Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Jacinda Ardern in 2018
Jacinda Ardern

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

October 19[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2020 Belarus Protests[edit]

Article: 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It has been a bit of time since the removal, and the protests appear to be ramping up again. Around 50,000 people[1] marched just yesterday, despite threats from police to use lethal force, and the page is still regularly updated, though waiting a bit more to see what happens couldn't hurt either. Gex4pls (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support The situation has recently re-escalated and the article is up to date.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible article is still terrible. "Symbols" section is still orange tagged and still the subject of a low grade edit war. Protests are still a weekend outing with dwindling participation and insignificant mid-week events (like some driller complaining) elevated to undue status to fluff out the article. It had it's time in the box. Move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's true that the Symbols section is orange tagged, but I can't say that I understand why. I don't see the edit war you talk about anywhere in the revision history. This section was last edited on October 1 (which appears to be a minor expansion of existing content), before that last edited on September 24 (which seemed to just be the removal of a typo), and before that just a minor grammar fix on September 22. If there's an edit war going on in the article, it must be in a different section. I think it would be perfectly fine to remove that orange tag because it's very unclear why it's there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Coment – Is this supposed to be a blurb nom.? If so, where's the blurb? Not to mention sources.... Here's two [1] [2] from Sunday, but it appears not much is happening today. – Sca (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No, this was supposed to be ongoing, and i do have the associated press source in my comment, but thanks for the extra sources. Sorry if I messed something up, as this is my first time nominating something. Gex4pls (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sensationalistic. We also don't re-nominate George Floyd protests every time an African-American is shot. More NPOV would have helped nom. Albertaont (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very strange !vote. It was renominated for ongoing because the protests are ongoing and the article is up to date. This is the criteria for an item to be in ongoing. 50,000+ protesters and several hundred arrests isn't nothing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many marches of similar size every year that we don't post. I don't see any notability beyond the fact that 50,000 people went out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ongoing for this was just removed, this is getting tiring now, people asking for removal/addition again and again. There should be something in place to stop these noms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMHO that would be avoided if we didn't remove items from ongoing so hastily, necessitating renominations shortly after. Please comment on whether or not this nomination meets the guidelines. An item should go in ongoing if it is being continuously updated with new news. I feel like I'm replying to every comment here, which I don't intend to do, but I think it's important to remind editors that these sorts of !votes that don't mention whether or not an item meets the criteria should be avoided.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: We made a lot of concessions and kept these protests on the main page for two months — more time than for any other developing story in the last couple of years — but we had to stop somewhere as it has become clear that they won't lead to any major changes. And frankly, the story will hardly be re-posted because of a march with no immediate effect like this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that we simply follow the guidelines rather than make crystal ball predictions about what the protests will lead to. It's a currently up-to-date article about a currently in-the-news ongoing event. That's a pretty open-and-shut explanation of how it checks all the boxes that it's supposed to. Not every update needs to be notable enough for a blurb, it simply needs to be a substantial update; the criteria makes that clear. ITN/C isn't the place to discuss proposed changes to the guidelines, but if you and the rest of the oppose voters think this shouldn't be posted over non-guideline-based reasons, then Wikipedia talk:In the news would be the place to go.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: I get your point but that's not how ITN works. Notability is the principal criterion for inclusion no matter how good the updates and the key articles are. People are usually biased by quality only in cases of borderline notability and that's when we typically err on the side of inclusion. However, notice that people here also complain about article's quality, so I think you should easily get where the opposition comes from. And when the majority doesn't agree with you, so be it and move on from the discussion. Your replies to every single opposer and argumentation with rules-lawyering won't make your opinion more valuable and may only invite a new wave of opposers who initially didn't intend to vote for this nomination. That's something from my personal experience.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Bolivian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Bolivian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Movement for Socialism under Luis Arce (pictured) wins a majority of the vote in the Bolivian general election. (Post)
News source(s): AFP
Credits:

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Jeanine Añez has also conceded. Morgan695 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for nowI guess the Bolivian people still want socialism of the 21st century. Hmm... For ITN, we need a results section with at least some prose description of preliminary results. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Not at all, he's looking to lose in the second tour of voting --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only concludes the first round of voting, and this guy will almost certainly lose in the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    It was a landslide. The second round is cancelled in such cases. Either of the possible conditions for victory has been met: a candidate is declared the winner if they receive more than 50% of the vote, or over 40% of the vote and are 10 percentage points ahead of their closest rival. Exit polls show 52% to 31%. Even if they slide below 50% on the final count that is still a more than 10% lead from the next opposition party. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Let's wait for official results then. If they officially call it with more than 50% of votes in favour of that guy then I 'support' posting this, otherwise I believe we should wait for the results of the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait It seems all done but I don't truly trust the Bolivian exit polls. ETA: the Áñez "concession" means nothing since she dropped out ages ago, it's just her properly stepping down since there was no cessation of government from what I've seen. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – for clarity, RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and/or Wait I'm fine with waiting a little while longer for more reporting on this, but available sources (including the incumbent interim president) already confirmed that Luis Arce won it outright with a simple majority of the vote, meaning that he will be the president and there is not going to be a second round.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and okay with Wait Looks good per above, but if it takes another 24 hours to get a more confident resent, then we can wait as well. Albertaont (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for official results. Candido (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when the official results come out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting now Not sure about Bolivia, but in my country official results can come out several weeks after clear results are known and already being acted on by newly elected governments. We should not wait that long. It will no longer be news then. 22:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Despite the fact that Mesa conceded defeat we should wait until the official results come out. Also, this blurb is not appropriate. Bolivia is a presidential regime and not a parlamentarism one.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Alan Stephenson Boyd[edit]

Article: Alan Stephenson Boyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think this should be moved to Alan S. Boyd per WP:COMMONNAMEBloom6132 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Northern Cypriot presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: Ersin Tatar (pictured) is elected President of Northern Cyprus. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Northern Cyprus elections are not ITNR, but we have posted the most recent presidential and parliamentary ones, in 2015 and 2018 respectively. This is basically as high profile as these elections get, the President is the only internationally recognised representative of Turkish Cypriots, the election campaign was marked by developments that drew international reactions (including from the UN security council) and the election of the Ankara-backed right-wing candidate (in lieu of the pro-reunification incumbent opposed by Ankara) comes at a time of raised tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, with significant short- and long-term ramifications. GGT (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – Reluctant to open the door to reporting the politics of entities that are not recognized, de jure, states. That would be a dubious precedent, as there are countless regionalisms around the world. Yes, I know we posted items on Catalonia a couple years ago, but that situation was dynamic and posed broader ramifications for Europe. – Sca (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This would not be opening the door, Sca, as we have precedents, having previously posted 2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election and 2018 Northern Cypriot parliamentary election (not to mention elections in Taiwan or Kosovo), and we are yet to witness a deluge of regionalist politics on ITN. It is not true that there are countless regionalisms around the world comparable to this. Per the list of states with limited recognition, there are nine other states in a similar situation. Out of these partially recognised states, Northern Cyprus is the only one, besides Taiwan, to have been classified as "free" by Freedom House. And we still judge each election based on the circumstances, this one clearly has international ramifications - I don't know of many election campaigns recently that have sparked UN Security Council statements! --GGT (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Just because it was posted earlier does not mean it 'should' be now. Taiwan is not really comparable and is not dependent on another major country (Kosovo also has wider recognition and is not substantially dependent on other states, though I would've opposed that nom). This is more akin to posting about elections in Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh (which we haven't ever done AFAIK). I just don't see this being notable enough, there isn't a major leadership change and if anything the election only highlights Turkey's dominance over Northern Cyprus. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Of course it doesn't, but the fact that it was posted earlier means that the precedent is already there and that we aren't setting it now. The initial argument that I was countering was that we'd be setting a precedent by posting this. This is a major change of leadership re. the longest-running diplomatic dispute in the west as well as the recent Eastern Mediterranean dispute. That Turkey has been able to reassert its dominance with the failure of the pro-reunification leader to be re-elected is newsworthy IMO. At this point, however, I will redirect users to the the Guardian article. That basically puts this into good perspective, and one can of course make differing conclusions about the significance based on that. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITNR nor am I convinced by the nom of its "ramifications" per Sca's arguments out above. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"Not ITNR" is not a reason to oppose a nomination. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What I meant was this is not usual election stuff (being an unrecognized state et all and hence different from the generally accepted election results on ITN), perhaps should've worded better. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Turns out it was a sovereign state after all. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Actually this is ITN/R, because the criteria for elections covers "all states on the List of sovereign states". That list is divided into UN member states and other states, but the Northern Cyprus is certainly on the list in the latter section, so the above Opposes are not permissible. Also, as noted we posted it before and that precedent should be followed in any case, for a story which is featured in the mainstream western press too. There are a couple of cites needed, but after that it's good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is not a sovereign state and is only recognized as such by the country with troops there. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well it's on the list mentioned in the criteria, so either fight to get it removed from that, or change the rule here at ITN/R. But as of now, this is unambiguously covered, an opposes based on notability are not permitted.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
At one point disputed states were given their own section of the page IIRC. The list states that only a single country recognizes them as a state and the TRNC is not recognized by any international body. It's not me that needs to fight, it's you, providing sources that refer to this entity as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
ITNR states "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." That's what we are doing here. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have provided a link to the rules of ITN/R. It says in black and white that any state on the list is covered. Not only UN states, or states in the top half of the list. We defer to that list and the careful consideration that goes into it for validity,so we don't have to have pointless arguments like this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be disregarding the sentence from what you cite above. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The "disputed states" link also includes Israel and China. Should we start discussing those "on their merits" too? Presumably the purpose of that clause is to cover cases like Crimea or the Donbass, which aren't on the sovereign States list. The fact is that Northern Cyprus functions as a sovereign state in all practical ways, and satisfies the "declarative theory of statehood", which is why it's included on our list of sovereign states. Sure, it lacks recognition but its election is just as impactful for people living there as those elsewhere. So even if you're right about it not being ITN/R, it's a notable story in its own right. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

By that sense, Sealand and Conch Republic (if they even do have elections) elections are also ITN-worthy and ITN/R because they declare themselves a sovereign state. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the determining factor would be whether they are on the said list, which they are not, but Northern Cyprus is. —GGT (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Israel and China are UN members and each recognized by more than one state. The TRNC is only recognized by the country that has troops there to protect it(or occupy it depending on your point of view). The disputed states listing does not say it only covers entities not on the sovereign states list. The fact remains that no one except Turkey recognizes the TRNC as a state, unless you can produce reliable sources saying otherwise. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(re: Destroyeraa) The list of entities with limited recognition (currently 10, including entities such as Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Taiwan, Artsakh, Palestine, etc) excludes micronations and is decided through rigorous discussion, much like the List of sovereign states that Amakuru has linked to. I can assure you that you won't have to worry about us posting about the Principality of Sealand if we change the ITN/R rules to explicitly include entities at the list of states with limited recognition, or set a precedent that such entities can be included.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe we can discuss it on its own merits and ignore the conversation about whether or not Northern Cyprus is truly sovereign enough to be ITN/R; what we know is that it is a state that de facto does exist and has limited international recognition. Whether or not this nom is ITN/R seems to be debatable, so I won't focus on that, but - as 331dot said - just because the nom may not be ITN/R doesn't automatically mean it's not notable, either. Going off of precedent, this election seems to be no less notable than the last couple of Northern Cypriot elections we posted. The article's quality appears to be fine, as it's lengthy enough and well-sourced.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A state that is recognized by only one other sets the bar far too low. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru. The TRNC is listed on the list of sovereign states and qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 03:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The line between a self-governing region and a separate country is blurred at best, but I think it needs to be recognized by more than just a single other country to count. And given that I don't think Northern Cyprus qualifies as a country, I also don't think its elections are notable enough for ITN. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources have considered it a sovereign state for decades now, but you set your own standard as to what does and doesn't qualify as a country? There's a reason why there's a harsh criteria for inclusion over at List of sovereign states, and Northern Cyprus passes it. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Thanks ) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice4What Please offer the reliable sources that you state consider an entity recognized by one state(with troops there) and not a member of any international body as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Stop canvassing, realize that the TRNC does participate in international organizations, and there are plenty of results but I figure this will spiral into a conversation about every source's legitimacy rather than how obvious it is that this currently qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice4What I have not canvassed anyone to this discussion for any purpose, either on or off Wiki. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the comments here are general statements about the suitability of Northern Cyprus election for ITN. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for an oppose !vote, since the ITN rules clearly state that even for disputed states, each election should be considered on its own merits, which by implication allows posting elections in disputed states. It is certainly not the case that no political developments in unrecognised entities can be posted, and generalised statements miss the nuance here. We have clearly posted Northern Cyprus elections before, so any oppose !votes should be explaining why this election lacks significance on its own merits (an example is Gotitbro’s comment), and not just stating the obvious that the election took place in a disputed state. —GGT (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru. This is technically an ITN/R item or the description for disputed states is ambiguous at the very least, although mentioning Israel and China as examples makes a very strong argument in support. But even if it's not, this is sufficiently newsworthy (not to mention the precedent of posting).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about an entity recognized only by a country with troops there and not a member of any international body not being considered a sovereign state while Israel and the PRC, both recognized by a majority of states and members of international bodies, as sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
FFS 331dot, you have been shown to be incorrect and yet you're still arguing about troops and international bodies and other irrelevances like that. This is verging on WP:IDHT territory now. The criteria for inclusion are crystal clear, they do not mention anything about troops, they simply say to follow the List of sovereign states. Which our list considers TRNC to be. If you want to change that, then you know what to do.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn, this looks a bit too harsh on further reading, although it is still frustrating that so many people are still ignoring the rules of ITN/R based on their own opinions, that's all I'll say for now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That's interesting because I feel the same frustration as "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits" being disregarded, as clearly an entity recognized only by the country with troops there is a disputed state, which does not apply to entities recognized by a majority of sovereign states(Israel and the PRC). 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: I said technically, not absolutely, and it's clear that those two bullets that you're re-iterating in the discussion above are not completely disjoint (the first should be re-worded to "All universally recognised states on the List of sovereign states" to make them disjoint but that's off-topic here). Vastly more important is that the black-and-white discussion on the ITN/R status has impact on other people's votes so that they come and oppose simply on the grounds that it's not an ITN/R item or it's a state recognised by only one other without paying attention that this state is de jure part of the European Union but de facto out of it and the election loss of the incumbent president supporting unionism to a person who supports a two-state solution is a major backstep in the process of solving the problem. The latter is not only an internal political matter but of the European Union as a whole because the division practically tailors the borders of the Schengen area.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose With all respect for Turkey. Our own article cites Council of Europe "that despite the fact that it has not been recognised de iure by any other State than Turkey, the TRNC exist de facto as an independent State exercising all branches of State power on its territory". The same can be said about many unrecognized breakaway states, like Republic of Artsakh (which is also on the List of sovereign states) or Republic of Donetsk that also exist as de facto independent states exercising all branches of state power. With that in mind, this is ultimately a WP:NPOV issue and I don't recall posting Northern Cyprus before. Brandmeistertalk 08:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Brandmeister We did post their last presidential election and parlimentary election. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it was a mistake. Perhaps some amendment should be made to ITNR for cases like this or the Republic of Artsakh (the latter, I'm sure, will never be posted despite being currently on the List of sovereign states). Brandmeistertalk 08:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we are setting the bar as low as a country that is recognised by only one other, that is such a low bar that you are going to end up with all sorts of edge cases such as those mentioned above. Personal opinion, regardless of ITNR or previous postings. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This really is quite frustrating. ITNR clearly states, even with disputed states: “The results of general elections in [...] Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.” Note how the discussion should be about the merits of the results of the elections, NOT the state itself. That means that elections in partially recognised states like Northern Cyprus can be featured IF the community agrees on the election’s significance, so it’s the election’s significance that we should be debating, not some fuzzy sense of whether we’re “setting the bar too low” (whatever that slippery slope argument is meant to mean). The bar is already set. That is the playbook we have had up until now, and we have already posted two of these. That is what the guideline for this says and that is what I had in mind when I was working towards the nomination and arguing for the significance in my nominating statement. If the result of this discussion is no consensus due to arguments opposing it by the virtue of the election being in Northern Cyprus, rather than arguments relating to the election’s significance per se, then I suggest we edit ITNR per this precedent so that people in the future won’t actually be misled into bothering. I for one certainly won’t bother. —GGT (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I raised a suggestion recently on the talk page that if ITNR qualification was in doubt, we should treat the item as not qualifying. This was rejected, with the basic logic of ITNR: we're trying to avoid those discussions. This item is unquestionably ITNR, but clearly some wish that it would not be. It is on the list of sovereign states and not on the list of disputed states. I personally hate ITNR because it mandates that we cannot discuss the (plainly questionable) merits of something because of a prior (often VERY specious) consensus. But we can't toss it out whenever it doesn't suit our purposes. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not a disputed state? I don't think you could get one more disputed than a state which the entire international community, bar one, considers to be part of another country but currently under illegal occupation ... Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I made no such assertion. My point is only that 1) this state is explicitly as on that qualifies under ITNR, and 2) consensus is we do not re-arbitrate ITNR consensus here. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Fully agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. The whole point of ITNR is to avoid these arguments. The "disputed states" clause at WP:ITN/R does actually cause confusion, because it links to List of states with limited recognition, which as well as Northern Cyprus also includes states which are almost universally recognised, such as China, South Korea and Israel. I think it would be useful to just remove the "disputed states" qualification altogether, because it doesn't add anything new. We are always free to discuss things on their merits anyway. And the third bullet point does not say that it supersedes the first bullet point, which says "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states". This is unambiguous, it doesn't qualify it as only the UN states, or only those with more than X% of countries recognising. Anyway, I've said my piece on this. It probably needs to be clarified with a discussion and clearer wording, once the dust settles on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Beyond the fact that Northern Cyprus is not a widely recognized sovereign state, and is in effect occupied by the only country that does recognize it, I don't see where the election result portends a particularly significant change. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: The president-elect is supportive of a two-state solution and he won the election in a race with the incumbent president who has unionist ideology. So, the result is a major backstep in the peace process to resolve the dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Despite the fact that Northern Cyprus isn't well recognized, a new president could affect the status of the area. Gex4pls (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Northern Cyprus isn't really a recognized country, so why even put it in there? OptXSolo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't envy whoever ends up sifting through the comments here to determine the consensus, but I would like to respectfully ask that the oppose !voters above mention more than just the fact that Northern Cyprus has limited recognition. That alone does not mean that it's not notable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard At least some (like me) are responding to the assertion this should be an ITNR nomination, and not a regular nomination, only. I take the latter view that ITNR makes it clear that the TRNC is not a sovereign state and should be discussed on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are one of only a handful of editors to mention that not being ITN/R does not automatically mean it's not notable, though I also believe that this thread has been derailed by the debate over if it's sovereign or not, and determining the consensus would likely require the closer to manually discount several !votes based on their own judgment of whether or not they are congruent with ITN's notability guidelines.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to give this an automatic ITN/R pass, but it seems a newsworthy enough story and the article quality is fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, this is the main point that should be considered here really. Leaving aside the ITN/R dispute, the story has enough legs on its own merits anyway. It's in the news, the elected individual is the de facto leader of the territory in question, whatever the international legality of the situation, and it also has potential knock-on geopolitical effects in the region. It's worthy of posting on those grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James A. Johnson (businessman)[edit]

Article: James A. Johnson (businessman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; The Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Sid Hartman[edit]

Article: Sid Hartman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Star Tribune; WCCO-TV (CBS)
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Royal pardon for London Bridge civilian[edit]

Consensus is against posting. Sandstein 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2019 London Bridge stabbing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A royal pardon is granted to murderer Steven Gallant for his efforts in apprehending the perpetrator of the 2019 London Bridge stabbing, the first such pardon since 1996. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is very unusual that the Queen actually uses her powers, here in judiciary. Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pardons are WP:MILL, The Ministry of Justice said the Queen was advised to grant this pardon (per the Guardian source above) means that this is the standard situation where the Queen acts on the advice of the government. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pardons may be common as air for Trump's friends, but even if the government told the Queen to do it, she still did, the first invocation of such (controversial) authority since 1996. Not run of the mill by any stretch of the imagination. Kingsif (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Royal prerogative of mercy links to [3], giving an example of a pardon from 2001 (well, not for MURDER), and claiming that about six on average are granted special remission in a year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Oh, do you think that helps an oppose vote? Not in my eyes... Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't run of the mill, the first one since 1996(even if the Queen is only doing what she's told). It's also unusual for a murderer anywhere to be pardoned(in the US we would say the sentence was commuted) for actions in apprehending or stopping another murderer, or where the family of the victim does not object. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And were they a figurehead who is not supposed to intervene or actually elected to that theoretical mandate? Can you see the difference? This needs to be looked at within British judiciary context; if every nom relating to legal precedents were considered globally it is likely none would ever get posted as "not unique enough when compared to this thing that happened in some place with a completely different system and history". Kingsif (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not a figurehead issue, it's the queen acting on the advice of the government like she does all the f***ing time!!! power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Glad you can keep a level head about this... Kingsif (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you going to disagree with my claim this is on the advice of government, or not? power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Were the examples you cite of murderers who help stop other murders or terrorists? The Queen does not pardon people all the time. A US president typically pardons a few dozen or maybe more in a term.(and can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes) 331dot (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess I meant "give a reason that's not you apparently disliking the Queen to the point of expletives after three comments and we might be able to talk". It is on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who ranks above the government, and is an advisor to the Queen. And, as said, she still actually did it. The Queen doesn't intervene, especially to pardon murder, unless she chooses to. It's actually exercising her powers rather than just nodding at every elected PM to go ahead. Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. I gave two examples (from other countries) of murderers being pardoned this year. I don't know or care if the details match up with this case; I suppose none of them were juggling while they did it either, but that detail wouldn't make a case ITN worthy. And as I linked above, there were royal pardons in 2001, and that article claims they occur regularly for some cases (also presumably not murder). And if you fucking think that my use or non-use of fucking makes a fucking difference I will fucking say the word fucking as fucking much as I fucking want. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will block you from editing this page if you cannot be more civil. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean you'll let an uninvolved admin make that decision.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The Lord Chancellor is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. and The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet, hence, part of the government. This isn't Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II going rogue to grant mercy. This is standard behavior of the UK government. Any claims otherwise are foolish, and any claims of notability based on a claim of the royal prerogative being unusually invoked are factually incorrect. This is my final reply on the topic; certain editors seem to have a strong opinion on this matter that isn't backed up by the reliable sources they cite, I will let other editors discuss this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is, in fact, your claims that are foolish. In your quotations from the Lord Chancellor article you seem to have artfully skipped that he is the highest-ranking among the Great Officers of State who are appointed regularly in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor is outranked only by the Lord High Steward, another Great Officer of State, who is appointed only for the day of coronations. He is not an elected member of the Cabinet, nor does he sit in either of the Houses of Parliament, hence, not part of the government. Not that it really matters because even if it was Boris who made the suggestion, and for the last time, the Queen does not regularly pardon murder - even the one in 1996 was for murder as part of foreign militia group actions during a time of pseudo-war by a man who acted as an informant then handed himself in after living free in the UK for years, someone you might say seems much more "pardonable". Kingsif (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: No stake in this argument, but I do want to point out that the current Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, is in fact a member of the House of Commons, and is the Secretary of State for Justice in the cabinet. He is decidedly part of the government, and the role of Lord Chancellor is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. 209.196.99.182 (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's clear I was pointing out that Power was misguided in claiming the position confers a role in government, and that it's moot anyway because why would that matter. Kingsif (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Certainly not significant and notable enough for the ITN. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's not an event that has attracted the enough attention of international media and Wikipedia editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It just happened (3 hours), wait for other users and countries to notice before saying nobody's interested. Which isn't the only metric, by the way. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, limited significance even in the UK. Most European countries have some form of process of pardoning by the head of state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, limited press coverage. Even the Guardian did not put the story on their youtube channel, A normal pardon which as said above was on the advice of the government and not a unilateral decision. KittenKlub (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While of interest for law enforcement in the UK, don't see its wider significance even domestically. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't feel that it's that newsworthy for ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial, lacking broad significance. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom, but this is just a sidenote in an article which did not even make it into ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Am I reading this correctly: he's getting 10 months off a 17 year sentence? If so, this seems quite symbolic. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hyderabad floods[edit]

Article: 2020 Hyderabad floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Floods in Hyderabad, India, kill more than 79 people and cause $680 million in damage. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Floods in Hyderabad, India, kill at least 79 people.
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Floods article that is updated and not too stubby. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Article looks good. Copy edit would be required Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb looks a bit weird, maybe remove the local currency or the damage costs altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment anyone else supporting/opposing. C'mon people, look down here or else things'll get stale! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A major loss of life in one of the largest cities in the world, what more needs to be said? Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Johnny Bush[edit]

Article: Johnny Bush (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Houston Chronicle; Rolling Stone; KTRK-TV (ABC)
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloom6132, I was holding off on this nomination since the discography seemed difficult to source / cite. Does that Allmusic link cover all of the entries in discography? Ktin (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ktin: Yup, all the albums are cited by AllMusic. Two are under the "Compilations" filter (i.e. Undo the Right and The Absolute Johnny Bush). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ktin: And the singles that weren't covered by AllMusic have now all been sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Bloom6132, Perfect thanks. Can you give the article one end-to-end read for copy-edits, including perhaps removing the last line of the current lede and replacing it with some of his works or honors? I think this looks very close to being ready for homepage / RD. PS: I would selfishly hope that John Reid stays on the carousel for some more time before falling off. :) But, if this article is ready, I support it going onto homepage / RD. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was coming over here to nominate this, the article looks good and well sourced, ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

European Rugby Champions Cup[edit]

Articles: 2019–20 European Rugby Champions Cup (talk, history) and 2020 European Rugby Champions Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, Exeter Chiefs defeat Racing 92 in the final to win the European Rugby Champions Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby union, Exeter Chiefs defeat Racing 92 in the European Rugby Champions Cup Final.
News source(s): The Guardian, San Diego Union-Trubune
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment should the blurb point to the final article rather than the whole competition? JW 1961 Talk 21:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Joseywales1961, good point. I wasn't quite sure, alt1 added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think the final would be better so I Support with alt blurb JW 1961 Talk 12:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Ganja bombings[edit]

No consensus to post whilst conflict is in ongoing. Stephen 01:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2020 Ganja bombings (talk, history) and Ganja, Azerbaijan (talk, history)
Blurb: Missile strike at a densely populated district of Ganja, Azerbaijan's second-largest city, leaves 13 civilians killed, and 52 more injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ganja, the second-largest city of Azerbaijan, was struck by a ballistic missile, resulting in 13 people getting killed, and 52 more injured.
Alternative blurb II: Azerbaijan's second-largest city, Ganja, was struck by a ballistic missile, resulting in 13 people getting killed, and 52 more injured.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Voice of America
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Mass-casualty incident in a major city with an alleged used of several Scud missiles, killing 13 (including minors and women), injuring 52, and levelling an entire neighborhood. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support the article isn't stubby and is updated. Not ITN/R. Though the war itself if already posted in the ongoing section, attacks in the past week have killed 23 civilians. It is sad how many civilians get killed in these wars. Due to the high casualty count, I'm supporting. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment You think Armenia'll legalize weed now? CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • complete nonsense. Why was the Shusha church attack or civilian hospital not posted? This is partisan nonsense 195.250.80.226 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose updates in an ongoing conflict is why this conflict is in ongoing. No need for a blurb unless you're gonna pull the OG item --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We already have the NK conflict in 'Ongoing'. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We have the conflict in ongoing. We should not bump up into a blurb unless some other major escalation, such as open war being declared. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The two sides are technically at open war, though no side wants to declare it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The start of hostilities was already posted on ITN and the conflict is already there on ongoing. ITN is not news ticker, unless something major happens (as suggested by C&C above), this is not going to be posted. Gotitbro (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no reason to list every single incident, the conflict is already in the ongoing events. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Another of many brutal episodes in this ongoing conflict, which indeed belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons cited above. The "ongoing" listing already creates a high bar to inclusion and this appears to have had little strategic or political significance. Tragic, naturally. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose considering the conflict is some 20 days old with casualties in what appears to be the low to mid thousands, this is unfortunately just another day. Juxlos (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) New Zealand general election[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2020 New Zealand general election (talk, history) and Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: Jacinda Ardern is re-elected as Prime Minister of New Zealand after the Labour Party wins a majority of seats in the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The New Zealand Labour Party, led by incumbent prime minister Jacinda Ardern, wins a majority of seats in the general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The New Zealand Labour Party, led by incumbent prime minister Jacinda Ardern, wins the most seats in the general election.
News source(s): Reuters, NYT, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Preliminary results show a landslide for Jacinda Ardern. Davey2116 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait Support ALT blurb 2 until the result is confirmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
    Update: Per discussion below, I'm happy to post now if it's unlikely we'll get much more news soon, as the "result" is fairly clear, but we should avoid saying she definitively has a majority if that's not actually certain yet. ALT blurb 2 looks good and is uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, 64 to 56 is a pretty clear majority of seats. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sources say that's just a "projection" though. I'm not entirely sure of the system there, because in UK elections, once all votes are tallied there's no doubt remaining about majorities. We could qualify it with "a likely majority" or similar, if people want to run with that line.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if the result is confirmed. The current count is 81% and still counted. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Judith Collins has [conceded defeat]. I agree with Jayron that the altblurb is better. Chrisclear (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb is better as it reflects the electoral system in New Zealand better. --Jayron32 10:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb. New Zealanders do not elect their PM. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - as of 11:32 UTC, it is still not certain whether Labour will have a majority or not. So in principle, ALTblurb is fine, but we should still wait until it is confirmed exactly what has happened. "Conceding defeat" does not constitute that. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Genuine question - what do you mean by "confirmed"? The votes will take several weeks to count, as they do for elections in many countries around the world. Precedent and common sense would suggest that the appropriate time to post this item would be now, when the item is in the news, and not when 100% of the votes have been counted. Chrisclear (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Well, the main point is that the question of whether or not they'd secured a majority seemed to be unanswered. Even now, the news is saying "Labour was expected to win 64 of the 120 seats in parliament, and National, 35". Is that question really not going to be answered for several weeks? If so, then I'd be happy to post now, but we need to nuance the blurb with words to the effect that it's not certain if a majority has been obtained or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Special votes only change the seat counts by, maybe, one seat, so this majority will definitely remain intact.  Nixinova T  C   20:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's entirely possible it could take weeks to count the votes. In which case something like altblurb2 might be a safer choice. Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant results for political trends. The difference in votes is clear enough, even if the results have not been officially confirmed.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – All major Eng.-lang. RS sites report Labour (Adern) as "landslide" [6] [7] winner. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    "Landslide" is a journalese term, which doesn't really mean that much. We are an encyclopedia, and we must be precise. As noted above, I'm not in principle averse to posting this now, but we need to get the wording right.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru: It's a commonly used metaphorical term in the English language. But I wasn't trying to get it inserted into a blurb, just noting that all the sites use it as a descriptive term. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're "not in principle adverse to posting this now", then would you be able to change your earlier "wait" comment to "support"? Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chrisclear: OK, done. Although as I said, let's not say she has a majority if that's not certain yet. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support And it was a substantial win. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it is pretty much confirmed they have won at this point. However, as said above I'd go with the Altblurb as New-Zealanders were voting for the Labour Party not her directly. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
To veer off-topic, I do wonder just how many of the votes cast for Labour were really just to keep Ardern as PM, given NZ's relative lack of divisional party politics. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It should probably be mentioned it's the biggest landslide in NZ, and the first time under their current system a party will lead without a coalition. Kingsif (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – The #Results section prose is written in future tense and does not indicate anything being basically a done deal. It does not indicate that Ardern is the accepted winner and that the opposition has given a concession speech. It can be updated later with final results, but should indicate some highlights from the preliminary results. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I added a paragraph and updated the tense. The separate results article needs work, but the election article is the one to be blurbed. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1. At least this time we don't need discussions about whether 'plurality' is a word in NZ English (spoiler: it is).  Nixinova T  C   19:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt 1. Unbolded Ardern's article, as there is just a 1-sentence update under the 2020 elections section. SpencerT•C 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Tom Maschler[edit]

Article: Tom Maschler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Booker Prize Founder. Noted publisher. Article has not been updated and requires updates before being ready. Edits are done. Content expanded. Article is ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good, although it would be nice to have more on the Booker Prize itself. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Brigade Piron, Agree. The article needs to be fleshed out further. Will give it a good scrub around lunchtime. Edits are done. Article looks good. Ktin (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Big improvement! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Edits are done per above comments. Before [8]. Current [9]. Article looks good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Wow! That was quick. Thanks Spencer! RIP Mr Maschler. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Benguiat[edit]

Article: Ed Benguiat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American Graphic Designer and Typographer. Article requires some work. Edits are done. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Ana Paula Scheffer[edit]

Article: Ana Paula Scheffer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UOL, Globo, Correio Braziliense (all sources in Portuguese)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Brazilian rhythmic gymnast. The article is very stub, but I'll work on it later. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Needs attention) Thai protests[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Thai protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police use water cannon (pictured) to disperse youth-led protests in Bangkok, in the largest use of force in a conflict that has been ongoing since July. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Thai authorities declare a state of emergency and begin a crackdown against youth-led protests for government reform (pictured) in Bangkok.
Alternative blurb II: ​Thai authorities declare a "severe" state of emergency and begin a crackdown against youth-led protests for government reform (pictured) in Bangkok.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is probably a major turning point in what has so far been a peaceful but long-simmering conflict. Article in good shape; never been featured on ITN. Paul_012 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Seems fine enough, though this seems more fitting for ongoing. Also, maybe change the blurb for something like "protests escalate in thailand, leading officials to declare a state of emergency". Just a suggestion, the water cannon thing seems horrible, but a bit tame for itn standards. Gex4pls (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The prevailing view seems to be that government declared the state of emergency in order to escalate use of force against the protesters, so that doesn't quite work, but maybe others will have better suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I've modified the original blurb to say use of force instead of escalation, which should be clearer. ---Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I suggest the protest should be identified as "unarmed" or "peaceful." And maybe include the fact that the disperse came only after two hour of protest. This will show how unusual the event is. --Horus (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and in news but a better blurb is needed here. The significance stems from the protests not the use of water canons and explain what the protests are about in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The tone and POV of the current blurb needs adjustment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs a copyedit for grammar, the whole thing, it cannot be featured like this. The update is buried in "Severe State of emergency" and it looks like the main event was 4 days ago. Usual POV garbage like "received as a tyrannical death threat". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It's paraphrased from the source. Feel free to correct that. --Horus (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 Article is in very good shape, a few minor wording changes here and there not withstanding, it is well referenced and generally well written. The blurb was a bit problematic, but the article looked good, so I updated it with a more neutrally worded blurb.--Jayron32 10:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Large-scale protests continue. (No blurb pref.) – Sca (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 the first blurb is just plain silly. Support altblurb 2, as that blurb is much more well written. Protests are large-scale and are worthy for ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Explanation for alt2 The state of emergency was enforced in the country since March. To say it was declared a few days ago is factually incorrect. But feel free to edit "severe state of emergency" as it was only found in Thai law. --Horus (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 per Horus, but do not wikilink Thai per current standard. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 - per Horus, as it gives differentiation vs. existing state of emergency. Jr8825Talk 11:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: Thai govt. acts to suppress dissemination of information about the continuing protests. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Antonio Ángel Algora Hernando[edit]

Article: Antonio Ángel Algora Hernando (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (ABC.es)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Emeritus Bishop of Ciudad Real and Prior of the Military Orders, and of Teruel and Albarracín. COVID-19 related death. Article needs a lot of work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Belarusian protests[edit]

Article: 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: I know it might be a bit annoying to discuss this every week but we can't keep this on the main page forever or until Lukashenko resigns when that news would get a blurb on its own. The protests have evidently lost momentum more than a month ago. This week's updates are about marches of certain demographic groups (e.g. LGBT people, seniors, mothers, handicapped people), detainment of the co-owner of a flower shop, trapping of a miner underground and announcement of an ultimatum with demands re-iterated zillion times before. Moreover, the content almost completely cites Russian-language sources amidst the lack of regular front-page coverage in the English-language media, which strongly indicates that the general notability of the protests has been brought down to local significance. Having all that said, I think it's time to remove this and keep free room for other developing stories such as the Nigerian protests. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Nguyễn Văn Man[edit]

Article: Nguyễn Văn Man (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VNexpress (in Vietnamese) VNExpress International (In English)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major General of People's Army of Vietnam and a politician. Article is a bit short but should be RD passable. Killed by Tropical Storm Linfa~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Jole Santelli[edit]

Article: Jole Santelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (La Repubblica)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Italian politician, first female and incumbent president of Calabria. Shocking death in Italy's politics. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Bhanu Athaiya[edit]

Article: Bhanu Athaiya (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Indian Oscar winner (costumes for Ghandi). Filmography needs sourcing but that's it. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) President of Kyrgyzstan resigns[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Sooronbay Jeenbekov (talk, history) and 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbay Jeenbekov (pictured) resigns amidst electoral protests, Prime Minister Sadyr Zhaparov declares himself acting president. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Sadyr Japarov, a Kyrgyz nationalist, takes over as president of Kyrgyzstan following the resignation of President Sooronbay Jeenbekov.
News source(s): Reuters, AP, Guardian, Reuters update
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Currently one-sentence update. The protests item is then swapped from ongoing. Brandmeistertalk 09:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • This would be ITNR once we know who the successor will be. Maybe it should be anyway since someone has to take over. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the basic law, the speaker is acting prez. Protests are still going on today calling for dissolution of parliament and his resignation though.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Perhaps post it "amidst protests" with the protest link below.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Strong Support per ITNR. The blurb can amended if successor is confirmed. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per 331dot. Tensa Februari (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The update consists of only one sentence and, given the detailed information in the preceding two paragraphs, it will benefit from adding one or two more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support But maybe include his successor in the blurb, when the details come out. Gex4pls (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We probably won't know the name of his successor until a presidential election takes place and the name of the acting president is not really newsworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
In that case it is noteworthy enough on it's own i guess. Gex4pls (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – for a bit more info in the update. Thin. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle (ITNR) but wait until a little more information is available and added to the relevant articles before posting.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the president is a powerless figure head his resignation is meaningless. The Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan has the authority and whose recent replacement is what we should have blurbed if not for the baffling rules around "Head of State" here --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not an accurate description of how the government of Kyrgyzstan works. They did place more power into the parliament in 2010, but the President is still above the Prime Minister, just not by as much as he was before the 2010 constitutional referendum. It's totally inaccurate to say that he's a powerless figure. He has most of the same authorities as the US president: he the final say over if legislation gets signed into law, he has the commander in chief power, he controls foreign policy, etc. He even appoints the Prime Minister.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Queen Elizabeth II has all those same powers, yet everyone acknowledges she's a figurehead in the UK, with the PM having the real power. What's the difference? Of course, there's no doubt that if the Queen were to abdicate it would get posted, but that is because of constitutional monarchy being a rule for life situation. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There's quite a large difference: the Queen has de jure but not de facto power, the president has de jure and de facto power. It's widely accepted that the Queen is a seemingly apolitical symbolic figurehead who would never de facto exercise her de jure powers. This is not true of the President of Kyrgyzstan, who is directly elected every six years and actually seeks to fulfill their campaign promises and move the country in a certain direction according to their political party's ideology.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter anyway, the old PM quit too![2] Gex4pls (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If the Queen abdicated, that would be news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While I would gravitate towards LaserLegs if it was a death or change of head of state but the fact that he resigned due to election protests is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    The PM has resigned now, a troika of events events along with the protests (thanks Gex4pls), this is the perfect nom. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but have it be combined with the protests as a double-bold blurb. Move the protest article out of ongoing for now - both are sufficient for MP. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a very fluid situation, which will probably require the blurb to be changed regularly. It has already been changed (twice?) since the nomination was made. I think Ongoing is still the right place for this, but if we encounter the ITNR situation then it should go up immediately.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    It is rare for items to go straight to Ongoing, something you seem to have proposed twice recently. Usually if it's significant enough to merit Ongoing, then we'd blurb it first and then move it into the Ongoing section once it rolls off the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Now that an interim PM, Sadyr Japarov, has grasped the reins. Prefer Alt1.– Sca (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 15:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It's Sadyr Japarov. Change the spelling. Other than that, post-posting support. 1779Days (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Akkitham[edit]

Article: Akkitham Achuthan Namboothiri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Week, Indian Express
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Indian poet and author. Padma Shri and Jnanpith Award winner. Article can do with a round of copy edits, but, should ready soon, if not already. Copy edits done. Article is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

October 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) RD: Rhonda Fleming[edit]

Article: Rhonda Fleming (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American actress.The article has some issues. I believe the article is good enough now. No refs missing. —--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Fred Dean[edit]

Article: Fred Dean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Member of Pro Football Hall of Fame, won two Super Bowls with the San Francisco 49ers —Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: John Reid[edit]

Article: John Richard Reid (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu; The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: New Zealand cricketer; former captain, all-rounder, and a match-referee in his later avatar. Article is a start-class/C-class biography. Well referenced and cited. Expanded the article. Meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD in its current state, and is good to go once folks weigh in. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Herbert Kretzmer[edit]

Article: Herbert Kretzmer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The New York Times; The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, looks good to me, just please move (or copy) the Aznavour ref to the body, to not make that one decisive bit look unsourced ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Everything has been taken care of now. A good article that is ready to be posted. Good job Bloom6132. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: End SARS protests[edit]

Proposed image
Article: End SARS (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 10 people have been killed during protests to end the Special Anti-Robbery Squad in Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 10 people have died, and this has gained international attention. Nigeria dissolved SARS but replaced it with SWAT, which angered more people and caused more protests. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support for Blurb Interesting and definitely ITN worthy. Don't have time to look over the article but if that's all good I support This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The section heading and article title made me think this was about COVID :/. Not sure about the nom but 10 people getting killed does lend credence to the significance of the protests though the article lead is singularly focused on the online/social media aspect of it, that needs some work. Some references above in the media about the protests/killings would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    The article (including the lead) also makes it seem that the social media campaign only emerged this October while it has been going for some time as far back as 2018. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    I recommend changing the name to "Nigerian Protests" and you could detail about what is being protested in the blurb. Gex4pls (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Unsee on major RS sites (except maybe Al Jazeera). Please keep in mind WP:NOR. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The article has 100 sources, of which majority must be reliable. What WP:NOR are you smoking? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Must" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for Blurb Seen a few articles, though less in US probably because of the elections. Its definitely important.Albertaont (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb not crazy about the proseline, but significance is certainly there. Although I understand the potential for confusion, we should stick with End SARS. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Not a problem if a blurb is posted but definitely confusing if directly linking in Ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – This 3,500-word list of protests in Nigeria seems essentially parochial in import, lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The Hong Kong protests were "parochial in import, lacking wider significance", and we posted those This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Sca knows the rules, he just doesn't care. This constant refrain of his has long since become disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
AGF, NPA!Sca (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
That's enough all of you. Let's be civil, comment on the article not the user, and not shout. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Explain how "parochial in import" is not opposing "an item because the event is only relating to a single country." GreatCaesarsGhost 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe that sca was trying to point out the large number of protests currently ITN, which is certainly odd, but not a reason for disqualification, especially with the recent deaths. Gex4pls (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. This certainly is ITN-worthy. The article could benefit from being transformed into better prose but is quite well sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted. I haven't seen a reliable source for the number of deaths so haven't included this in the blurb yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Straight to Ongoing I have been looking over this nomination and related news for a couple of days. The blurb as written doesn't convey the situation well, and I can't think of a better one that would. Briefly, the blurb implies that SARS is waiting to be disbanded (it already is), that the protests are about SARS (rather than police brutality or socio-economic reason, per the protestors during the last days), and that "protests" are alone are notable (they are not; the deaths were the motivating factor for nom and posting). The blurb as written is misleading, but a simple link to the broader description of events would fix that.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with IP-user's preceding post – more appropriate to Ongoing. Not breaking news, overall. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • One-China policy
    • The premier of Malaita Province in the Solomon Islands, Daniel Suidani, survives a vote of no confidence by 24–9. Suidani, an outspoken critic of the central government's decision to switch recognition from Taiwan to China, has refused to accept any aid from China since the change in policy. (RNZ)

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Conchata Ferrell[edit]

Article: Conchata Ferrell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Berta the housekeeper on Two and a Half Men Johndavies837 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs a few refs in the body of the article (tagged) and entire filmography and awards sections are uncited. Ping if fixed and I will support JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Joseywales1961, Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • changing to Support, good job on turning around this article Ktin, looks ready for RD now JW 1961 Talk 19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose For now per above. Gotitbro (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Gotitbro, Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    Good work, looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Fixed the citations in the body and the awards section; Fixed half of the filmography section. Might require someone else to give it one more shot. I think this is getting there. DONE! All citations completed. Ktin (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks fine and ready to go. KittenKlub (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) Tropical Storm Linfa and Nangka[edit]

Articles: Tropical Storm Linfa (2020) (talk, history) and Tropical Storm Nangka (2020) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tropical storms Linfa and Nangka kill 53 people. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN) (Central Meteorological Observatory)
Credits:

 Elijahandskip (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait If it's so significant, why isn't there a main article for the storm? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It is in the draft stage right now. Here is the draft. I didn't feel comfortable to nominate a draft in the "Article" section. Once it is moved to article space, I will change article nominated to the main article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It was apparently submitted to Afc. Should a vote happen to bypass the Afc and move it to Article space as the draft currently would probably pass Afc. More information will also be added as the storm is still on going, so the Afc process will just stall it (And will be weird for the ITN nomination)? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The CNN source says that the deaths are caused by monsoonal flooding, not just Nangka or Linfa. 40 deaths is a lot of people dead. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On Tuesday absent from most Eng.-lang RS sites, i.e. not in the news as we know it. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sca: Still a disaster, absent from English news but present in Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, Lao, and possibly Japanese news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Neighboring countries are affected as well perhaps that too should be mentioned in the blurb (if the damage there is significant as well). Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Gotitbro: changed to Southeast Asia. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Enhanced flooding" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Would an article of the monsoonal floods be better for the target article than having two tropical cyclones articles? INeedSupport 😷 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @INeedSupport and Sca: Changed to only the two TCs, since news say that the TCs are different from the monsoonal flooding. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose literally the same as a normal tropical storm. Same as why Hurricane Delta failed. On 2nd thought, realized this is worse then normal. Still, Hurricane Earl of 2016 didn't make the news and killed 94 people.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Many storms, including Cyclone Ianos, Hurricane Leslie, and more made ITN even though it killed less. This now killed 53 people, which is a lot and why this should be posted. Saying Earl wasn't posted so this wasn't posted is WP:POINT. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Fair point. However, I don't want to add a currently active storm. However, i will be ok with Linfa. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support large loss of life from a weather event, definitely a support. Though, based on the comments above, the articles may not be up to ITN standards. Gex4pls (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability due to the loss of life, no strong opinions on the article quality. At this time, the biggest quality issue seems to be that the target articles are a little thin, but they're not stubs and they appear to be well-sourced.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlton Chapman[edit]

Article: Carlton Chapman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express ,The Times of India
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Indian Football captain Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

October 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Jacinda Barclay[edit]

Article: Jacinda Barclay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Australian sportswoman, died tragically young. Stephen 22:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support The article is pretty messed up, a lot of stuff is where it shouldn't be, and the details of her death aren't even listed. Needs a cleanup, but definitely doable Cleaned up, definitely RD ready.Gex4pls (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What stuff is where it shouldn't be? Her death is under the personal life section. Stephen 23:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
For starters, the tribute from the Sydney Morning Herald shouldn't be in the first paragraph, and it feels like the Australian Football and American Football sections could be combined (maybe the Baseball section too, possibly in a "Career" section.)

Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Has been updated and is well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Gibson[edit]

Article: Jon Gibson (minimalist musician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): pitchfork and others
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential, Glass said What would we have done without him. - As usually: there's more in the sources, feel free to add. Took me a while to change the deprecated harv referencing. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Roberta McCain[edit]

Article: Roberta McCain (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Kyrgyzstan protests[edit]

Currently withdrawn, thanks to
adding some new sources and updates. Anyway, if this article gets stale and not updated within the next four days, I'm renominating this for OR. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Hasn't been updated in 3 days. Only a bit on info for each day. Coverage has died down considerably, and protests seem to be ending. Also, remember that the Ongoing section isn't a protest ticker. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Does seem to have slipped below the radar lately, but might be wise to wait a bit longer. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sca: That would be the case fore large protests such as Belarus, but with this one - no updates since October 10. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Two days is too short a time frame to consider making changes to Ongoing status. If by Wednesday or so there's still nothing new, then we can reconsider. --Jayron32 13:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yup. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The government literally surrendered to the protesters. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Uhm...no, they didn't.Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Removal, add to ITN there appears to be a change of power, as this is looking more like a coup than protests. The new prime minister[3], as well as the old one being arrested[4] should easily be newsworthy, though we should probably still wait a bit for further development. Gex4pls (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal – Still going on. [11] [12]Sca (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Sca's sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal I don't know why I'm bothering, but quoting directly from the guidelines "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information" and "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". This makes Sca's links above interesting but worthless for this discussion since the actual article we have featured in the box hasn't been updated in 3 days and the older updates which are present are terrible one-liners. If the guidelines matter at all, if this discussion is anything other than a vote count, then this turd of an article will come down out of the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Said guidelines do not specify how long an article can go without being updated for it to fail the "regularly updated" criteria, but removing an item from ongoing for going 2 days is nonsensical. This proposal to remove it is itself going to last longer than that. We would've been removing and re-adding the Hong Kong protests two or three times a week if that was the line we were using to decide than an article is no longer up to date. We're already aware that no shortage of new news is available (which is itself surprising considering that Kyrgystan isn't exactly a place that English language outlets tend to talk about), so it's more than possible for any editor to add more information to the article right now, in which case this entire discussion would be irrelevant, and every support vote would be moot. Wait a little longer than 2 days next time. I shouldn't need to say this, but if it was a "turd of an article" it wouldn't have been added in the first place due to quality issues, of which there are none.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @Vanilla Wizard: If you want this article to stay, then you may want to update the article with Sca's links. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
        • If no one else will then I'll do it today, but bear in mind that the protests themselves and the article documenting them is only one week old. The subject itself hasn't even existed long enough for it to make any sense to decry how outdated the article supposedly is. The protests started eight days ago, the article was updated a couple of days ago, and we're already discussing the timeliness? After I add new material to the article, please kindly consider self-closing the thread, and please don't start another one two or three days later. These sorts of hasty removal nominations unnecessarily take up people's time and should be considered disruptive; this is why I personally believe that editors shouldn't propose removing content unless they personally have attempted to fix it, and this goes for everything from ongoing removal nominations to deletion nominations. In other words, if you diagnose the problem, please try to solve it before burdening someone else with it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Here is the thing about that. I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix the article. I don't give a damn about Kyrgyzstan. I couldn't even find Kyrgyzstan on a map until I looked it up. I do care about featuring poor quality or outdated content on the "in the news section". You're written more words at this removal nom than have been added to the target article in the last week. If you believe the article should remain then you should update it per the guidelines. Three days without an update, and the previous four days with poor quality one-liner updates do not satisfy the update or quality requirements and the article in it's present state should not be featured at ITN. As for closing, no, that's absurd, this nom will expire off in 6 days when we can try again. If you've a problem with the guidelines, head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, and if you have a problem with my conduct, head on over to WP:ANI where I'd be happy to discuss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
            • WP:NOTREQUIRED might not be the policy you wanted to link to there, because it reads "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.", which is exactly why I linked to WP:SOFIXIT - because far too often, including right now, editors have demanded that I do what they won't. You don't need to tell me that I should update it after I've already started making changes to the article, but it's editors like you that are quick to use unnecessarily harsh tones in situations like this that really don't need to be heated that have driven me away from this website.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Exactly, I'm focused on improving the project by not featuring poor quality articles, and you're demanding that others fix it. I'm glad we agree, and thanks for contributing nothing else to this discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Economics[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Paul Milgrom (talk, history) and Robert B. Wilson (talk, history)
Blurb: Paul Milgrom (pictured) and Robert Wilson are awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their work on auction theory (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: The last Nobel Prize for the year. Unfortunately both articles are going to need a lot of work - Milgrom's is long and (over-)detailed yet mostly unreferenced, whilst Wilson's is short in both length and citations. We have a usable image of Milgrom but not of Wilson. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support let’s get Nobel week over with This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, per nominator, both articles need work. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Robert Wilson is fixable, however Paul Milgrom needs a lot of trimming from knowledgeable editors. KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, article has several yellow tags. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on concept, oppose on quality, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just left a note at WP:ECONOMICS about these articles. Perhaps someone will have the time to do an overhaul. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment An image of Wilson should definitely be there when this is posted. Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Cmt these articles are far more developed that the typical Nobel winners and this seems to be held against them because they don't have citations to all the details that have been added a longer time ago. It's not like the existing information is controversial, and we all know if these two were NOT white males they would get immediate attention. Strange to see this kind of bias in ITN to the point they will likely not end up being posted at all. 2601:602:9200:1310:EC42:9B44:464D:125D (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Lol bias in ITN didn't get this item posted? We posted 5 other Nobel items with "white males" this past year, and have posted the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winners in previous years (including multiple white males) because those articles were improved to meet the article quality standard at ITN. Referencing biographies is a chronic issue for many nominated items here, including Nobels as well as RD items, and this is definitely not anything new. SpencerT•C 23:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Spencer: Stale? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Destroyeraa, I think Robert B. Wilson article should be ready relatively easily. Edited Wilson's article and seems good. If someone can partner on the Paul Milgrom article, we can give it a shot. Ktin (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted with only the Wilson article bolded. SpencerT•C 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 NBA Finals[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers defeat the Miami Heat to win the NBA Finals (MVP LeBron James pictured). (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

  1. ^ "Over 50,000 march in Belarus against authoritarian leader". Associated Press.
  2. ^ "Kyrgyzstan election: PM quits as protesters take control in Kyrgyzstan". BBC.
  3. ^ "A Convicted Kidnapper Is Chosen to Lead Government of Kyrgyzstan". New York Times.
  4. ^ "Turmoil Continues in Kyrgyzstan After Former Leader Arrested". Wall Street Journal.