Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Flooding in Bahrain Flooding (pictured) in the Arab Gulf states leaves more than thirty people dead. The historic Børsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, is severely damaged by a fire. A knife attack in Sydney, Australia, leaves seven people dead. In retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Iran conducts missile and drone strikes against Israel. In the South Korean legislative election, the Democratic Party–led opposition alliance increases its majority in parliament. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Myanmar civil war Red Sea crisis Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline War in Sudan timeline Recent deaths: Faith Ringgold Werner Spitz Ken Holtzman Bob Graham Lorenzo Palomo Carl Erskine Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

US Election (Ongoing until decided, then blurb)

Nominator's comments: I'm going to place this here because the winner is expected to be announced within a few hours. We should discuss if any qualification is needed due to Trump's disputing the results, and whether this should immediately be added to ongoing due to intense news coverage. The phrases about control of the Senate and the House are optional and should only be added when confirmed. I've copied this blurb format from the 2016 election. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. Gex4pls (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals. This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow. I suggest we post to ongoing until then. Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. 2020 Guyanese general election was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. KittenKlub (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did Bush v. Gore in 2000. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Faustas Latėnas

Nominator's comments: Composer of incidental music, film and tv scores, chamber music, also theatre director, vice-minister of culture in Lithuania, advisor to the Prime Minister, cultural attaché - amazing - and had no article. Sorry, I can't read the obits (lt, ru), help welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Don Talbot

Nominator's comments: Aussie swimming coach responsible for many Olympic successes, legend. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support fully sourced now, good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport reference work done. Great job! - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A tiny section and single award need reference otherwise looks good. @CyclonicallyDeranged: please see if you can fix these. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now, it does not feel good to oppose/not support for a few errors when most of the article is fine but that is how it goes. @Graham87: thanks for fixing the issues. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – As one of the major contributors to the article, I've gone and added the requested refs. Graham87 17:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article it is in good shape now. KittenKlub (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Eta

Article: Hurricane Eta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Eta (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane, killing at least three people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, NPR
Credits:

• Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
• Created by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ChessEric (talk · give credit), Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit) and Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Might be a touch early but this is going to be a major disaster for Central America and potentially the western Caribbean as a whole. "Catastrophic" damage is expected in Nicaragua and Honduras as flash floods and mudslides increase in frequency over the next several days. Early reports show extensive damage to coastal communities in Nicaragua even before landfall. I know this is the fourth tropical cyclone put to ITN/C in one week, but unfortunately that's what nature is throwing at the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Until a death count/ scope of impacts is revealed. Maybe also include the intensity in the blurb? Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait death toll currently too low. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, support in principle Category 4 hurricane, but it seems that the full extent of the damage remains to be evaluated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Wait Needs a more holistic picture along with a clear death count. Gotitbro (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Not only do we need to wait until the full extent of death and impacts from the system is revealed, but the future of Eta is still uncertain as well, as to whether or not it will bring more impacts that will be noteworthy. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao

Nominator's comments: Kannada language actor and theatre artist. Article has shaped up to be a clean start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations of homepage /RD Ktin (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene expectations of homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Selected 'ography sections need to include the criteria for selection. I can't remember the policy abbreviation offhand, but the relatively short list in the body clashes with the claim of 350+ in the lede.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this one, IP Editor. The link to filmography is only a subset of films. The number itself is referenced by RS sources. Ktin (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia [...] should not contain indiscriminate lists. This means, that the the template ((List criteria)) should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with ((List missing criteria)). "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I have tagged it now. Hopefully this should be good. If this proves to be an issue, I would rather remove that entire section while we send it to homepage / RD. Article meets requirements even without that section. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is well referenced. Personally, I think that the short list of films is appropriate. KittenKlub (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Wait) 2020 United States elections

• Procedural Comment Please don't re-open this mess tonight, just start a new nom with a clean slate. There is a discussion at WT:ITN if you want to speculate about possible outcomes and how to handle them. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was the discussion for posting the article now, while voting is still underway. We should reconvene in a new nomination after the polls have closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear, [1] [2] [3] [4] with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AKA 'electile dysfunction.' – Sca (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should've been a clear SNOW close. Anyway, a new discussion is better which is going to focus on the actual results and condition of the article than whether to post it or not. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question on Congressional elections Is that going to be posted independently of the presidential election? None of the articles for those are acceptable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Howard the Duck: We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. We have historically posted midterm elections, and included Congressional results in presidential election years. There are just as many UK general elections as US ones since 2015. What I'm asking if we'd be posting Congressional elections independently of the presidential election as the latter may take some time to be decided. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should the blurb be something like In the 2020 United States elections, Joe Biden/Donald Trump wins the presidency while the Democrats hold the House and the Democrats/Republicans gain/hold the Senate? (Of course if the Democrats get both chambers, that sentence can be condensed.)  Nixinova   T   C   19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Sessions

Nominator's comments: Sessions was known for comedy improvisation in television shows, panel shows, as a character actor in numerous films Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks well referenced. Good to go? Jheald (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Appearance tables need to be sourced as per any other actor. --Masem (t) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Completely unsourced filmography. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan

Nominator's comments: Carnatic music violinist. Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awardee. Article can do with some edits. Edits done. Article meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nicely sourced little article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene requirements and should be good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks to be all sourced. Good length. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good number of sources, well written. SoloGaming (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Stephen, Thanks! For those interested, here's a clip of what must have been his last performance. Leaves you teary-eyed at ~1:35 into the video. Ktin (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was nice. Thank you.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack

Nominator's comments: Someone cancel the year 2020. ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Like the story below, this one is well referenced, though short it is well above stub level and does appear to faithful cover what is known at this point. News sources are covering the story. I see no reason to hold it off the main page. --Jayron32 00:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems to be fully "complete" (the full extent of what happened is known) , and while still short, seems sourced and ready to go in contrast to the lingering issues over the Vienna attack at the time I'm writing this. --Masem (t) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is a bit on the short side but manageable. Would benefit from noting what happened to the attackers (were they killed etc), but this is about as good as it gets for a Kabul terrorist attack. Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions in the lead "The three gunmen were later killed during a fight with security forces". --Masem (t) 00:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is sufficient to post Sherenk1 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose People are killed in Afghanistan all the time. Just look at the Portal/Current Events for the last few days This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if article can be extended further (if there is more coverage) - this is a major terrorist attack in a university (which most of us would expect to be safer). 45.251.33.20 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Attribution is murky. Infobox states clearly that this was a specific branch of ISIS. Article states that, an NGO based in Maryland states that, it was ISIS generally. Goes on to say that a member of Afghan government attributes it to the Taliban. Both ISIS and Taliban are pretty vocal with their claims. Seems odd we have to rely on second or third parties to get a claim of responsibility.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Large loss of life in what, the 5th(?) terrorist attack in the past month. Gex4pls (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all over the news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I agree wholeheartedly with the nom. Christ almighty. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Very tragic and significant attack on an educational institution. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks

RD: Dan Kohn

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Operating Officer of the Linux Foundation. He was a co-founder and CEO of the company that did the first e-commerce transaction (a credit card payment over the web) in 1994. Joofjoof (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks okay. Ҥ (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CV masquerading as a BLP. There are only 2 sentences that deal at all with his life outside of work, one of which is arguably the "Education" bulletpoint on this CV. Infobox does not even give a location of birth. Article could reasonably be moved to Career of Dan Kohn.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, his work is what made him notable (WP:N). And I have added his birthplace and family info. Joofjoof (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I see IP Editor's point. However, there have been edits made by a few folks including Stephen and Joofjoof. Nothing so egregious that should prevent this article from going to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and struct previous oppose. Biographical details are now suitable for RD.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is OK, unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nikki McKibbin

Nominator's comments: American Idol singer, tragic passing. Thechased (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Too much uncited info including personal medical details - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose also, while the entire "American Idol" and "Discography" sections are unreferenced (along with 3 or 4 paragraphs of "Post-Idol career") JW 1961 Talk 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above and the lead needs an overhaul. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Robert Fisk

Nominator's comments: English journalist known for his war correspondence in the Middle East for The Independent. KittenKlub (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well referenced article, looks to be ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : not ready. The Irish Times subhead describes Fisk as "highly regarded and controversial". If our article is doing its job, a reader ought to be able to understand why the IT led its subhead with those words. At the moment, they don't get that from the article. Why was Fisk "controversial"? If we're going to link the article from the front page, it needs to present a full picture of its subject, and it needs to examine this, with balance and NPOV, even though that may be distasteful. If an article has a deliberate blind spot, or we run away from grasping the nettle, then it is not good enough to be linked from the front page. To be sure, part of what made Fisk "controversial" was that his reporting was often relentlessly critical of U.S., British, and Israeli policies and actions. But people who have expressed reservations about his journalism go beyond just the conservatives and pro-Israel columnists who coined the term "fisking" (former article) -- eg fellow Independent journalist Hugh Pope [5], as well as others critical of his more recent reporting of Syria. It's difficult to know how to weigh the criticisms, some of which certainly are politically motivated. (Though it may get easier as obituaries start to appear in the following days). But the article needs to do a better job of contextualising why Fisk became so "marmite". IMO therefore, in its current form, the article is not ready. Our reputation is not served if we promote an article that sidesteps why its subject has been presented (at least by some) as "controversial", or could be accused of whitewashing. Jheald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks fine to me at a first glance, Jheald does raise some points that need to be looked into but I don't think they are significant enough to stop this from going to RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The points Jheald raises should be looked at first. I'm not expecting a "controversy" section, that's generally not advisible, but some mention of this is required. For example, the article is almost entirely silent on his alleged bias against the US and Israel, yet all the obituaries I've seen so far highlight this aspect of his career.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We're not doing a GA review here. I think it's clear from reading the article why he was controversial, and everything is sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written and referenced. SoloGaming (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it stands, per Jheald. Fisk certainly needs a "controversies" section to avoid being WP:POV ourselves. The NYT described him as "one of the most controversial journalists of the age", and he was banned from entering the US at one point. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well written and referenced, no reason to delay for the haters to write a hate section. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaserLegs, it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following the guidelines you can do whatever you want, I suppose. It's strange to me that this still isn't posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per P-K3 and LaserLegs. - AnthonyIreland (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The sources of controversy are relayed in the body of the article. Links therein (eg. Douma chemical attack) describe the actual controversies of those subjects. There is an outlink to "fisking" at Wikitionary, which notes only that it's a term from "the blogosphere". Not quite the level of notability that should hold this article up. Otherwise a well written and structured BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Brigade Piron, they said it better than I could. (t · c) buidhe 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per P-K3. Legendary journalist. I'm surprised this isn't posted already. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per P-K3. NB article used to have a Criticism section, but it was rolled into a new Syrian Civil War section in this edit early this year (plus see subsequent series of edits for expansion of Syrian Civil War section). Rwendland (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article at present has an orange tag related to above concerns. Spencer^T•C 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's how you keep an RD article off the main page it seems. No one can point to an actual guideline requiring a "controversy" section but we sure are keeping the article off the MP. Sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply wrong. If anything, Controversies are to be avoided in BLPs, and the "controversies" that this person was involved in happened to resolve in his favor after time. What is to be written? "Fisk was shamed and ridiculed for things that eventually turned out to be true?" WTF?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Betty Dodson

 AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Plenty of CNs and Unreffed sections, incl. 'ography. Otherwise a straighforward and well-written BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed some of the content that you flagged as unreferenced. Requiring citations for a bibliography strikes me as massive overkill when ((authority control)) is transcluded on this page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Zahradník

Nominator's comments: Czech chemist. I've added a little to the article but it seems in reasonably good condition - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems fine, well sourced enough and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in good shape, notable scientist. Also, tutor of Angela Merkel! Yakikaki (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage in his career as a chemist; unclear what it means by he "studied the relationship between theoretical and experimental characteristics" (characteristics of...?) Spencer^T•C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spencer, I've tried to expand a little on this but my chemistry knowledge isn't up to much more - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WO struck. Not a support, but there is consensus for this to be posted. Spencer^T•C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, The lede requires to be trimmed down. Good amount of content from here should go into the body. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer -- have taken a pass at streamlining the lede. Please have a look and reintroduce content if needed. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Iba Der Thiam

Nominator's comments: Senegalese historian and politician. I've updated it with his death and the rest of the article looks reasonable - Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Small, but well referenced article.KittenKlub (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article seems quite good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Opening sentence states that the subject was a "writer, politician and historian", yet the article devotes 1 sentence to his work as a historian and none to his work as a writer. Spencer^T•C 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spencer:. Editing from my phone so can’t do too much at the moment but I’ve tried to add a bit more on his history work - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Arturo Lona Reyes

Nominator's comments: I've expanded it a little and think it meets the standard - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not think this is far from being ITN-ready, but it certainly does need a cleanup first. The prose currently reads in a slightly unencyclopedic tone and does not fit well around the current section structure. There are a couple of areas where more citations might be helpful too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron, I've hacked it around a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now. Let me know - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Many thanks for this, Dumelow! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Dumelow: Is there a citation for Lona Reyes' quote in the middle? It's unclear if it is from citation 1. Otherwise it's basically ready and give me a ping once that's worked out. Spencer^T•C 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spencer:. The quote was already there, I presumed it came from the book. I’ve found a source online and added it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six Nations Championship

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Going to need some prose on the matches and a tournament summary. Stephen 22:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is just regional sports and I haven't seen this at all in the newspapers. Is it really significant enough to be on the main page? Blah 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blahwheel, This is a WP:ITN/R article so the significance is already established for each years event, we then judge this on the quality of the article, which as of now I would oppose per Stephens comment above JW 1961 Talk 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it should be removed from the list. There are more important events than this that we can post..Blah 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blahwheel, you'll need to start a discussion at WT:ITN if you want it removed. Stephen 03:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – article is just tables/lists ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. Needs referenced prose describing the course of the tournament. See the 2016 article for an example. This seems to be a perennial problem with the Six Nations - every year since then has failed to be posted in ITN because no-one wrote a prose summary. Modest Genius ^talk 12:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose needs prose. A lot more prose. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marius Žaliūkas

Nominator's comments: Lithuanian footballer. I've added some missing refs, still a bit to do but it's headed the right way - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) Super Typhoon Goni

Article: Typhoon Goni (2020) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon with winds of 195 miles per hour (314 km/h), killing at least 11 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

• Nominated by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe it made the record for fastest one minute sustained winds at landfall, so that could be the reasoning Gex4pls (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Per above, simply having record landfall is not ITN worthy. Gotitbro (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that the impact has been added to the blurb and article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Howard the Duck: where's the 41 deaths coming from? Noah^Talk 17:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 170 kt landfaller and extremely catastrophic storm. Impacts are still coming out, but this is doubtless disastrous, at least comparable to Haiyan. Also, the name of the typhoon is just "Typhoon Goni" officially (the "super" moniker was attached by non-RSMCs like JTWC and PAGASA) so that may have to be fixed. JavaHurricane 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Destructive storm with widespread impact. Category 5 landfalls are generally posted from what I can remember. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The typhoon had already caused significant damage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable typhoon, among the strongest typhoons since 2013 Haiyan.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable typhoon with strong impact and a few deaths. Latest reports show 16 dead, so blurb should be changed. Also, lowercase "T" should be used in "The Philippines", since "The" is not a part of the name. Chlod (say hi!) 09:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment marked as ready but please don't post it with a redirect to super typhoon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the ITN after this posting has two typhoons, this one and Molave. Is this too many typhoons? Molave was several days ago...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ordinarily I'd say this shouldn't matter. Each item rolls off the bottom in turn. However, since the World Series and the Typhoon are both labelled as October 27, I've used a bit of licence and flipped back to the sports event at the expense of Molave. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Better and more well-rounded ITN now.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sean Connery

Posted as a blurb and will remain so. Stephen 04:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sean Connery (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Oscar winning Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90
Alternative blurb II: ​ Scottish actor Sean Connery dies aged 90
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Sherenk1 (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support Decent, well referenced article for RD JW 1961 Talk 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• also Support blurb in this case JW 1961 Talk 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks in good shape. Count me as support for a blurb too if one is proposed. P-K3 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article in good shape and well referenced in general. RD for sure, not familiar enough with the industry to comment on blurb. Juxlos (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb or RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once his filmography is restored, since I'm sure it was blanked in error in editing. rawmustard (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree, I think it's fine for an actor with a prolific career to have the filmography spun off to a separate article. P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I posted, the section had an empty filmography tag which would need to be resolved before the article could be posted to front page. Everything else appeared to have no issues. rawmustard (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what would go in such a filmography section? It can't include all of his films, because that would bloat the article and it's all covered in the sub-article. His most important films are already discussed in the Career section prose, so I don't think any separate Filmography is needed in the main article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all the above. First Bobby, then Nobby, now Sean. Pretty shit week. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb, per KittenKlub Yakikaki (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb Academy Award winner and acting icon. Death reported globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd not include mention of the award in a typical death blurb. Lots of people are Academy Award winners, that is not what makes this death blurbable. --Masem (t) 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is class B already. Blurb would be approparite given the less notable current list, maybe a picture as well. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. --Tone 14:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb.Global icon. RIP. Ktin (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb probably the most iconic/legendary/etc Scottish actor ever. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. If anyone thinks I've applied false standards compared with others such as Kirk Douglas then holler, but for now I do think Connery is probably one of the few Thatchers/Mandelas in the acting world. Please just blurb as Sean Connery though (Alt 2). Per MOS:HONORIFIC the "Sir" isn't normally included in titles or other mentions except for the first mention in the lead.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Our standard should be a Thatcher/Mandela/Connery standard, if anything. BD2412 T 14:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. A Scottish legend. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. I could name several entertainers of similar stature who have died this year and did not get a blurb, so I don't see why Connery should get one. We didn't give Chadwick Boseman a blurb despite him being half Connery's age and dying suddenly in the middle of his career. Kirk Douglas, who won three Oscars and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, didn't get a blurb. Olivia de Havilland, a two-time Oscar winner, didn't get a blurb. Regis Philbin, no blurb. Ditto for Little Richard and Helen Reddy. -- Calidum 15:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If people keep on saying that people should not have blurbs because of what has happened in the past, then nothing is going to change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If this starts a new trend of actually posting blurbs, I'd be happy. But I doubt it. -- Calidum 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The recent trend has been towards far fewer blurbs, which is a good thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those should have been blurbed, especially Boseman, and we shouldn't be bound by past mistakes. Davey2116 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was ridiculous Douglas and Little Richard not being blurbed, and probably DeHavilland as well. I had (until 30 seconds ago) no clue who Regis Philbin was, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully in agreement... I would have supported a blurb for many of these if I had known they were nominated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. You can make a case for Douglas, but Little Richard and DeHavilland are not even remotely of the calibre required. Blurbing is rare, and Connery is one of very few people in entertainment whose career and fame is so huge that they merit inclusion. In general you should assume only a handful of names in any given industry or profession would make the grade.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why? -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb I've given this a lot of thought. The one other actor who comes to mind that we posted as a blurb is Christopher Lee. Both him and Connery have highly prolific careers that stretched on well into their advanced age. It seems appropriate to post this.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Though arguably Connery formally retired in 2006 (give or take a few minor roles), whereas Lee was still working in acting up until his death. Lee's death was "surprising" (beyond his age) where this death was a matter of time. --Masem (t) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb This is a no-brainer. He was a world-class actor, global icon and influence on many future generations of actors.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb How could we not post the star of such screen classics as Zardoz and Highlander? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb A legend. RIP. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I see enough support to post as a blurb. --Tone 17:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tone, Thanks. Can we please bring back Cecilia Chiang on the WP:ITNRD carousel? Alternately, if there is an RD ready for publishing, we could publish that. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb in retrospect as reliable sources such as the BBC are calling him one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support blurb I can read, Trebek! Davey2116 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Not egregious, but most of the "opposes" at wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#(Posted_to_RD)_RD:_Kirk_Douglas apply. Doesn't have the sentimental impact of a Carrie Fisher death. Being James Bond and non-American probably pushed this over.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying what I didn't want to say. -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support blurb Per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) RD: Nobby Stiles

Nominator's comments: One of the 1966 England World Cup winning squad. Please indicat whether you support a blurb, or RD only. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality as the article is poorly referenced and outright oppose for a blurb as he was clearly not a top figure in the sport of the same stature as Puskás, Pele, Cruyff or Maradona.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on referencing - the section on his playing career, which is what makes him notable, is entirely unreferenced. Oppose blurb - not a major figure in the game. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Nobby Stiles was one of the best English football players ever, but I don't think would be high enough on a list of the best international football players ever to merit a blurb. I suspect such a list would be limited to players on par with Pele and Maradona. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Not even close; not in the FIFA 100. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on quality of article, agree with all of the problems noted above. Oppose blurb when the article is improved because neither "the cause of death itself is a major story" nor do "the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation". RD is sufficient as nothing needs to be explained in a blurb. --Jayron32 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Converted to RD (non-admin closure). Consensus will not emerge to post with blurb. Changed nomination to RD alone. Conversations from below can focus on RD readiness. PS: Feel free to undo my change if there is a desire to drive to consensus. Also feel free to WP:TROUT Ktin (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ktin: Good call, no need for a trout. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know I'm piling on, but the lack of inline citations means this will need a lot of work to get ready. (And though Nobby was a beloved figure, he's not blurb material.)-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sadly Oppose RD until references are improved. RIP Nobby JW 1961 Talk 18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kiril Simeonovski, Bcp67, NorthernFalcon, Bzweebl, Jayron32, Ktin, Pawnkingthree, and Joseywales1961: I have addressed your quality concerns and the article is now sourced. If you could look over it again that'd be appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PCN02WPS, It's reading way better, but since you pinged there have been 9 cn's added, I will look in on this again in nthe afternoon JW 1961 Talk 08:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joseywales1961, PCN02WPS -- Hey folks. Agree, definitely getting there. I was the one who added the ^{[citation needed]} tags. Once these are filled the article should be good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD oppose for blurb RD blurbs should only be for people who the average reader (i.e. not a follower of the field) would know - e.g. Sean Connery. Also, can someone find a better picture? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. I've fixed up the remaining cites needed, and tweaked a few things here and there, so I think this is now good to be posted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good job with the sourcing. P-K3 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Stephen, Tone, Spencer, John M Wolfson, and Bagumba: apologies for the intrusion, but as it has become fashionable to ping admins these days, I'll join the party! Any chance someone could see if this is ready and post it if so? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly RD but don't see blurb relevance per above. Gotitbro (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake

Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. 8 deaths and 130 injuries (likely to increase), plus major destruction Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Removed) Ongoing removal: End SARS

Nominator's comments: The article's latest timeline entry is at End SARS § 22 October. There have been so substantive additions since 25 Oct, just copyedits. Per WP:ITN: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. Oldest blurb is from 25 Oct (2020 Seychellois general election). —Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Overplayed cause célèbre anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove When posted, it was an actively updated article. Seems to have fallen off. It's been over a week at this point. --Jayron32 12:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support No longer in the news in the West This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support probably still ongoing in Nigeria, though news coverage has died down considerably. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I agree with above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed. I know I voted. There's a consensus anyways, so commensurate with posting the below item, I also removed SARS. --Jayron32 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: October 2020 Polish protests

Nominator's comments: Blurb was posted on 28 Oct and cycled off on the 29th. Still ongoing though per above sources. —Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, would nominate by myself. Still develops, new events planned for 10/30 and later --Andrei (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, hmm... got pushed off. Still ongoing and active. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That got pushed off fast. I guess it's a busy week, but this is perfect for ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Still going on and likely to continue for some time. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There were 410,000 protesters recently. Albertaont (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big news and still on-going. Almost textbook ITN/O material This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We did push it off really fast, I agree with above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Overwhelming support, also removed SARS item above, per consensus. It was also getting a bit crowded. --Jayron32 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Amfilohije Radović

Nominator's comments: Cleric of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan Bishop of Montenegro and the Littoral from 1990 until his death. DragonFederal (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Mesut Yılmaz

Nominator's comments: Three time Prime Minister of Turkey. Demoxica (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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