab on into the night ... they drink a lot of coffee, you know. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Apparently nothing happened overnight, which leaves the choice of a) belatedly posting the existing article, which now seems thin but presentable, and updating later with formation of the government, or b) simply waiting until the latter occurs – which according to Life in Norway is to happen "in the coming weeks." – I'm leaning toward the latter, but if there's a consensus to post now that's OK. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is universal agreement that Støre will be the PM one way or the other as there is no way for the former PM to cling to power, and she has conceded to Støre. It may still take weeks for the coalition parties to negotiate a formal coalition agreement. In terms of newsworthiness the election result is clearly the most important story, and this should be posted now. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not ready. The quality of this article is not suitable for publication: no prose in the results section and some cn tags that need to be fixed. IMO, since the election is ITN per se, I support it being published, regardless of whether Støre is appointed prime minister soon.  Normally, we do the latter when governments are formed that don't emerge from elections. At least to my understanding. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ITN/R tells us to post the outcome of an election, not subsequent power wrangling, although it may well be that the spirit of the rule is that the formation of a government is the important aspect. In any case, quality concerns are non-negotiable so it's a moot point until the above is addressed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The formation of a government is the important aspect." Agree. Voting results in a parliamentary system aren't really impactful until a government is announced. – Sca (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Enyart

 * Comment: This wikibio is long enough and has enough footnotes and refs. Coverage is a little thin but looks okay for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Career section is mostly a resume in prose format with limited depth. Duplication of content in activism and death section related to COVID-19.  Spencer T• C 00:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing and depth are sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Emma Raducanu wins US Open

 * Noting that this is ITNR, and usually we post both the women's and men's winner together (the latter that happens tomorrow). And as a comment as has been a problem for the US Open in the past several years, the target article (the overall US Open) is nearly all just tables and not sufficient for the main page. --M asem (t) 00:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2020 US Open (tennis) is a GA, and while this year's article doesn't need to be a GA level, that article can give editors a general idea of how this one can be improved accordingly.  Spencer T• C 01:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As the ITNR is for men’s and women’s, and will be a bland X and Y win line, I suggest this be nommed as a regular ITNC for the remarkable nature of the win on its own to get a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We'd not make a separate blurb for noting the Grand Slam part - it would be incorporated into the ITNR blurb. We'd also have to see if being the first qualifier to reach the Grand Slam is treated as a significant record (I think this was a point related to the first woman jockey to win the Kentucky Derby last year). --M asem  (t) 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Emma Raducanu should be bolded in the blurb. First ever qualifier to win a Grand Slam in tennis justifies making an exception here. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not aware whether we usually mention the wheelchair events, but if Dylan Alcott wins the quad singles, he will have won a 'golden slam' of five singles titles in one year, having previously won the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the Olympic Gold Medal. No man has ever done this in any form of tennis. Worth considering for a mention? HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - if it happens it might be worth a separte nom. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - This is more notable than usual, due to ER not being seeded or in the top 100. No need to wait for the men's event to be completed before posting. Jim Michael (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Holding back the woman to wait for the man is outrageous bias. Raducanu is making big headlines right now – much bigger than the election in Morocco.  Yesterday, the election had just 11K readers while Raducadu was the top read article with |Emma_Raducanu 1.4 million.  You cannot be serious! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support bolding of Emma Raducanu. The US Open (tennis) article is nowhere near ready right now, it has no prose on the event at all. But, as noted above, the newsworthy event here is not just the ITN/R tournament, but the fact that she was the first-ever qualifier to win any grand slam. Given that we posted "world records" in several athletic events during the Olympics, I'd say this would qualify under a similar banner. And the BLP in this case is adequate and sourced. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with bolding of Emma Raducanu article. First qualifier ever to win a Slam, this should be posted regardless of what Djokovic does or doesn't do later today. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ITNR without the year's tournament article bolded, so I'm going to preemptively oppose the men's final merging with this later today unless and until its article gets into much better shape. —Cryptic 11:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the inclusion of Emma Raducanu's achievement independent of whether the main tournament article is in good enough shape (as noted above, this has become a perennial problem with the tennis Grand Slam articles). It is clear that Raducanu's acheivement is receiving enough news coverage worldwide to justify it on its own terms. Similarly for the coverage of Djokovic if he wins later. I also support treating these items separately (they are distinct and separate achivements) and not merging them as we normally would for the winners (the inclusion is because of the record(s) they set/may set, not that they won/may win). In terms of blurb (and shortening it), the name of the opponent in the final would not normally be included, I don't think, though US Open and tennis need to be explicitly mentioned. Have added alt blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb as a first, this is unrepeatable. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Pawnkingthree. Regards So  Why  11:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb as per Mj. Won the match with an ace. Did not lose a set. Injured in the final. Got an A* in Maths and an A in Economics in her A-levels. Passed her driving test two days before lockdown! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) p.s.Djoko = "Yawn City Noo Joizee" by comparison.
 * Oppose quality Not major enough to bypass a sourced prose summary in the main article at 2021 US Open (tennis).—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: Die 18-jährige britische Tennisspielerin Emma Raducanu (Bild) hat das Dameneinzel der US Open gewonnen, als erste Qualifikantin, die je das Finale eines Grand-Slam-Turniers erreicht hat. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until we know the men's champion, then post both together - as is instructed on ITNR and usual for tennis tournaments. Furthermore the 2021 US Open (tennis) article is not ready, having no prose update whatsoever. It needs at least one paragraph each of referenced prose describing the outcome of the women's and men's tournaments. Dodging the issue by bolding Raducanu's article is inappropriate IMO. Her method of qualification seems like sports trivia to me, so unnecessary to mention in the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All those world records we posted during the Olympics were trivia too, and also relatively predictable. This, on the other hand, was entirely out of left field and a more major story than an incremental beating of a record. This is not "dodging" at all, but going with the ITN story. Djokovic or Medvedev will not get the same treatment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Raducanu's the story here, not the Open. No "issue dodging". ITNR's just getting in the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we post Raducanu's win and not the winner of the men's, that's a problem, and while an updated blurb can do that, the US Open article would still be a necessary target in that blurb overall. --M asem (t) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also looks like the Men's result is holding back the Women's here. Oh well, perhaps it's less important. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (p.s. even though there's been equal prize money at the Open since 2015. lol.)
 * Or we can invoke IAR and not bold the US Open article. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where there's a will.... – Sca (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or the US Open can be expanded like the 2020 to include short recaps for each of the major finale events (the mens' event pending), with sections like viewership to be omitted for the time being. This is easily done now. --M asem (t) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until the conclusion of the men's final and post a combined blurb with simple wording. Raducanu's achievement shouldn't sponge on the ITNR status of the story, which clearly indicates that the conclusion of the tournament is what should be highlighted (let alone that it's more suitable for DYK). I'll also oppose including Djokovic's completion of a Calendar-year Grand Slam in the blurb if he wins even though that feat will be surely top news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Her achievement wouldn't be "sponging" off anything if posted now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like how people put the tournament, whose inportance bears the ITNR status, on the back burner and focus on her achievement, which goes even further by bolding another article and, as Modest Genius correctly notes, dodging the quality issue of the tournament's article to speed up posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Perhaps all Open wins are equally notable. So they'll fit in neatly with Wikipedia's tried and tested ITNR routine and with the practicalities of article improvement. I must admit I've improved none of the articles, so my !vote ought to count for less. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted with alt. If there's a separate issue after the men's final, that shouldn't stop this being posted now. No image available, so I've sent File:Raducanu WMQ18 (16) (42834286534).jpg to WP:CMP as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder what the blurb will look like if Djokovic completes a Calendar-year Grand Slam.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed. Or else maybe the Fickle Finger of Fate... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * EDS: Make that a Flying Fickle Finger of Fate. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tyrone win fourth Sam Maguire Cup

 * Support Quality looks fine, it's of sufficient length and there's a prose summary of the match. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could use some copyediting. Sentences like Pat Spillane quoted Samuel Beckett on television afterwards with limited context don't add much to the article IMO.  Spencer T• C 01:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the one sentence above is a minor issue, article looks in pretty decent shape. And event is ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the last paragraph the lead is unsourced. Other than that, seems good to go per Joseph2302. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed that cn tag 89.19.79.17 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of the tag was that the whole paragraph was unsourced. The source you added only supported the last sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still unsourced broadcast details in lead (aside: detail probably doesn't belong in the lead, but should at least be sourced).—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That paragraph appears to have been sourced about one hour and thirty minutes after the request. --Gaois (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Sourcing issues seem to be resolved. I have followed the usual format for such blurbs though, without mention of the trophy name, which is IMHO not a relevant detail in a shot summary. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support article looks well sourced now, looks like the issues that were mentioned are fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looking back through the history this was lacking in references but is now fine to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Abimael Guzmán

 * Support on notability, once maintenance tags have been resolved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose primarily due to gaps in referencing. Once resolved I would support this as a blurb. Guzmán was among the most significant of Latin America's long list of Communist revolutionaries and one of the great mass murderers of the late 20th century. His influence on the political development and history of the region cannot be overstated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, potential blurb As one of the most notorious rebel leaders of recent years, he seems like a candidate for deathblurb if anyone is This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it". Guzmán was responsible for the death of more than 30 thousand people during the time of terrorism in Peru. Wikiperuvian (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article still tagged. Also, it's not sufficiently notable for a blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still 10+ {cn} tags in this wikibio, too many to ignore. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Concepción Ramírez

 * Comment - she's described in the lead as a "peace activist", and we're also told she was awarded a pension for her "life's achievements", but apart from one incident of speaking out in 2007 there's no detail at all of what she did during her life outside of being chosen as the face on the coin. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jorge Sampaio

 * Oppose blurb No offence to a country that I know very well, but I wouldn't call every president of Portugal an a priori blurb as would be the case with USA, China and Russia. Transformative figures like the architects of the 1974 revolution and the new democracy yes, but I see nothing transformative about Sampaio. The UNAOC, I will admit I know little about, the message seems noble but the true impact of it and Sampaio's position in it, I will leave the more informed to decide. And oppose in current state due to mass problems with citations. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Good work. Sorry I didn't get back sooner Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not an autoblurb situation like POTUSs/UKPMs/Chinese presidents. Led a minor UN initiative that I didn't know of beforehand, certainly no UNICEF. Also terribly uncited in its current state, so oppose RD on quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the President of Portugal "holds no direct executive power". If we're going to get triggered on heads of state vs govt, keep that in mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment Finally I've finished fixing his article, expanding its content and adding new sources. Sure it will be necessary to fix small details, but I think it now meets the requirements to be published to RD. Take a look at it . _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Support - the article is orange tagged with "lead needs expanding", which seems somewhat legitimate at present. It doesn't need to be huge, but including some more details from the body would definitely be beneficial before posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Although I don't think that is the most important determinant of whether it's published or not. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if it's orange tagged it's not eligible, regardless. The lead still looks short compared to his overall career, but it's just about OK I guess. Support for RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uno Loop

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted All non-English sources AGF'd. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment without any disrespect at all, Uno Loop is the best name of anyone anywhere I've seen for a decade, so I would have supported on that basis alone. Thank goodness we have decent contributors who make it all work the way it should. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, cheers, Rambling Toad. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC) enjoy!
 * I'm struggling as to why Martin hasn't been here with all the wit. It's nice, like summoning a demon, he's finally arrived, but the input is lacking.  Perhaps it's having a bad day. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Call me a relic of a bygone age, but I'm too busy laughing at the idea of a "hockey player" named Jahangir Butt to go that loopy for Loop. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would guess the last name probably is pronounced like English lope. As to Uno, FWIW, Udo is a not uncommon name in German. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean like a jackalope? Inedible you are a relic of a bygone age. Norman Buttkiss 123 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I was thinking of Lope de Aguirre, designer of the iconic "Eldo" made famous by Hardly Real. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All is clear now, thank you. Presumably no relation to Liza? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Afraid I'm out of the loop on that one. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Rahimullah Yusufzai

 * Comment: Early life section needs a ref or two; external links need cleanup; career section could use 3-4 more sentences about his work to have more sufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 02:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Early life and education section has zero footnotes. The intro says that he is noted for having interviewed Mullah Omar, but this is not mentioned in the Career section at all. Please add. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Najib Mikati becomes Prime Minister of Lebanon

 * Comment The wikibio is well sourced, but with little coverage of his prior two terms. In general the "Political career" section should be cleaned up and improved. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added more details about political career translated from his page on French Wikipedia. This should be now ready to go. Tradedia talk 18:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment not ITN/R. Fixed. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How's that? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an election, not the "office which administer the executive of their respective state/government". A totally powerless figurehead, appointed by the president. We finally fixed this head of state/government silliness and he doesn't qualify. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So List of current heads of state and government is incorrect, because it currently shows the PM with the power. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS the position is "President of the Council of Ministers" in that table and "Prime Minister" here. Ok whatever reverted then. My bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Their system is some kind of bizarre power sharing agreement, damn. Still, I won't argue with the green box. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to confirm that this is indeed green box. The president has to be Christian and the PM has to be a Sunni Muslim So he is seen as the representative of Sunni Muslims. He shares power with the President. I think this should be a blurb even if it was not green box. The country has been without a government for a year because the president and the would be PM could not agree on the division of power. Now they finally agree and the new PM is in charge of reform and negotiating (with foreign institutions/countries) to save the country from “one of the deepest depressions of modern history” (World Bank words). If he succeeds, the country can be saved. If he fails, the country could descend into a new civil war that would further destabilize the Middle East. Tradedia talk 18:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support See my 2 comments above. Tradedia talk 18:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question The Najib Mikati wikipage looks clean enough to appear on MainPage. Is the story ready for ITN? Time is running out on this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Let's go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Page has citation needed tags. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard McGeagh

 * Posted Stephen 04:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amanda Holden (writer)

 * Support Referenced, coverage of life meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Leif Frode Onarheim

 * Oppose While referenced, essentially a resume in prose format with limited depth of coverage; needs additional details about what subject accomplished in their various roles.  Spencer T• C 02:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Moroccan general election

 * Strong support big result, for sure a change in head of gov and thus ITN/R by proxy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient. Offering an altblurb, as the original blurb used vague terms like "won"; which in a parliamentary election such as this, is not how it works.  They secured the highest number of seats (and not even an absolute majority of 50+%, just more than any other single party) which should be reflected in the blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - quality looks good to me. Levivich 17:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Nicely done. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom. comment Updating "Results" sections as we have the definitive ones. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As above. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Aziz Akhannouch appointed PM. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Art Metrano

 * Comments: Long enough and has enough footnotes scattered around and at the expected spots. This nom is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Big Daddy Graham

 * Posted Stephen 03:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Bradley Holmes

 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted A bit short, but still okay. --PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RD.Blurb: Yevgeny Zinichev

 * Oppose blurb. It seems like a sad story, and Mr Zinichev appears to have died heroically, but that's not in itself sufficient reason to blurb it as a main news item, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any more "intrigue" to the story than what meets the eye. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also oppose RD at this time. Needs quite a bit of tidy up, as the article prose reads more like WP:PROSELINE right now. And quite a few citations missing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as above. Also oppose RD currently, as article needs a lot more sources- and the circumstances surrounding his death need to be added. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Lacks general significance. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is proposed as blurb/RD, so it can remain open to judge when ready for posting as RD. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC


 * Oppose blurb at this time/support RD - there isn't enough information about his death (yet) to justify a blurb. If more news sources come out and the biography is expanded (or if the death becomes notable/significant enough for a standalone page), I might change my mind. Support RD but not blurb at this time. Levivich 15:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is about 1/3 unreferenced. Not good enough for main page.  Agnostic on RD/Blurb at this time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once article fixed. Certainly an unusual situation. Merits inclusion in my view. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The story is very unusual and this is clearly in the news. I think the accident is what matters here and not whether the person is notable enough to merit a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but support RD for the reasons above. Quite aside from the basic notability issue, the BBC is reporting that the circumstances of his death are uncorroborated. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sourcing tags.—Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD While my condolences go out to Mr. Zinichev's family, he isn't that well known, and doesn't really merit a blurb. An addition to RD would suffice, however. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is still not ready and days later there doesn't seem to be much activity. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adlai Stevenson III

 * Support Article looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Tangerang prison fire

 * 130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An IP has updated the article. The article now has passed the stub threshold by 400 characters. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Mortality and circumstances seem notable, but the article would need much further work. Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any specific comment on what the "further work" should be? Probably point out a section? Thank you. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any word on the probable cause of the fire? – Sca (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Initial investigations by the police indicated that the fire occured due to short circuit. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I cleared the orphan tag; article quality looks good to me. Not a stub anymore; no tags; no problems with prose that I can see; good referencing; reasonably complete for a new breaking news article. Levivich 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum standards for depth of coverage; referenced.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough and article is good. Pyramids09 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally....one of my articles appeared as a blurb at In the News...😭😭😭...thanks for those who help to develop the article as well as those who support this...now I could die in peace... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Moist Esports signs Moky and Hotashi

 * Oppose. We don't post transactions for regular sports, never mind "esports" that are not covered in mainstream media. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who? What? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunately not as l33t as OP's username suggests. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Schaap

 * Support Marking ready. Referenced and thorough coverage.  Spencer T• C 19:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jahangir Butt

 * Comment: Part on playing career lacks depth. With 5-6 more sentences across the two paragraphs about his playing career, this should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 01:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply/Comment: Agree that playing career could need more depth. Since the easily available English-language sources (obituaries) are already fully exploited, I will have to leave further expansion to somebody knowledgeable of urdu. Oceanh (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador

 * Support We usually post when something becomes operative, so this is the right point of time for this law.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. "First country to do something", especially adopting a cryptocurrency as legal tender, seems to be what ITN is for. Regards So  Why  19:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is terrible and doesn't address the impact this is going to have on a country where just 5% of the population has access to mobile broadband --LaserLegs (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant what is taking about the Bitcoin as legal tender as El Salvador than in Japan as commodity. The mind will be changed if there was fraud of Bitcoin in the country. 36.65.40.237 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support El Salvador will probably be joined by many other countries in the future. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Bold moves like this typically trigger a wide interest. Connor Behan (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support is newsworthy as a first for any country (Wall Street Journal source makes this very clear) to do this, also is newsworthy for the problems that have occurred as a centralized government has tried to "manage" the economic introduction of a decentralized cryptocurrency to a populace unfamiliar with a lot of this new digital technology. N2e (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tagged. I remember this being nominated at least once, maybe twice before. The article has unfortunately not improved much since the last time, and while I think some of the opposes above are too harsh, the Implementation section needs a big expansion as that's the motivating event this time.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Implementation section has been expanded. Roniius  talk to me 08:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose when it was suggested in June, it was in the news way more than it is now, and that was the correct time to post it in my opinion. Not world leading news right now, so not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not very prominent news, of interest primarily to Bitcoin speculators (e.g. large scale pump and dump scammers). Wikipedia needs to be careful not to participate in these scams by amplifying the hype. Jehochman Talk 10:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not object if the article were re-written to be neutral. At present it reads as a fan piece supporting Bitcoin.  The article should address the negative aspects, such as protests.  It should mention that Bitcoin fell 17% in response to the news. It should explain the implication of this currency being used at shops when the average commit time is at least 5 minutes.  How does one buy a pack of smokes when it takes 5 minutes to confirm a transaction?  What about the transaction fees? We are not serving the reader if we gloss over these points. Jehochman Talk 11:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't you ever been to a store and used a credit card and the store had an old machine and you had to wait while the machine dials in, and then sometimes it craps out, and you have to swipe it again, and then you're frustrated, the cashier's frustrated, the people behind you are frustrated, and everyone starts asking why the owner of the store doesn't just get a new credit card machine, and the cashier explains it has to do with the fees, and then the store would have to raise prices on cigarettes, and everyone rolls their eyes and accepts it, by which time, hopefully, the transaction will have gone through. Anyway, that's how you buy a pack of smokes when it takes 5 minutes to confirm a transaction. Levivich 16:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jehochman. The practical impact of this is very unclear, judging by the reports I've read. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support my position has not changed since the last time this was suggested. Article quality is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Following edits up to Sep 8 13:07, article quality is good. I don't see any problems with prose neutrality as of now. The law took effect yesterday (Sep 7), so it's not stale. Levivich 15:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until someone can explain the significance of this. -- Calidum  16:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First country to accept cryptocurrency as legal tender. Levivich 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And? It's not like people crypto for transactions for the past several years. -- Calidum  16:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but it's the first country to accept cryptocurrency as legal tender. Up until now, it wasn't legal tender. In other words, the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin is now just plain old currency in El Salvador. It's the first time a government has given it the legal status of currency. That means everyone in El Salvador must accept Bitcoin the same as dollars. It used to be optional whether you'd have to take Bitcoin, now it's mandatory in El Salvador. And without a doubt, it will be the first of many countries to do this (eventually the whole world will follow suit). In other other words, legal tender is what cryptocurrency is not... or has never been, anywhere in the world... until now; now it's legal tender somewhere in the world. That's a big milestone when it comes to the acceptance of cryptocurrency as currency. This is comparable to when countries moved off the gold standard in terms of the history of currency. Levivich 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you Levivich. When the U.S. moved off the Gold Standard after the Nixon shock, other countries did little to prepare to change their currencies into fiat currencies (which weren't backed-up by or have a fixed exchange rate with gold), hence why it's called a "shock." This is different. People in El Salvador will still continue to, and probably will, use the U.S. dollar for transactions (the U.S. dollar will remain legal tender). This means that most people have a choice, not like after the Nixon shock where you had to accept whatever exchange rate the FOREX market gave. Also, El Salvador is not a major economy, so its currency change won't have any direct impact on most other nations, unlike the U.S. which is the dominant economy of the world. To me this seems more like trivia than news of legitimate impact (the only people really being affected by this is producers in El Salvador, and in that producers who sell to people with access to cryptocurrencies). 141.157.254.171 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was referring to about countries moving off the gold standard. I meant in the 19th century, when it was done for the first time (for the US, see Greenback (1860s money)), not the time the US did it in the 1970s. Bitcoin is the greenback of the 21st century. Levivich 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support quality issues appear to have been taken care of. I think that any country adopting a new currency is always newsworthy and significant enough for ITN.  Furthermore, El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as one of its two official currencies (the other being the US dollar) is very clearly "in the news" as it remains headline news around the world a day later.  Per ITN's criteria: "the event is appearing currently in news sources" and the bold link provides "a substantial quantity of directly relevant information, attributed to reliable sources," with the article having been "updated" to reflect the event.  As such, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be posted. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is important for "finance" but not important enough as general news. Tradedia talk 01:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. With Cuba, Ukraine, and Panama taking similar steps in incorporating Bitcoin legally in just the past few days, this is international news and setting an international precedent, as evidenced by the titling (i.e. "In Global First...") of the New York Times article. Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article pretty good plus this is a unique event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unique event, no other country has done it yet, and may follow in the future. I'd say this is ITN-worthy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yolanda Fernández de Cofiño
Thanks! I also see other editors have made improvements as well, so I wonder if anything else is needed so the article is ready for RD. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment missing infobox also some of the references have no author or publisher stated Abcmaxx (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * pinging FlyingAce Abcmaxx (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed all the refs now. I can add an infobox later today (on mobile now), but is one needed if we don't have a photo? I could not find any photos with a suitable license, and I think it may be too soon to claim fair use. –FlyingAce✈hello 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: something came up and I won't have computer access for the next few days. If anyone would like to have a go at the infobox, I'd greatly appreciate it. :) –FlyingAce✈hello 13:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the infobox. A picture is not required to post to RD. Regards So  Why  14:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Having an infobox shouldn't be a criteria for adding to RD, as MOS:INFOBOXUSE clearly states that The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to do it myself but likewise didn't have time. I understand it was not necessarily a criteria but I think that infoboxes especially for persons do improve the readability of the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 São Toméan presidential election

 * Oppose per now National elections are ever ITN. For the election article to be ready, there should be at least prose about the results, a section with reactions and aftermath, opinion polls, at the very least. There is a lot of work to be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, I didn’t see very many, if any, opinion polls prior to the election in reliable sources, so I’m not sure how reasonable that particular expectation is in this case. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I believe we have succeeded in getting the article to meet the minimum requirements for publication. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PK3, and everyone else for their improvements to the article. Levivich 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very scanty coverage. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is essentially a stub right now. Treat this as a support if/when the article is improved. Mlb96 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is still a bit light, but it's good enough that I wouldn't feel embarrassed to see it posted to the front page. Support. Mlb96 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: The article doesn't say much more than the proposed blurb in essence.Abcmaxx (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Not sure what everyone else is talking about on quality, at least as of the Sep 6 revision (the current revision). It has a list of candidates, it has a list of preliminary results, it has good references, there's a lead, there's a bit of prose about the election system, and I don't see any errors or tags. Sure, it's short, it's probably a stub, but so what? Put it on the main page and people will come and improve it, it's what we do here. Levivich 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly how this doesn't work. Take a look at the last elections that were published on Main Page to see how the articles should look like. I'm sure that since you are so eager to have it published (understandable), you will use it to improve it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How it works is spelled out at WP:ITNCRIT, which says, which this article meets. I don't even perceive a meaningful distinction between 2021 São Toméan presidential election and 2021 Zambian general election, other than that the latter has a little bit more prose. But nothing in ITNCRIT suggests to me that the latter article meets the "minimum standard" but the former article doesn't. And don't get snippy with comments like "I'm sure that since you are so eager to have it published (understandable), you will use it to improve it." That's just being a jerk, uncalled for. You can disagree without getting personal about it. Levivich 16:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCRIT also says "Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page". Also "Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it's a stub; it doesn't meet the definitions set forth in WP:STUB or stub, and it doesn't have a stub tag. If I were rating it, I'd rate it start class. When I said "it's probably a stub" (now struck), I was wrong, I hadn't looked at the definitions. And "usually" means "not always". In the case of a presidential election, encyclopedic information is going to mean lists and tables and such, not just prose. When I think of stub, I think of, as the stub template says, This is not such an article. Levivich 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Check this. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality this article is a stub, with not enough prose. That's the difference between what does and doesn't get posted- we shouldn't be putting stubs on the front page, because they aren't meeting the minimum standard of quality. Also very confused by the preliminary results, as many of the candidates appear to have a blank number of votes? Did nobody vote for them? It certainly needs clearing up. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In my view (and going on previous postings) a prose summary of the results is necessary to meet minimum quality standards.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * is a prose summary of the results in my view. Levivich 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have clarified, in a Results section not the lead.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I copied that sentence from the lead to the results section. Levivich 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a few lines.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added information about the election campaign, at least about the first round. If for the second one there's someone today who jumps in to document it, great. And if someone can expand a bit the "Results" (see Joseph's comment) and "Aftermath" sections, the article will be ready. There is not much left. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SupportI think this can be posted now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Michael K. Williams

 * Support Widespread coverage, good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article itself is good, but the newly spun-off filmography page is in pretty dire shape, with no sources at all. I guess it's a fair way to skirt having to source all of those for RD, though. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving filmography section into new article just so this one can be classed as ready for RD seems like it's just gaming the system, and we shouldn't be encouraging it. The article is not overly long and verbose, and so it seems to me that the split has been done solely to expediate this to RD, which is not acceptable in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph above. Completely cynical move to take the filmography to make a brand new, bare bones article, and the timing makes me think this was to get the article on RD. Not gonna pass. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - well known actor in some of the 2000s most famous TV shows. I agree that the article needs work though. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD here but I would also support some RfC on whether filmography tricks like this are acceptable in the future. Connor Behan (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To be clear, I moved the filmography to its own page because its massive. No other reason. Why is that filmography page not okay when Wikipedia has hundreds of them? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People get suspicious when it's done during an ITNC nom. There's other times when the bio didn't cover many works in prose aside from a filmography, or the filmography was not excessively long, when it appeared that the split was done to expedite a nom because the list was mostly unsourced. However, I don't see many of those factors at play here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the prose mostly supports each entry in the filmography, each entry in the filmogrphy should have a source, even if they duplicate references. This is the problem that splitting off the filmography to sweep the sourcing issue under the rug. --M asem (t) 04:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Filmography comment There's similiar circumstances at (below).  We should reach some consistency, one way or another.—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to all participants so far.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been busy the last few days and haven't had the time or bandwidth to work on the filmography. Sadly noone else has either yet. I may be able to get to it this weekend, but I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(Blurb pulled) Blurb/RD: Jean-Paul Belmondo

 * Support blurb Belmondo is a worldwide known figure who had decades of film career and lead roles in multiple classic films. The article about him is in 73 languages. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. There are way too many unsourced claims in the article. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Kirill C1.--Nickispeaki (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per WP:ITNRD the life is the main story, his death requires no additional clarification and I don't see this as one of the rare cases where a "major figure" requires a blurb. User:LaserLegs/NOTMANDELA --LaserLegs (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed article. While Belmondo was no Mandela, it is important to notice we posted blurbs for Dilip Kumar, Christopher Lee, Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher and Sean Connery. Based on my research, Belmondo was a notable actor: his death is being globally covered, NYT called him the French Marlon Brando and James Dean and per Kirill. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost everyone now agrees that posting Carrie Fisher was a mistake, and the bar for blurbing has been de facto raised considerably since then. Vera Lynn, Kirk Douglas, Tom Petty and Little Richard, to name a few, were all passed over. TLDR: there are a lot of very notable people out there, but most of them don't get blurbed, that's the default. And there's certainly nothing about Belmondo that elevates him above other similarly notable people. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the French wikipedia has not put Belmondo into a blurb. He is listed in their version of recent deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mandela and Thatcher are not the only ones who satisfy the blurb. There were other blurbs. There should be some criteria for people of arts, including actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen the essay and want to comment on the items: Kirill C1 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The deceased is household name in many countries" - yes, especially in European countries but not limited to them.
 * "The deceased has been the subject of a major motion picture" - he has been subject of biographical works, including books, and a documentary film "Belmondo par Belmondo".
 * "The deceased is making headline news in multiple publications" - there are news about him in multiple publications in different languages, so yes, "interrupting broadcast television, and is likely to for several days" - French broadcast television was interrupted indeed. Coverage continues today. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, doesn't change the fact that the French WP didn't do a blurb for him. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied not to the comment I intended to, I wanted to reply to the oppose blurb comment. As for blurb in French wikipedia - I do not know their rules are, but there is Belmondo's photo in RD section, so he is distinguished. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Kirill C1. --Andrei (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not quite well-known enough to merit a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs source work. Once this is fixed I can support a blurb. Support blurb I believe his NYT obit called him the French Marlon Brando. Plus we gave Dilip Kumar a blurb (understandably). Belmondo was an influential actor during the influential French New Wave movement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Belmondo is a household name and he was one of the best known actors. We posted blurbs for Sean Connery and Dilip Kumar, so he shouldn't be omitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, per Kirill. One of the biggest stars of European cinema for three decades. --Clibenfoart (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems there is a rough consensus for a blurb but until the article gets fixed, it cannot be posted. --Tone 07:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed tags/sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - a notable actor, certainly, but the bar for blurbing is high, and he doesn't quite meet it, particularly as he's not a household name in the English-speaking world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb a lot of similarly notable people of many nationalities have not had blurbs for their deaths e.g. Vera Lynn, who was as well known in the UK as Belmondo is in France. Oppose RD currently, until better sourced (the fact nobody is fixing the sourcing means the blurb discussion is currently a moot point anyway). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the sourcing issue. I would like to echo Kirill. We've posted blurbs of Sean Connery and Dilip Kumar (understandably they were kingmakers in acting) and based on my research on JPB, he is just as influential with his NYT obit comparing him to the French Marlon Brando and James Dean. Also we posted blurbs for Christopher Lee, Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dilip Kumar was blurbed, and he had around 45 wiki pages, Belmondo has now 75. Belmondo was called 'national treasure', but is known outside of France and is "internationally recognised star" . Kirill C1 (talk)
 * Comment The article has been fixed up to shape, so it can be posted as an RD while blurb discussions can continue. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. It's hard not to see Belmondo in the same sphere as some of the examples TDKR has provided. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per Amakuru. Not widely known enough to be significant. – Sca (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, there is no consensus for a blurb at this time, but discussion may continue. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I seem to remember that some time ago, when a person was important but not for a blurb nor less than a simple RD, a picture of him/her was put and listed in RD. I'm totally unaware of the policy on this particular issue, tbh, but it would be a "halfway" between blurb and RD. I don't think it would be unreasonable to bring this back in cases like Belmondo’s. Did I make myself clear? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO a picture with an RD doesn't work in terms of layout and graphics, and anyway RDs don't last long these days. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've argued in favour of having "sticky" RDs in the past, who remain at the top of the list for a fixed number of days, even as other RDs come and go. It was shot down on the grounds that people like RD to be black and white, and the original RFC establishing the rule that all notable people get an RD sought to achieve that. I don't entirely buy it, and I think that would satisfy some of the concerns re rolling off quickly. You could even let that sticky person be eligible for a pic. I noticed that fr-wiki has its own dedicated smallish picture slot for RD, which is separate from the pic that goes with the main blurb of the day. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - The article shows a long and healthy film career but a distinct lack of recognition as a major French film actor beyond the handful of awards mentioned. I'm not doubting those that support a blurb that this may be justified, but this really needs to be shown in the article itself (possibly pulled from obits) before we can blurb it. --M asem (t) 13:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He was awarded with such honorary awards as Cannes, Cesar, Venice. This certainly is not lack of recognition. "this really needs to be shown in the article itself" - is something like this ″To the public, Belmondo represented a new wave of actors with regular, flawed features. “The revolution of Breathless was that the young lead wasn’t pretty to look at,” he said years later. He would set a precedent for everyday-looking stars like De Niro, Pacino and Hoffman, who would mark Hollywood films of the next two decades.″ meant? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that those awards don't mean anything, but yes, what's missing is something like an impact or legacy section to tell us more than just what those awards say. If he is such a household name in Europe, for example, this should be readily documented. That might be material that can be added easily from obits, but it should really be present, as otherwise this just looks like a celebrated actor but not evidence of one deserving a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But career awards of most prestigious film festivals indicate illustrious career and impact. "If he is such a household name in Europe, for example, this should be readily documented." - this can be illustrated by the amount of publications in different languages, but I do not think they would be appropriate or that they would be analysed in the discussion. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That implies it but the article doesn't show how those awards do translate to such a career. And just because a lot sources are covering the death may imply a household name, if the argument is that he was such a person, we actually need sources to talk about how much of an influence he was as to make his name household. I am not saying this likely don't exist, but our article should show this before we consider a blurb for this, since featuring it as a blurb will draw attention and we should be clear why this actor deserves a line in the ITN box. --M asem (t) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a Legacy section which I feel is more appropriate area of an article to sum up a person's influence. The Guardian hailed him as an important figure in French cinema and even French history. He's set to have a national tribute, which is a rare honor, the other person who had such an honor was Charles Aznavour who had a blurb posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely on the way towards better support for a blurb. That's exactly the type of expectation in an article I would want to see if we are talking a blurb. --M asem (t) 21:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded his legacy section and the lead to better convey his legendary acting status as described by many obits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On the basis that this probably can still be expanded with more obits in the days to come, I change this to Support blurb with the added legacy section. --M asem (t) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Winning awards is not in itself reason to blurb. The other people mentioned who didn't get blurbs also won awards. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my original oppose. TDKR Chicago and others since created a Legacy section with potential to grow, that goes beyond just the awards as to why he was highly recognized and influential actor as to merit support for a blurb. --M asem (t) 13:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Can't see any reason why RD is not sufficient here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is national tribute some indication why he is such important figure? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the national tribute is seen as a rare honor (Charles Aznavour also had this rare honor and even had a blurb posted). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb so long as quality issues with the article are resolved. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was an icon. Tradedia talk 09:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not at all on par with others posted. Removing ready tag, as the count is roughly even.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - top of the field in his line of work. An icon.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsourced filmography I was ready to promote to a blurb, which seems to have a rough consensus, but I noticed that the previous (unsourced) filmography was removed and spun out to Jean-Paul Belmondo filmography, still mostly unsourced. Now this is already posted at RD, but I notice a similar issue is actually holding up  (above). We should get some discussion (and consistency) on whether this is acceptable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I complained about the inclusion of the tagged United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics in the blurb on the conclusion of this year's Summer Olympics, I was told that only the bolded article needs to comply with the quality requirements. Since the filmography section doesn't even appear in the proposed blurb, it couldn't be an issue that prevents this from posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually a different concern of whether 1) spinning out existing content is avoiding sourcing to fast-track posting 2) is it a disservice to the reader to separate it if WP:TOOBIG is not a factor.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a valid topic of discussion that should occur on the talk page but it shouldn't put a hold on the nomination. I've just checked a couple of other articles on famous actors (e.g. Jack Nicholson, Anthony Hopkins and Meryl Streep) and noticed that linking to a filmography article instead of having a tabular presentation is a common practice, which implies that it might have been done for stylistic reasons and not to speed up its posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good spot, and I have restored the filmography section. There is no reason for this article not to have one included in its body, as it is a standard feature of actor bios. This has been discussed before, and simply brushing unsourced content into new spinoff pages has never been allowed as a way of getting things posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for this article not to have one included in its body, as it is a standard feature of actor bios. Seriously? I get the impression that exactly the opposite is the case—those tables are moved to a new article just to make the article look stylistically neater. Christopher Lee, Sean Connery and Dilip Kumar as actors whose deaths got blurbs are all examples of that style.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When the article is large, the filmography and sometimes even awards section are in separate pages (see Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks). This is the case. Anyway, the references for film roles are in the article, they just need to be copied to the filmography section. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it has long been established that hiving filmopgrpahy into a subarticle during an ITN nomination is a form of WP:GAMING, and is not acceptable. If this had been done long before the nomination, it would be a different matter, but in this case the filmography needs to stay. Perhaps you can find some sourcing for the films it contains. Also, this article is not remotely "large". It has 15kb of readable prose, which is on the small size for an actor of this stature. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, there would need to be a proper split discussion for filmography to be removed from an article, as I don't see any value in moving it to a separate article (other than to try and game the ITN system). It's unsourced content that needs to be sourced before this can be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment we can't have the main thing a person is notable for (sports history, filmography, political career, awards, whatever) in an unreferenced section even if it is spun out into a WP:CFORK. It may adhere to the letter of the guidelines but it's not really in keeping with the spirit of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , : I've sourced the filmography section of the article. I felt that Belmondo's filmography was long enough to be its own article, but nonetheless I've done it. Most of his works were even covered by obits (which was nice).  --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-list under RD, but no blurb I say we should re-list him under RD, but not give a blurb. He's in that "gray area" - definitely more notable than 95% of RD candidates, but not quite blurb worthy. 1779Days (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed out Belmondo had a national tribute today, which is a rare honor and most recently was given to Charles Aznavour when he died (who also had a blurb posted). Dilip Kumar, legendary Bollywood actor also had a blurb posted not that long ago (two months I believe). The argument is that Belmondo was an influential actor in European cinema as was Kumar in Bollywood cinema so since the latter received a blurb why not Belmondo? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted blurb Rough consensus that he's significant enough to warrant a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not on this page.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There was rough consensus at time of the posting. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, blurbs are not supposed to be about significance, but about the death itself. As in, could the death and funeral be a stand-alone article? Please take down the blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD refers to blurbs for "major figures", where the manner of death was not notable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * quite so, but there was clearly no consensus that Belmondo qualified as a "major figure". Blurbs are supposed to be extremely rare. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Really strange choice for a blurb, in my opinion. Return to RD. I generally think we should be far more conservative with our choices for death blurbs (I disagree with most if not all of our previous actor blurbs: Kumar, Lee, Reynolds, Fisher, Connery). — Goszei (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not such a strange choice if given a second thought - worldwide known actor with long career, its' inception being the French New Wave films, and a celebrity whose life, including affairs with prominent actresses was subject of numerous publications, one of the main figures of European cinema of the second half of XX century. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I liked Belmondo, but he's was not a world-changing force in acting; he didn't change the way actors worked, or the way people interpreted the roles he did. He was just another actor. Should be RD only. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a quote from THR that I posted earlier that Belmondo set a precedent for everyday-looking stars like De Niro, Pacino and Hoffman. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shame it's a crap quote that isn't true. There were everyday-looking stars from the early days of cinema - just because one journalist only views cinema through the lens of RECENTISM doesn't mean we have to follow suit. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the best sources was cited. Here is the other source citing old review that distinguishes him . And there were mostly good-looking stars in that time. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact you've said that there were "mostly" good looking stars just proves there were a significant number of "ordinary" looking ones too. It's always been so in cinema - it's not something he started or promoted or something he was particularly known for. Jesus - it's not even mentioned in the article, so how you can rely on it here to be the basis of the rationale for a blurb is beyond me. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull There was no consensus for a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull per PK3. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amaze me how dying catapults someone from successful and influential in his sub-subfield decades ago to top of his field. The field is entertainers.  This person was never at its top. —Cryptic 12:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He was the top of the field. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are all the actors entertainers, by the way? Drama actors that play Shakespeare, etc. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because you've repeated it over and over and over does not make it true. —Cryptic 12:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the same token, merely asserting that something is not true does not make it not true. It seems there has been evidence provided, in terms of cited content in the article and in the direct comparison to Charles Aznavour's national tribute, that there is a notable significance here, and nothing but comments to the tune of "well I don't think he's important" to refute this. I know it's hard to prove a negative but that doesn't mean we rely solely on gut feeling for it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The arguments supporting that were given, I could add more. And he was still well-known now. I have impression that the objections are mostly because he was not star in Hollywood. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that. We also didn't post Kirk Douglas, who is in Hollywood. But the question is are they transformative in the Thatcher and Mandela mould, and the answer here is no. Belmondo was in the elite, but he was not at the very top. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not like Mandela and Thatcher were the only ones posted to Blurb. The threshold should be stated more precisely. Otherwise we can refer to previous posted as valid example, in this case actors such as Sean Connery. It's difficult to distinguish between "the elite" and "at the very top", it seems pretty subjective. I would suggest some examples in cinema field. Were Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, Clark Gable, Yul Brynner, Greta Garbo, Ennio Morricone, Sergio Leone, John Huston at the very top or the elite? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that it was a close call that could have gone either way when it was posted as a blurb in good faith, but I think consensus is now leaning against; I might gently suggest that  reverse their posting. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb. First, I don't see consensus above for it. Second, I don't see how Belmondo is deemed blurb-worthy when Olivia de Havilland, Kirk Douglas and Chadwick Boseman, all of whom died in 2020, were not. (Maybe it's because those three share something in common compared to Belmondo and Connery, but I digress.) I know some people above are (again) raising a stink about Carrie Fisher getting a blurb when she died, but that was nearly five years ago. -- Calidum  16:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I say that they all are worthy blurb. Here is other source confirming that he is household name in many countries . Kirill C1 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb pulled No consensus at time of posting, consensus to pull after posting. Not worthy of a blurb, IMO, and even if he were it was posted 4 days late. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb pulling is unprofessional: As mentioned after Larry King's death, we should stop doing this. Connor Behan (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually what we should start doing is respecting community consensus, regardless of the fact that Larry King is dead. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that it's a bad look and should be avoided when possible, which is why we need to be more cautious of posting blurbs in the first place. Ultimately, however, nobody really cares what Wikipedia does on its front page, so c'est la vie. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a blurb discussion for four (!) days until Belmondo got posted, with a tendency to give him the blurb (not overwhelming, but it was there). And only when he finally received the blurb, a whole bunch of opposing voices came out. I can understand blurb pulling in cases where a person gets a blurb within a few hours (who was perhaps most famous in a certain time zone which was then online), but this is ridiculous. --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There was a four day discussion for a blurb inclusion with more votes being in favor vs. against (although the it was not a landslide consensus). With that much days of that much discussion a blurb being posted should be respected and not pulled. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-whatever-the-fuck-has-happened-Support. Iconic actor. Clearly suffered from not being in the Anglosphere, I fear. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure but I guess fr.wiki would have had him on their main page? The global Wikipedia coverage will no doubt suffice, there's no reason to mandate that en.wiki has to carry the burden of all non-English legends, surely?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, but there's not a lot we can do about fr.wiki (who, incidentally, very rarely post deaths as blurbs anyway - they appear in their RD section). Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone mentioned in this long discussion that French ITN qualifications might be different than our ITN merits so comparing the two wouldn't be so fair. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good! Old man dies, let's just post A-list celebrity photos, recognition problem solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and, frankly, oppose pulling blurbs once posted in general as set out above. I fear that the comments about about favouritism towards the Anglophone world are pretty much spot-on here.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seeing how many obits see him as the French Marlon Brando or James Dean he should be seen as an influential actor (similar how Dilip Kumar, Christopher Lee or Charles Aznavour were seen all of which had blurbs). I'm pretty sure if Brando or Dean were to pass away today they would get blurbs, however a French actor who has been highly regarded as a Brando-esque figure in French cinema gets squat in recognition. I also agree that pulling blurbs just causes confusion rather than solutions. I felt that seeing how there was some consensus (meaning the support votes were more than the oppose blurb votes) after four now five days since this nomination was posted, a blurb being posted after that much time and discussion should have automatically closed this discussion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pulling the blurb was a terrible idea. However, we now end up in a situation where any admin that restores it is technically wheel warring.  What a shambles. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, pulling it was the only option given that consensus had swung firmly against, and was only borderline at the time of posting. And people need to stop this bad-faith assumption that editors opposing are being Anglocentric. We're simply going off the evidence, and that's that while he's an eminent actor, as indeed was Kirk Douglas, he's not the Thatcher or Mandela of French cinema. And French Wikipedia, even though they blurbed Jacques Chirac's death, did not blurb this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Pierre Adams

 * Support more than good enough for RD, was about to nominate this myself. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 14 minutes from nomination to posting- must be a new record? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And while Australians and New Zealanders (assuming they exist, that is 😊) are asleep and have no chance to object. Shocking stuff! RDs are usually less controversial than blurbs though, I find. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we have agreed that any notable individual with a standalone page can be put in the RD line as long as their death is in the news and their page shows sufficient quality (long enough, everything sourced), then a rapid turnaround is fine. Rapidly posted blurbs (deaths or otherwise) are where we have issues. --M asem (t) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Watkins

 * Posted Stephen 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Montenegro protests

 * Oppose article needs significant expansion. And not sure why this is ITN-worthy, as it doesn't appear to have large coverage, and isn't on the front pages of most news websites. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough.Pyramids09 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Although it may not be on front pages, this event is getting coverage across a wide range of sources. The article needs extensive expansion, however. This article links to Montenegrin nationalist protests (2020–present) and 2019–2020 clerical protests in Montenegro, so there is plenty of background material to work with. It may be preferable to include these recent developments into one of those articles and nominate that as the bold link.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hearing a lot about this from many sources. An interesting story that we would do well to inform our readers on. The article is far from ready though. 159.53.174.143 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Expansion There is so much to unpack but I have managed to expand the article a lot more. It's by no means perfect, but it is a lot better now Abcmaxx (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on notability This may have been nominated few days late but it certainly was on front pages round the world; granted it won't be the actual sole headline if you're not in the Balkans and Montenegro is a small nation but still I'm perplexed by the first two comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough. Tradedia talk 23:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sunil Perera

 * Support article is in great shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan Hecker

 * Comment - the first paragraph of the body is uncited. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1st para still unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found his CV at his profile at the European University Viadrina website. This may be a ref for materials in that 1st paragraph. Can any German-speaker help here? --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging .Gerda --- I am away and not able to get to this one. Please can you have a look at the above comment and see if you can help with the citations for the first paragraph. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the ref, which has much more detail (military service for example), in case someone has the time. Teaching is only in ibox so far, and that University (from 2000) is not mentioned even there. Sorry, I have no time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. The 1st para now has 2 footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keshav Desiraju

 * Comments: Long enough and has enough footnotes in the expected spots. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ion Caramitru

 * Comment - all looks good, except that the "Literature" section seems to be in the wrong place, as it's serving as a bibliography for short form references. Suggest moving it down below the refs, and renaming to "Bibliography". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you! --Andrei (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks for updating, and looks good now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Billy Apple

 * Comment death date now confirmed by sources in the article. Needs some more sources though. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstading sourcing issues.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

2020 Summer Paralympics closing ceremony

 * The closing is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as it's currently a stub. I'm not seeing prominent coverage of the closing either.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article needs significant expansion to be front-page worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough prominent coverage of the closing. Tradedia talk 23:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tunch Ilkin

 * HELP> I nominated this RD. Please help me to get it ready for posting. I don’t understand the process: I’ve nominated four RD’s in the past 2 years and they NEVER get posted. I checked this Tunch ILkin article. It looks like it meets BLP standards, if I am understanding this procedure correctly. If I’m not understanding the criteria please instruct me. Thanks. 2600:1004:B04E:8AFA:2998:AB51:B1C2:B53D (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It can sometimes take as long as 2–3 days to get some initial input from volunteers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article seems to be more or less ready to go, but many of the references are not formatted correctly. References 8, 16, 17 and 18 are external links with no title/author information, while 20, 23 and 24 are bare links. Use cite web to help you complete these if necessary. Also ref 18 is marked as a permanent dead link so needs replacement or an archive version used. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , fixed most except that perma dead link – robertsky (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced the dead link.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient depth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Bagumba and Amakuru for the help and comments when I asked for help. I understand the process better now.2600:1004:B081:E33B:30D5:6A35:A902:7FB5 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good work fixing up the article, looks ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Coup in Guinea

 * Comment. At a minimum it appears the president was captured. Probably merits posting in some form even if the coup fails. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with 331dot. I think we should wait a few hours for additional clarity, but post in any event.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about nominating it too. Leaving aside the obvious ITN-worthy of the event, the article, still brief, seems to meet the minimum requirements. Keep in mind that it's an event that is still occurring and the blurb to nominate could change if there's eventually a presidential change. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for a few more hours. The article is being updated, particularly the relevant background, and finally, the question is whether to disregard the statement of MoD that the attack was repelled. When it appears at least quite certain that the coup has succeeded, I will be the first to vote for it.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * UPD: it seems that the putschists have indeed captured the president; at least WSJ says the video of his sitting in a sofa surrounded by the military is legit. So at least on this account, I believe that the coup is successful and is no longer an attempt. After some tweaks to the blurb, it's good to go and I lend my support to its publication. PS. I'd prefer the alternative blurb, because formally it's the PM who is head of govt, not the president.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R. Davey2116 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait Some sources are saying the coup was a failure. Wait until more info comes out. Pyramids09 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Some doubt about the outcome, apparently.   – Sca (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - a failed coup is still notable enough to post. Banedon (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, remembering what happened in Turkey a few years back. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, the attempted coup is notable regardless of success.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems like the coup was a success. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 07:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although the blurb should say that it's successful, rather than an attempt, as both currently proposed blurbs do. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question is this a coup or an uprising? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted alt. --Tone 10:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Shouldn't the blurb contemplate that Mamady Doumbouya is the new head of state? Now it seems official. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sarah Harding
Nominators comments Sourced filmography. Looks good to go.Thankyou08 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support No, it's not good yet. I just added several cn tags that should be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The excessive proseline here is problematic. For example, there are 7 dated statements referencing plans for the then-future album Threads, none of are needed retrospectively.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

_-_Alsoriano97 User:GreatCaesarsGhost, both statements taken into account and fixed. Can you check again if it’s ready?Thankyou08 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is still one cn tag left, but it's enough to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was just one example. Proseline composition is used throughout the article. It was announced she would be on Coronation Street, and then later she was on Coronation Street. She started on Big Brother on 1 August, then won on 25 August. This was clearly written as these events occurred, and not edited thereafter in the manner of an encyclopedia.   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go now JW 1961 Talk 20:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivan Patzaichin

 * Posted Stephen 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Josephine Medina

 * Posted Stephen 03:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerhard Erber

 * Support - looks good enough to me. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Willard Scott

 * Support Article seems well sourced and thorough. Good candidate for RD. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support America's weatherman for many years. Influenced the style and delivery of many modern-day presenters. CoatCheck (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The criteria for posting deaths is purely based on article quality, not their notability.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the fact that he "is America's whatever" doesn't make him automatically for RD. The world is NOT the United States only. Is WIkipedia US-centric? Yes. Is the world out there? No, thank God. --CoryGlee (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but having an article automatically makes them notable for RD. Keep the discussion on-topic, please. WaltCip- (talk)  13:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many outstanding tags re: sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Patten

 * Oppose Article is mostly unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is a pretty large article, yet only has 5 sources. Pyramids09 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Just added a bunch of sources and some more info on his retirement in 2010. Think it should be good to go now. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a bunch of unreferenced paragraphs; I've tagged them. With references there, this will more or less be good to go.  Spencer T• C 03:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've addressed all the reference issues you brought up and we should be good to go. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hassan Firouzabadi

 * Support Article in good shape. Pyramids09 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What happens to this nomination? I don't understand the criteria. CoryGlee (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: I tried to tidy up the refs in this article. I suspect there is a typo in Ref. #12 (to fararu.com). Can someone who knows Farsi take a look and help get this footnote properly formatted, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Yoshihide Suga's resignation

 * Support: Important event in Japanese politics, article looks in decent shape. Roniius  talk to me 07:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the name of the new prime minister is known.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shinzo Abe's resignation was posted even before his successor was known. When Suga's successor becomes known and becomes PM then that person will merit their own blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Abe was the longest serving PM of Japan, serving for eight years, whereas Suga has served for one year. We don't normally post resignations, but Abe was an exception to this, rather than the norm. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support a prime minister's resignation that results from a major cause (e.g. corruption/sex abuse scandal or criminal charges), which is inseparable from the resignation and has to be included in the blurb. Yoshihide's resignation because of the public disapproval of his policies less than three months before the general election is clearly not of that kind.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Japan is one of the world's most important countries (4th GDP, 11th pop.) and this is the most powerful office. If this were an Anglophone country it wouldn't be ignored Sheila1988 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with it. If it had happened in any Anglo-Saxon or European country, we would be using the same scale to judge the nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not ignoring it. We're waiting until a successor has been announced. That's how we always handle the transition of the head of government in parliamentary systems. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait and post the successor. He hasn't even resigned yet, just said he won't stand again for the party leadership. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait' until a new PM is appointed. We can't compare Suga with Abe. And as Modest Genius says, it's not so much a resignation as a decision not to run again for leadership. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per previous two. – Sca (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. We can post on circa 30 September when he leaves the PM role and is replaced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait We should post the change in government, not just the resignation. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Two head-of-gov changes in two years warrants mention This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait The new PM will be chosen in less than a month, and as others above have said Suga isn't technically resigning, he's just not running for re-election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Auckland stabbing

 * Too soon. No deaths reported, still developing. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  06:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's unusual, but the only person killed was the attacker, so it's not important enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We can't post every random stabbing, whether branded as terrorism or not. Fortunately all the victims seem to have survived. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not notable enough for ITN. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  10:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yolanda López

 * I have continued to improve this bio with additional sources. There are numerous books that address the importance of her work. Some of the existing sources are of lesser quality and would be better shifted and cited in line to the books. Obits have been published for her by separate writers at ArtNews, LA Times, and Washington Post among others. Photo of artist still needed for article. Cedar777 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support The article looks good, but there's still three cn tags. Can you fix it as soon as possible before the nomination is archived? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is ready, the issues have been resolved. Is there still time for this nomination to be posted before it is archived??? Please advise and thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Thoroughly referenced and trimmed of unverifiable material. Good work . Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ataullah Mengal

 * Comment: Career section could use a little fleshing out. With maybe 5-6 sentences about his accomplishments as a politician, this should be ready to go.  Spencer T• C 03:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks to have have been some expansion since.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Daffney

 * Comment It's too late. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Twelve more hours left. --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sidharth Shukla

 * Support  Well referenced and notable person. Looks good to go.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Mostly fine, some of the "Guest" appearances aren't cited but I guess they could be removed until sourced JW 1961 Talk 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged for references required still. Stephen 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Blurb/RD: Mikis Theodorakis

 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Article looks good, but does not qualify for blurb.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No blurb doesn't seem important enough, sorry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD, but the article needs some fixing first. Notable composer and political figure who made waves outside Greece as well. Blurb not necessary. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support RD Only subject to the large number of works listed without any kind of references being attended to JW 1961 Talk 21:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At the foot of the "Works" section is the source: List of works based on the research of Asteris Koutoulas, published in O Mousikos Theodorakis (Asteris Koutoulas: O Mousikos Theodorakis / Theodorakis the Musician (in Greek). Nea Synora - A. A. Livani, 1998. ISBN 960-236-916-7) - looks as RS as they come. Davidships (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is stupid, the best-known living composer of the present age passed away on September 2. We argue on September 4 that Support and Oppose Blurb or RD. AbDaryaee (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs more refs. The article needs not be perfect for RD purposes, but the {More citations needed} tag up top and the 10+ {cn} tags in the prose need to be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Ida (renomination)

 * Support - The cost & extent of the damage caused, along with the death toll, means that it's now important enough to post. The article is well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Shoulder-deep flooding in the Caput Mundi is going on the front page.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom  HurricaneEdgar    12:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not yet persuaded that Ida and its NE remnants make the cut. Realistically, nine isn't a huge number in a country of 330 million. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of deaths is not the determining metric for whether something is significant enough to post. The level of news coverage is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that's a tenet of the ITN catechism, but in the real world, in terms of news value, the number of deaths is significant, like it or not. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's demonstrably not true though. Hurricane Ida has been a top news story in multiple, well-regarded media outlets for days now.  Reliable sources have found it significant, and it's only the personal feelings of some recent commenters on this noticeboard that reliable sources shouldn't have been finding it significant that torpedoed the earlier nomination.  If we followed basic Wikipedia principles like following reliable sources and leaving our personal whims and feelings out of it, we wouldn't have to worry so much about what should be significant enough.  Things are significant enough when reliable sources treat it as significant enough.  That's the only metric we need.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN actually works to avoid systematic media bias as well, though. There are plenty of US political stories we don't post despite them dominating news headlines (for example, I suspect we'll see lots of stories today about Texas SB 8, its new abortion law that came into effect yesterday and which SCOTUS did not block, which many are talking the death knoll for Roe v. Wade - but this is far from the type of story we'd post at ITN at this stage). Similarly, major disasters in some third-world or smaller countries get only brief coverage but we still recognize that that is a major impactful event on a global scale and promote it. Being "ITN" is the only requirement, we don't judge how much something is in the news to determine when to post. --M asem (t) 14:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should NOT be used to "correct" anything. See WP:RGW.  Wikipedia should reflect mainstream sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a reference and academic work and it should be reflecting those type of sources to make sure we are avoiding the systematic bias that is introduced by mainstream sources. That's why ITN specifically identifies that this is not a news ticker and that we do make judgements on what are appropriate topics to feature on the main page of a global encyclopedia. If readers want news, they should be at BBC, CNN, or any other site. --M asem (t) 16:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, which is why all we need is the news to tell us that something has happened recently and that it is being covered. Beyond that, all we should be checking is is article quality.  Too much emphasis is placed here on things that have nothing to do with directing people to good Wikipedia articles, and too much is done by people who think of themselves as guardians of culture, or whatever.  Establish that it's a thing people are hearing about in reliable sources, and check to see if the article is good.  If it meets both requirements, vote support and move on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Should have posted this earlier. I added an AltBlurb, as it more accurately portrays the current news coverage of the storm, which is still discussing the power outages in the Gulf Coast, along with the flooding in New Jersey/New York area.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Caused a lot of damage and a decent amount of deaths. <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 12:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Decent deaths? – Sca (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not few and not a high number. <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 13:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, nine is not a high number, that's true. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 7 deaths from rain in New York City and 1 nearby is a high number, the metro area's weather office had never issued a flash flood emergency before and it issued one for all of NYC and most of the inner suburbs for this, I'd never heard of New Yorkers drowning in cars or their vehicles floating (temporarily I guess) before, Manhattan rain in an hour record smashed, EF4 (estimate from 23,000 foot debris cloud height+radar mph) tornado damaging houses in SE Philly suburbs, 7 cars fell off collapsing road span in Mississippi killing 2, 1 guy in floodwaters eaten by an alligator, New Orleans infrastructure closed for up to a month, at least a quarter of the world hurricane cost record which is Katrina (insured losses are always c. half of total).. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support more than enough continuing coverage- the New York floods are still near the top of the BBC UK site. So there's more than just US-coverage of this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Food for thought: Given the magnitude of death & destruction on Earth in recent years, we may need to revise upward our estimation of the degree of significance posed by mortality resulting from events, especially weather events. The world has become a more dangerous place. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The significance is determined by reliable sources we don't provide our own arbitrary criteria here at Wikipedia, we just reflect what the world finds important. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that logic, I assume you'd agree that the original Afghanistan/Taliban blurb should have been updated to reflect coverage much sooner than it was. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posting. The issue earlier was the small impact and now there is impact. Go ahead with the picture as well. --Tone 13:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Premature after less than two hours' exposure to users. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - I think posting this was the right call given the scope and casualties.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I am not calling for a pull, but I still would say that the combination of "it's bad weather season in the US" and that wind/rain/flood damage and a relatively small number of deaths (small tornado systems can bring similar numbers), and the bias weight of US media compared to the rest of the world, is something to keep in mind on these stories. I do think the post-landfall effect were more impactful in terms of news than the initial landfall (when this was first nominated for ITN) and that's something to keep in mind that ITN generally needs to see quantifiable results or impact before we actually can really post. --M asem (t) 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Post-Posting Support – Ida has almost certainly become one of the most damaging tropical cyclones recorded in the United States. That, and multiple rainfall records were broken, indicating the severity of the flooding. The storm wrecked New Orleans's power grid and caused extensive flooding across much of the Northeastern United States. The death toll is certain to continue rising in the days to come, and given everything that the storm had done so far, it definitely deserves the posting. Also, while I agree with some of the others here that the original nomination was premature (and also horrible, given the poor phrasing of the original blurb), we should not use the death toll as the only metric of a storm's impacts. Storms do a lot of other notable things impact-wise other than killing people. If a natural disaster has become a high-impact event, such as this storm, it honestly deserves to be posted.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Ida is very significant. There are still hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana without power, and damages are estimated to be in the tens of billions, not to mention the recent impacts in the northeast United States. codingcyclone   please ping/my wreckage 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Given rising toll (AP says 25 in the entire weather event ), I'm finally convinced it's worth posting. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The 26 doesn't include the South. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support -- glad this is finally on ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As of 22:00, AP puts toll for the NE U.S. at 51. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chandan Mitra

 * Support Referenced, depth of coverage regarding career as a journalist could be a little better but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Cristiano Ronaldo

 * Oppose. We generally avoid posting individual records in team sports, reserving blurbs for the winners of major competitions. This is a fairly obscure record that tells you more about the standard of opponent and quality of players trying to take his place. There's no doubt that Ronaldo is one of the world's top players, but you wouldn't say the same about the previous holder of this record (Ali Daei). The popular media reporting is WP:ROUTINE. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Appears in sports news only. Pyramids09 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Um... I assume you meant to add yourself as the nom. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this were a music record, it would be having the most top 100 singles, not having the most chart-toppers. Ali Daei held this record before by being an Iranian big fish in a pond full of Guams and Taiwans in the Asian Football Confederation, and it's only natural that Ronaldo would be the European who gains the record instead of his late compatriot Eusébio who played when there were half as many countries in Europe. This isn't the gold standard of soccer that's equivalent to Ruth, Aaron, Bonds having the record on MLB homers. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't generally post records. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally post all-time records only for non-football athletes. 36.77.95.92 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syed Ali Shah Geelani

 * Oppose for now as it has an orange tag dated 2019 JW 1961 Talk 22:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoops how did I not notice that. My bad. I rescind this nomination. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think, per NorthernFalcon, that the NPOV is workable around and with the tag removed the article could make RD so I wouldn't withdraw it until we see how it's developed over the next hours/days JW 1961 Talk 07:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support as my concerns re the tag were dealt with JW 1961 Talk 21:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as original nominator. Did not notice the orange tag. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment citations look fine. Seems to be a controversial figure, though, which would make the neutrality tag a bit difficult to solve. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be front-page on BBC and Al Jazeera, so not confined to Indian news. Albertaont (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as widely reported and seems like the Orange tag has been dealt with. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bishop Sycamore scandal

 * Oppose Fascinating, bizarre story, but not really at the standard level of significance for ITN material. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This does not seem like top headline news in the world, or even just the US. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominate as DYK. Crazy story, would make an amazing DYK nomination, but not a news story of global significance. Blythwood (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider it withdrawn. I thought it may be worth a try since we are looking at some blurbs that are two weeks old and need new ones, but oh well. Guess we can keep them up longer. <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 00:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent article! It clearly passes the requirements for a DYK submission. Just maybe not a global news story. Blythwood (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... tbh we need something in this slow news cycle. <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 00:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not a reason to post such parochialities as this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)