Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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 forum for ors 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.

COVID-19 pandemic Disease Virus By location Impact Portal Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg (pictured), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and advocate for women's rights, dies at the age of 87. Yoshihide Suga becomes Prime Minister of Japan, replacing Shinzo Abe. Astronomers report the detection of phosphine, a possible signature of organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus. In tennis, Naomi Osaka wins the Women's Singles and Dominic Thiem wins the Men's Singles at the US Open. Ongoing: Belarusian protests Western United States wildfires Recent deaths: Stephen F. Cohen P. R. Krishna Kumar Saefullah Faith Alupo Bill Gates Sr. Ralph Gants Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Archives[]

September 19[]

September 18[]

(Posted) RD: Stephen F. Cohen[]

Nominator's comments: Prominent scholar of Russian studies. Article appears in good shape. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Ruth Bader Ginsburg[]

Article: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (pictured) dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN, The Hill
Crs:

• Nominated by A lad insane (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Very breaking news still. Article is a GA. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support RD at the very least. Would also support blurb. Very high profile figure. 192.196.218.222 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• NPR also reporting NPR —valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - GA. And we should also consider a blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - very high profile and article is GA. Added blurb nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb This year is cruel, man. Davey2116 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Blurb it - good article. Damn. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb - GA and updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD GA class. No opinion on blurb; what's the precedence for top judges?  Nixinova   T   C   23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• She was an incumbent also massively impactful in law, growth of US liberalism, and pop culture. There's also the fact that most likely whoever is elected President in November will have to replace her, and that will be crucial to American law going forward. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Very important figure in US politics, support blurb as well, this will have a significant effect on the future of the USA. –DMartin 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb. We already post confirmations to the Supreme Court because it is itself notable enough, but for an incumbent justice to pass (especially such a well-known one) is undoubtedly just as notable as a confirmation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posting to RD because the article is top notch and there's no reason not to, unfortunately (meaning I wish she was still alive). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: I saw consensus for a blurb but conflicted with you. I'm not a regular here so wanted to ask your thoughts before saving. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Wugapodes, her death was only just announced, I'd give it a little more time to determine if there really is a consensus for a blurb. In the meantime, it's posted as RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh I see the ec you mean. We'll see if anyone wants it pulled. I don't object. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support blurb One of the most notable jurists in history, whose loss at this moment in time could single-handedly alter the face of the USA. Top-line news across the world. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, immediate promote with blurb to main page: This is a major event. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb due to her prominence on the US Supreme Court and the impact her death will have on the US election. P-K3 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Would support blurb even if she died next February, but we really cannot exaggerate the gravity of it happening at this moment, especially in light of Garland. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted There appears to be overwhelming support for a full blurb, thus I have gone ahead and posted. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  There really isn't the need to post it so quickly. Give a chance for people in other parts of the world to the subject matter (US) to voice their opinion and possibly disagree about the significance. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Someone else is free to remove it, should consensus emerge. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, we don't really need to hear from the "it's not important if it didn't happen in the British Empire" crowd. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have to agree with GCG - massive ramifications for, well, how biased the SCOTUS gets in a time of political upheaval and pandemic that could have apocalyptic effects on US relations with the rest of the world, crisis management, upholding the constitution, and climate change. It's never good to see a legend like RBG go, but now is perhaps the worst time in human history, I mean this without hyperbole. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support blurb - arguably no single human life was more critical to the current state of United States constitutional law. Her death has the potential for sweeping ramifications on American jurisprudence in general. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Pull - As much as I support a blurb, I recognize the impact of systemic bias on this particular section of Wikipedia. We ought to wait a full 12 hours for Europe and Australia to weigh in.--WaltCip-(talk) 00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • What? It's obvious it's going to be a huge news story. Front of the New York Times and the BBC already. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Europe yes, but it's midday here in Oceania. Agree that 20 mins is probably too quick to post something like this.  Nixinova   T   C   00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Pull At least wait for sometime for a more general consensus to appear than rushing with nominations like these. Don't blurbs for deaths require some global significance, that is not apparent here at all. As for posting 'confirmations' to the United States Supreme Court that is simply not true, all of the latest nominations were closed with no postings: 1, 2, 3. A lot of votes here also seem to be premised on WP:CRYSTALL. Also agree with User:KTC on letting more users vote in on this. Gotitbro (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  It's not CRYSTAL when all of the potential outcomes are significant. Nominate or not, consider or not, confirm or not. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pull Not a head of state or government. Not even the Chief Justice. Yes, she was a significant figure in the US mostly due to her being the dean of the left wing of the US Supreme Court. But we don't generally post domestic political news stories. If the Chief Justice of any other country's Supreme Court died, would we even consider posting it? It's significant news in the US and will throw a new issue into the forthcoming election. But in the end this is an 87 year old woman who has been dying for years. Her impact is nowhere near what we would normally look for in posting a blurb for someone who died at her age. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pray tell how one of the most influential members of the highest court of, for better or worse, the most important nation in the english-speaking world, and will also be a huge issue in the election, is not a "globally significant event"? I'd say it's one HELL of a lot more significant than Chadwick Boseman dying and he got a blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Just FYI, a blurb was not posted for Boseman, only RD. Gotitbro (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Everything you just described applied to Scalia's death as well, just on the opposite side of the US political spectrum. We didn't post a blurb then. -- KTC (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  KTC, Scalia was a giant, an amazing intellect, and beloved by those on both sides of the aisle for his intellect and wit. But I bet more people recognize the Notorious RBG. —valereee (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support blurb due to her indisputably high profile not to mention she died while serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. TJMSmith (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb One of the most well-known of modern justices. Possibly outstrips Scalia. Major ramifications. Huge news. —valereee (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb. I would go so far as to add Iconic to the beginning. Historically one of the few justices to break through to the popular consciousness. BD2412 T 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb - post posting support. Per Mz7 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb - very high-profile figure. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb the notability here comes not from Ginsburg but from who might be nominated in her place. Routine justice, routine death, this is what RD is for. Scalia got RD so this makes sense --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Just read the reporting of her death and tell me that's routine coverage. P-K3 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Election speculation hysteria. Scalia 2.0. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ginsburg was not, by any conceivable standard, a "routine justice." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  LaserLegs, are you suggesting Trump might nominate Hannity? That seems...bizarre, at best, since from our article he doesn't seem to have graduated from college much less law school...? —valereee (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia is about global perspective. For this to be a blurb, it should be the top news story in South Korea, Italy, Congo, Ukraine, and Fiji. Michael Jackson met this threshold without question. No other figure save perhaps Nelson Mandela matched this since. Colipon+(Talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:ITN says nothing of "global perspective" that's a made up requirement. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  It does: "Major figures: The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis". This does not fill that requirement and is clearly RD limited per the other criteria as well, i.e., "Life as the main story/Death as the main story". Seems political sensationalism and systemic bias at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  SYSTEMIC BIAS KLAXON!!! The RD criteria says transformative world leaders in their fields may qualify for a blurb, it does not say blurb require a global perspective. Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my affirmation AND shrieking about bias in the same response. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Wait, who's shrieking? —valereee (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Nikkei —valereee (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    Korea Times] —valereee (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    France24 —valereee (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks like there is coverage in Korea, Italy, Ukraine... Spencer^T•C 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    And this is coverage within literally an hour of the announcement. Not sure how much more we need to prove this is global news. —valereee (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    • You forgot Congo.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

      And where's Fiji? —valereee (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Le Figaro - France, El Comercio - Peru, O Globo - Brazil, The Sydney Morning Herald - Australia, Deutsche Welle - Germany, Haaretz - Israel, South China Morning Post - Hong Kong.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Also see this section. Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance beyond two: The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. There is consensus to post the event.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support blurb She was on her way out for the past several years, but this is especially notable given the implications of her vacancy for the upcoming election. RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• From Dem senator Ed Markey "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Of course he has already said he will violate it. This is not CRYSTAL, folks. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Good to see Mitch is still a man of principle.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

McConnell has put out a statement saying "President Trump's nominee will get a vote". And the WH says to expect a nominee in "the coming days". We will have a fight on our hands unless Democrats fold like a cheap suit again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm expecting frogs myself —valereee (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support retaining blurb. Ginsburg was an exceptionally important justice and for many years was almost surely the best-known judge in the entire world. Even apart from her significant personal accomplishments, her death at this particular time and the debate that will now follow over whether and with whom to fill the resulting vacancy will be a prominent news story both within and beyond the United States for weeks to come. Either of these grounds would be sufficient, in my mind, to justify a blurb; the combination of the two is compelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to see McLachlin or Lady Hale get a blurb as well when it's their turn, thank you. Like it or not, some degree of systemic bias is at play here, as evidenced by the number of American ors here. feminist (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am somewhat confused by what appear to be conflicting standards here. We did not blurb the death of Justice Scalia four years ago, though he was certainly a far more significant figure on the court. Even his critics admit that Scalia profoundly affected legal jurisprudence and philosophy in ways that few justices have in the entire history of the court. I don't want to denigrate the memory of Justice Ginsburg, but her legacy is likely to be in her dissents. It is extremely difficult to look at the way these two nominations have been received without suspecting a certain level of ideological partisanship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Scalia was probably worthy of a blurb as well, but it's hard to define precise standards about something (the death of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice) that has happened just three times in the past 50 years. (I also think you err in placing Ginsburg's overall influence on a lower tier than Scalia's, in part because Ginsburg's pre-judicial work had a long-term impact that Scalia's did not, but this isn't the place for such a debate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In addition, so far as I am aware, Scalia didn't have his own biopic. See On the Basis of Sex. For the record, I would have blurbed Scalia. BD2412 T 02:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think we got it right with Scalia. He was a towering intellectual giant of the law in this country. But he was a US Supreme Court Justice. We don't post them for the same reason we don't post justices from other countries. I think we are demonstrating an absolutely breathtaking level of bias here, both US and ideological. If this stands, we are going to have a hard time saying no with anything resembling a straight face when distinguished jurists from other countries die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly, we would not have posted this even if it was a serving chief justice from another country. The way this was rushed in just minutes after the nom is a classic example of bias of both numbers and admin scrutiny (but we have people here coming at you for pointing that out). This is what RD is for. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • • • • We could establish a rule limiting blurbs to distinguished jurists with their own biopic (or Lego figure). BD2412 T 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb She the leading story on BBC.com (I'm accessing from outside of US). Seems some !votes want to rewrite the cultural impact of this female justice.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The blurb's been up for a few hours now, we're getting to the point where enough people have seen the blurb for its removal to be seen as commentary. Either pull immediately and wait for further consensus, if the support for its blurb is waning, or keep it up until it rolls off.  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• comment Good on you to promote this to the main page in the record time of 23 minutes while most of the world outside of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I knew Wikipedia had a strong U.S. (and also U.S. Democrat) bias, but this is on a whole new level of r-tardation. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

September 17[]

RD: Joe Ruklick[]

Nominator's comments: Basketball player was cred with an assist on Wilt Chamberlain's last basket in his NBA record 100-point game. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support seems fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Clean and nice citations. Article doesn't have much details on the playing career other than that short paragraph. Can do with some additional player statistics - seasons records, personal performance, records. Seems like most basketball profiles have this information. Once this is added, the article is good for RD. This is completed, per the below thread. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, I expanded on his college career and added a newspaper he worked at. His pro career numbers were already in the prose. Understand, that he was a limited role player as a pro, only played three years, and it was in the 1960s. Coverage there is scarce, and not a core part of his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, greetings! I see some season by season stats at these links [1] and [2]. I don't know the game well enough to pick up the most relevant stats. Can we bring the best season by season stats into the article? Most the basketball player profile articles that I landed on had some of these season by season stats. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, there's already a link in the "External links". Do you think it's essential for ITN (as oppose to WP:GA) as it's more for basketball fans and will be inaccessible to the average reader.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, also my feeling is that picking stats from a primary source database to place into prose can lead into WP:UNDUE/WP:OR issues if they weren't mentioned by secondary sources as "important". Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I will admit that I might not know the game as much as others here. But, when I posted my comment, I had checked a few links of basket ball players Chick Halbert, Paul Hoffman (basketball), and Ed Sadowski (basketball). Almost all of them had a season by season summary. It made sense -- I was able to follow along the last column (points per game) to get a good sense of their journey. So, I thought it was useful. Just my two cents. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, Done. Added to make it consistent with other articles (links above) which have a season by season summary. Should be good now. Give it a look to see that nothing is off. (PS: Editing Wikitables is harder than I thought.)Ktin (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

September 16[]

RD: Maxim Martsinkevich[]

Nominator's comments: Russian far-right agitator and real-life internet troll. Found dead in prison cell. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose whole paragraphs unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose needs a lot more sourcing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, sadly, because the article is actually well written. A good reminder for ors to cite while you write.130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle but Oppose on quality as above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P. R. Krishna Kumar[]

Nominator's comments: Padma Shri awardee, and Indian Ayurveda proponent. Article meets hygiene checks, but, I can take a look later this evening. If there are any recommended s, we can have them covered.  Ktin (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Would need some updates regarding the death on the article. Juxlos (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Juxlos, Done. Updated with details on death; segmented the article for readability. Well sourced / cited. Ktin (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support good work on the improvements. Juxlos (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Updates completed. Article meets hygiene checks and should be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support article is mediocre but I think covers the minimum and is referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Spencer, @Stephen, @Amakuru, and @Bagumba - Pardon the intrusion. This should be ready to go. Ktin (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: IMO a huge gap in coverage between the 1950s and 2000s in the article, which uses vague phrases like "was involved in the promotion of ayurveda as a medical science" or "was instrumental" without specifically stating what was done. Not enough to oppose but falls below the bar where I don't feel that this is ready for posting yet. Spencer^T•C 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Spencer,  Done Added details of his life between 1950s and 2000s. Removed the vague phrases and added additional content. Please have a look. With this, I think the article does meet the hygiene checks to go to the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Pardon the tagging @Spencer, @Stephen, @Amakuru, and @Bagumba. Please can I request a pair of additional eyes on this one. Been on a wait for sometime now. I think this does meet the hygiene levels for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD I still think the article isn't enough depth of coverage but I'm not opposed, and outside of my comment there appears to be consensus to post. Spencer^T•C 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bahrain+UAE–Israel agreements[]

(Posted) RD: Saefullah[]

Nominator's comments: Highest-ranked bureaucrat in Jakarta for the past 6 years or so. COVID-19 caused. Article is fresh off the presses but I think it should be long enough. Juxlos (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support just a single name? I wasn't expecting an Indonesian bureaucrat when I clicked, but the article is alright, decently sourced, a little brief but sufficient. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Some Indonesian names are single word, yeah. Juxlos (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

yes. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Lamine Diack conviction[]

Nominator's comments: Although the prison term is short, this involves a high-ranking sports official and bribery to cover up doping. The conviction and sentencing occurred simultaneously, it seems. Brandmeister^talk 16:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be a larger story here, per the Guardian, "Several other senior figures in track and field, including the president’s son Papa Massata Diack and the sport’s former head of anti-doping Gabriel Dolle, were also given jail sentences for their part in a scheme in which 23 Russian athletes had their doping sanctions waived so they could compete at the London 2012 Olympics and 2013 world championships in Moscow." I'm not sure if just focusing on Diack here is the only story. --Masem (t) 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Added 2nd altblurb. Brandmeister^talk 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any long-lasting impact of this news amidst country's four-year ban from all major international sport competitions and after having missed the latest Winter Olympics and the last two World Championships in Athletics. Four years after the McLaren Report was published and all the sanctions imposed, this is really run-of-the-mill news in the whole story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle, though I don't think Diack's article is good enough to be the target so Doping in Russia might be a better choice. This is anything but run-of-the-mill news. It's a conviction (which is what we usually post for legal stories) in a years-long story with major international coverage and importance. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't know if we covered Russia getting banned from the Olympics, but that was big news and I'm pretty sure we covered it. The prison term is a bit too short for this, and it won't have any lasting effects. 20 yrs in prison is more noteworthy, along with more famous people getting convicted. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The blurbs make it sound like the trial was in Russia. The target link does not need to match the article name precisely. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The Diack article makes clear that this is yet another conviction for corruption generally, and at least the second that concerns Russia and doping specifically. The article is not in great shape. The Russian article makes clear that the impact of this decisions is already in effect.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Good enough to use Doping in Russia. Tradedia^talk 08:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Fallout from old news. So Diack goes to the slammer for two years. So what? – Sca (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Venezuela[]

Nominator's comments: Human rights report by the UN about an arguably rogue state. Seems like ITN material This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support An improved article would be better, maybe even an article dedicated to the UN mission and report. However, the significance of the findings and evidence and the official crimes against humanity tag is a big development. If this misses out on being posted due to article concerns, the results of such a tag will likely lead to something newsworthy, though. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's enough content for a full article just on the mission report for the moment, but in a couple of days when we have international reactions maybe This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose one-liner update for "CAH" claims from the UN, some missing refs, and the entire article is a WP:COATRACK to complain about Chavez/Maduro. Killing pets is lame, it's not human rights. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• LL, we know you have a thing for Maduro, but this is the UN you're trying to discr. Just this once, you can step away from POINT. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have a "thing" for Maduro who seems equal parts corrupt and incompetent but I'm also rather sick of the hysteria. There is no "POINT" here. The article should summarize the findings in common across multiple NGOs and leave the hyper-reporting of "eye witness accounts" and "tweets" in the trash where they belong. The UN has also said that US sanctions against Venezuela amount to 'Crimes against humanity' but that doesn't fit the narrative now does it? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• What? This is about the article being COATRACK, which it isn't, because human rights abuses in Venezuela certainly happen. Nobody disputes the US sanctions are CAH, but it's a different story when it's a systemic government against their own people, which makes this declaration significant. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Ongoing: September 2020 Western United States wildfires[]

Nominator's comments: Procedural nomination to confirm that the Wildfires remain in ongoing where I just moved it to as it dropped off as a blurb. Stephen 07:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

September 15[]

(Posted) RD: Faith Alupo[]

Nominator's comments: Ugandan woman MP, died of COVID-19 at the age of 36. Career section needs a bit more flesh and bones, but will try to work on that today.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

September 14[]

(Posted) RD: Bill Gates Sr.[]

Nominator's comments: Father of Bill Gates. Death announced on Sept 15 (15mins ago).  Nixinova   T   C   22:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Ralph Gants[]

Nominator's comments: Another judicial-related article that is admittedly on the short side. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) United Kingdom’s Internal Market[]

(Posted) Phosphine detected on Venus[]

Nominator's comments: Notable discovery that's getting a lot of play both on science news sites and mainstream news sites. Not a conclusive discovery of life, but the most significant development pointing to extraterrestrial life in many years. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per now phosphine does'nt always have an organic origin, as it has been detected on planets like Jupiter and by an inorganic origin. In my opinion, there has to be more evidence that can confirm the finding as a possible biological origin.Alsoriano97 (talk)
• Oppose per Alsorinao. Many possible sources for phosphine that do not require a biological origin, and the popular media is jumping on that link (similar to when we have discovery of water aspects on Mars, doesn't mean life is there, but there's conditions for possible, etc.). --Masem (t) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Except this is different because that sort of thing happens all the time with Mars,but this is a first for Venus, and alters our perceptions of both Venus and the prospects for extraterrestrial life as a result. As such the media are right to hype it, and we are wrong to ignore it (at least in my view).Tlhslobus (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Wait until the discovery is peer reviewed. Wait until any significant impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is: the news is per publication of a Nature Astronomy article today: [7]. (This is nearly a requirement for any sci or med study to be based on a peer-review publication to start. The impact is the question then...) ---Masem (t) 16:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • And the new angle about waiting until an impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth is moving the goalposts. First, Joe Schmoe doesn't have to be directly affected by an astronomical event in order for it to be newsworthy. Second, there's no way to measure the actual scientific impact of what this means for humanity without sending probes to Venus, which won't happen in the window of time it takes for this blurb's newsworthiness to expire as far as Wikipedia is concerned.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is unexpected news that has just made Venus a much more interesting place, and altered many people's perceptions of where life might exist, which is why it's in the news, and that is presumably why I got to hear about it from RTE (here) and rushed here to find out more about it, even though I was well aware that it will likely be years before its true origin is known. (Incidentally, those who claim the acidity of Venus's clouds is some kind of insuperable problem for life might want to give some thought to extremophiles in general, and to the Nobel-Prize-winning discovery of Helicobacter pylori in the supposedly impossibly acidic environment of our stomachs in particular) Tlhslobus (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is interesting news. While it doesn't have to have a biological origin, it is known that microbes survive and reproduce in our atmosphere. Also it is known that impacts can cause rocks containing microbes to transfer microbes from one planet to another.S o, it's possible that microbes from Earth are alive in the Venusian atmosphere. Also it could be that life evolved on Venus and that Venus later became an inhospitable planet, bu with microbes still alive in the atmosphere. Count Iblis (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is interesting news and excellent ITN material of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating news story and the article is FA. What's not to like? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment While I would welcome more science news at ITN in general, I would really want ors who are knowledgable about this subject to weigh in on this discussion and evaluate the significance of this, much like Modest Genius did at the Ceres nomination a month ago. As WaltCip said back then, It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • TompaDompa I know this story very well, to the point where I have a conflict of interest on it. I'm therefore deliberately refraining from commenting or !voting. Modest Genius ^talk 10:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The paper that elaborates the discovery is available here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Certainly oppose the current blurb which implies there's life on Venus, which the article does not state. The abstract says that the concentration is unusually high and that they do not know the pathway how it formed. "PH3 could originate from unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or, by analogy with biological production of PH3 on Earth, from the presence of life." So, if we post this, we should water down the hype a lot, which would make the blurb not very interesting (definitely not mentioning life in the blurb). Although this is a very interesting science story itself. --Tone 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the current blurb, per Alsoriano97 and Tone, as it is sensationalist and implies a potential discovery of life on Venus. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support but with a slightly more cautious blurb. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I like the alternate blurb(s) better than my original blurb. Would support them over the one I wrote up as nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support either of the alternate blurbs. They communicate the discovery without sensationalizing. Radagast (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the potential discovery of a substance known to only be produced in high quantities by living matter is definitely something newsworthy. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see why not. Sure it's not confirmation, but it's a big signpost and it wouldn't be surprising if this causes a mission to Venus to be launched in the future. Banedon (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Important news that may renew interest in Venus. A slightly less implicative blurb should be used, however.  Nixinova   T   C   04:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support alternative blurbs. Phosphine has been found on other planets, but my understanding is that those discoveries are explainable by something other than life and this one, so far, is not. The Moose 04:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support altblurbs. A very cool discovery, and although I suspect we're going to learn more about exotic chemistry than we will about aliens, I still support it. Very nice articles both for Venus and Phosphine, and the similarity of those two names in antiquity piques my locutionophile side. Not mentioned in the Phosphine article is that the atmosphere of Venus is especially suited for reacting phosphine into other products, and the fact that any steady-state phosphine could be detected means that it is being constantly produced in abundance.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support huge deal in astrobiology, even if it turns out to be a dud. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support A major discovery. If a biosignature like this was detected on an exoplanet 1,000 lightyears away it would still be a pretty big deal and definitely newsworthy, but to find one in our own Solar System is beyond incredible. GWA88 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support what's wrong with people here? This is the first not-so-subtle, actually credible, evidence of that "Earth is not special really". How can people oppose this but post "recurring" disasters that happen at a faster rate? Is this still an encyclopedia? 2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 06:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Just wanted to mention that the carbon-based life is not quite up to standards of the main page. I suggest Life on Venus as a much nicer alternative. 2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Was about to say that unbolded links don't need to meet the quality criteria but yikes that page is a mess, agreed.  Nixinova   T   C   07:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• When this is debunked, I hope that people here have the strength to post a retraction ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 09:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that phosphine wasn’t discovered? Stephen 09:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, he's suggesting the blurb is way too close to the middle-left panel. —Cryptic 12:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pull. @Step: The blurb is way too credulous of the biosignature possibility, despite the preliminary nature of this work. The detection is one thing, but the significance of it is far from clear and there's a lot of upselling of this by the involved parties. We have no business posting this here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Fixing ping to Stephen. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The "possible" is deployed exactly for this reason. The only reason such an assertion passed muster in peer review was because there is no known route to phosphine in the Veneral atmosphere. Phosphine is not exactly a niché compound; it has a very long history within chemistry and industry, lots of work has been put into producing and studying it. The Veneral atmosphere is loaded to the gills with sulfur oxides which should very aggressively react with phosphine. By all known chemistry, there should be no phosphine on Venus. The fact any could be detected means that it is being produced, and aggressively so, because the bulk atmosphere is perfectly suited to transform it to something else. So, we're left with two options: 1.) this discovery leads to a heretofore unknown mechanism to produce phosphine, or 2.) this discovery confirms what is known about phosphine, which also happens to suggest life outside of Earth.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pull Agree with Vorbis here, Wikipedia is not a popsci publication [where this news has gained traction], even stating "possible" seems to be stretching it based on current research. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - agree with supportive comments above - "Alternative blurb" seems the current best - after all - seems phosphine was detected in the Venusian clouds, and, as far as anyone seems to know at the moment, phosphine may be a possible biosignature - Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support. This has certainly been in the news this week, and I don't agree that the blurb is overstating the matter. It reflects what sources are saying, which is that the discovery reflects a "possible" sign of life,no more than that.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I came here after seeing DV's post at AN. But I have to agree with Amakuru; the current blurb seems not to overstate the gist of what I've been reading about it. DV will have to elaborate, please! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the blurb is neutral and factual, and in the News. People will mostly definitely come looking for it. You can't explain why it's in the news without mentioning that it's a possible biosignature. ADS says I've never co-authored a paper with Jane, so I don't think I'm too in the tank. WilyD 08:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Although, yes, grammatically it needs to say possible. Phosphine is a known biosignature on Earth, so it is a known biosignature, but it needs to be worded carefully enough so it doesn't imply it's a known biosignature on Venus. WilyD 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a biosignature also for Venus, but no single biosignature is absolute proof for the presence of biological processes. Ultimately, biology is nothing more than chemistry, and from only one biosignature it's difficult to rule out some alternative complex abiotic pathway that can explain the observation. Count Iblis (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I would say "A biosignature is something that is proof of biological processes", similar to the definition here: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2017.1729 ) It's a problem, that we don't really know what might be a clear biosignature, but that's something we're working on. Maybe it's just astronomer jargon, but it's clear that without qualifying it as "possible" or "potential", several people understood the phrase to mean proof of life on Venus had been discovered. WilyD 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Yoshihide Suga[]

Articles: Yoshihide Suga (talk, history) and 2020 Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) leadership election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Yoshihide Suga is to become prime minister of Japan following his victory in a party leadership election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Yoshihide Suga becomes Prime Minister of Japan, replacing Shinzo Abe. (For when he becomes PM)
News source(s): NYT, The Guardian
Crs:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk • give cr)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: We posted Abe's resignation, but precedent suggests we should also post Suga's inauguration, which will take place on September 16. (We posted Theresa May's resignation in May 2019 and Boris Johnson's inauguration in July 2019.) Davey2116 (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wait for inauguration parliamentary election. We already posted the resignation. Oppose the BLP which I tagged with a few CNs. Oppose the election article which is just lists and tables. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support once 2020_Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Japan)_leadership_election has refs and a prose update. We post leadership changes at election time not inauguration time - unless we want to erect a wall of text every quadrennial January... --LaserLegs (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. May resigning and Johnson taking over had more importance due to the overarching Brexit issue. Abe resigned due to health issues, not a scandal or controversial issue, and presumably the new leader will be like minded. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Wait. Once he's inaugurated, we can post. I don't buy this "overarching Brexit" business. Changes of leader are de facto ITN/R, and the Johnson precedent should be followed. Obviously this is also dependent on article quality - I haven't yet checked that aspect.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:ITNR says "heads of state" which is put us in the curious position of posting changes in powerless figure heads while taking a pass on the chief executives of G7 countries. Numerous attempts to correct this have not succeeded - though I'm thinking to start another. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    I would support that, makes much more sense. President of Ireland and President of Germany are not worth posting, but a change in the Taoiseach or the Chancellor would be newsworthy.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    There was no consensus to post the last change of Taoiseach (I supported it, but that's beside the point), so trying to make it ITN/R seems a bad idea, especially on the excuse that the German and Japanese PMs supposedly need to be ITN/R, even though they will almost certainly get posted anyway (subject to quality).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is no "Johnson precedent", we judge each nomination on its own individual merits. There are also powerless/puppet PMs. In Russia it depends on which office Putin decides to hold. There are reasons that we post heads of state that I won't repeat here. We post most changes in head of government as part of a general election, those that aren't part of one get evaluated on their own merits, and a party uncontroversially changing its leader, who will presumably carry out the same policies, counts for less IMO. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Putin is literally the one exception. I'll move this to ITN/R this afternoon so we can finally put an end to the insanity. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no insanity here other than expecting different results from revisiting the same issue over and over. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Well no, people come and go, or they stick around long enough to see that the status quo doesn't make sense. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The status quo may not make sense, but it doesn't follow that it makes sense to try to waste everybody's time trying to change it with little or no prospect of consensus on new wording, when any agreed new wording would likely just make a bad situation no better, and likely even worse. And especially not in this instance, because a new Prime Minister of Japan will almost certainly be posted regardless of what ITN/R says (the only question here seems to be when to post it, not whether to do so),provided it reaches the required quality. However you might be right to try to change ITN/R if and when it fails (for reasons other than genuine lack of quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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

  Stephen, can we use Altblurb on the post, please. I see there is sufficient whitespace, and Altblurb should fit well in that space "Yoshihide Suga becomes Prime Minister of Japan, replacing Shinzo Abe."Ktin (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

   Done. Sounds reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

September 13[]

(Posted) RD: Aline Chrétien[]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Nominator's comments: This article is of much better quality than the 2020 California wildfires. Now burning in California, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Nominated per Coffeeandcrumbs and Cryptic. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Change to square miles (km²) cause we're in size of Wales territory here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We've been over this. No. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Orbitalbuzzsaw: is there a reason you're opposing besides "we've gone over this before"? Because things change. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Posted as blurb Stephen 00:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a decent satellite image of the smoke if you want to swap the pic. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Let's get it. SMB99thx my s 00:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support I agree that this article is better suited for the main page than the one nominated below. Good work to those who improved it. Davey2116 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment – Finally! (Eventually, though, a likely candidate for Ongoing.) – Sca (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Photo Comment The photo doesn't really show anything. Could we find a suitable pic of the orange-sky thing? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support - glad to see this finally made ITN. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Administrator note The photo quality has been questioned both here and at ERRORS, and I am inclined to agree. We need a better quality image or I may revert to the last one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's moot now because we've got an enhanced image of Venus in the box, but a satellite photo was just fine for the Brazilian fires we featured last year --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

September 12[]

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

(Closed) 2020 California wildfires[]

(Posted) U.S. Open[]

Article: 2020 US Open (tennis) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Dominic Thiem wins the Men's Singles of the US Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) and Dominic Thiem win the Women's and Men's singles events at the US Open.
Alternative blurb II: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles event at the US Open.
Alternative blurb III: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) and Dominic Thiem win the Women's and Men's singles events at the US Open.
News source(s): CNN
Crs:

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk • give cr)
• Updated by Tomrtn (talk • give cr)

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: Men's winner will be added to blurb tomorrow has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same problem as last year, the article is just an indiscriminate dump of data, with no prose discussion of the event at all. Needs significant work.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose needs at least a tournament summary, and some unsourced sections. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. A collection of statistics and tables is far from enough for a page to be posted to the main page. Maybe Naomi Osaka is a more appropriate target article; so as the men's champion Thiem/Zverev. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT II for now. Would change to ALT III once Thiem's article is ready. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose on quality as per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Coffeeandcrumbs, Amakuru, Joseph2302, Unnamelessness, and Orbitalbuzzsaw: I have added an ALT1 blurb with Naomi Osaka as the target article; the men's champion will be added in the same style when that match concludes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  PCN02WPS, yesterday, I tagged the citations needed at Naomi Osaka. I think I speak for everyone when I say, we cannot post a BLP with citations missing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, all cn tags at Naomi Osaka have been sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose ITNR says it's the ion of the tournament, not the individual, which should be targeted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. I wish it weren't, but it is. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    You've omitted the first half of that sentence, which says "Generally, the specific event article for that year/time period is the target article in the blurb". I would read the clause you mention as determining whether to bold-link the winners in addition to the main event, not instead of it. In any case, it doesn't look like that clause was added on the back of any specific discussion on the talk page, so I wouldn't expect it to override consensus here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    • I have started a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RfC: delete a clause from WP:ITNR. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The individual, Naomi Osaka, cannot be the target article. It won't be newsworthy then if she is the target, not the tournament itself. Removing Altblurb 1.~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Destroyeraa, WP:ITNSPORTS says winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The new altblurb is fine. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Please don't remove blurbs after they have been voted by name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Do not set a bad precedent by circumventing the lack of quality of the main event's page by posting a blurb with only the players bolded.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I can tell from the archives,[8], the US Open hasn't been posted since 2012.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment still opposed, per Bagumba and TRM. I don't think posting the winners, just because the article itself is crap, is a sensible solution. It's baffling to me that golf and tennis, two of the biggest sports in the world, and with apparently dedicated WikiProject, manage to churn out such dross, tournament after tournament. At least with be golf one, somebody stepped up to make improvements.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am planning on adding prose summaries on each day's section of the day-by-day section of the article to address the concerns of those above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Why don't you axe the "day by day" section altogether (or at least hive it off into a subpage) and just write a unified prose summary of the whole event, subdivided by competition instead of by day? I don't think anybody cares what day something happened, and it gives it a disjointed feel. The article is really poorly structured right now, even aside from the lack of prose, and that would be a definite step in fixing that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  ( conflict) PCN02WPS, consider summarizing the singles finals first. If the blurb is going to be about the winners, I would want to at least see how those championship matches went.—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Amakuru and Bagumba: just want to ask advice of both of you: would you support getting rid of the day-by-day section (as advised by Amakuru) and combining the new tournament summary section with the events section lower down in the article? I would think it to be unnecessary to have both a tournament summary section with prose on each event and a separate section with just some bullet points and flags. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  PCN02WPS, I dont need it from an ITN perspective; however, I'm not sure it there are project standards. Is there another successful Grand Slam ITN you can pattern it after?—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, 2016 Australian Open was one of the last, if not the last, Grand Slam to be posted, so I'm planning on modeling this page after that; I've split the day-by-day into a subpage and I'm going to expand the "Events" section with prose about each competition. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I have added prose to 2020 US Open (tennis)#Men's Singles and plan to do so for the remaining sections. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Remove altblurb 3. It is literally the same as Altblurb 1 except bolding the players (nothing important about them, it's the tournament that's important and it won't be ITN/R then) and not adding "the" in front of the US Open. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:ITNSPORTS: winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I have started a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RfC: delete a clause from WP:ITNR. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    Once again, this clause is being misquoted. The page says the event's article is the one to post. The thing about winners is just an addendum. Sometimes we also link winners as well as the event, but it is never instead of the event.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    • Amakuru, then why say "Generally"? The Awards section at ITNR says, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." So your interpretation of the clause is just as arguable. If that was the intent, it would say "The winner can also be bolded in addition." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

      Yeah, perhaps you're right. I was about to undo my last comment actually, as it sounded unduly aggressive when I read it back. No doubt your query at ITNR will sort the matter out, but it seems local consensus in this thread is against posting the winners right now. cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any blurb that deephasizes the event article. That's ITNR. That needs to be up to speed. If that isn't up to the quality, then we don't post. It's not that hard. Other sport event articles easily have a good quality article without hours of the event completing (TRM puts us to shame with Boat Race nearly every year, but Super Bowl and other sports events are usually just as close), there's no reason this could not either. --Masem (t) 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not "nearly". Cheers! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (pinging all who voted oppose: @Amakuru, Joseph2302, Orbitalbuzzsaw, The Rambling Man, Destroyeraa, and Masem:) Prose has been added for men's and women's singles section under 2020 US Open (tennis)#Events and will be soon added for all other sections. I would appreciate if you would re-evaluate. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  PCN02WPS, thanks for adding the prose. Upon further review, I find the overall layout confusing. I think sections for Players and Seeds do not need to be duplicated in the main article when that detail is in child articles like 2020 US Open – Men's Singles.—Bagumba (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I have moved many of the large, clunkier tables off of the page and onto the child articles you referred to, and I have made minor changes to the order in which sections appear. Does that look better? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have struck ALT2 and ALT3 as they de-emphasize the event, and I believe that the original target article has been brought up to speed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Prose is much better, still areas to improve as some areas are still just tables. Also, @PCN02WPS: You can remove the altblurbs 2 and 3. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Destroyeraa, I am willing to work some more to improve the article; what areas could use work? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @PCN02WPS: A place to improve will probably be the section about the wheelchair competitions. Those currently only have a link the the subarticle and some data on who won. Otherwise, the article is much much better. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Destroyeraa, I am currently cleaning up the "Point and prize money distribution" section, replacing the tables with sourced prose. I will take care of the remining events subheaders when I am finished! Thanks for your suggestions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Destroyeraa, I have finished adding prose to each event subsection; additionally, all tables in the article have either been reformatted, replaced with prose, or moved to a child article. Also pinging oppose votes whose concerns about article quality have now been addressed: @Amakuru, Joseph2302, Orbitalbuzzsaw, The Rambling Man, Masem, and Bagumba:) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @PCN02WPS: Much better! Changing !vote to Strong support. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Article has been improved and has a sufficient amount of prose.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Newman (baseball)[]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Sourced, but is this person actually notable enough for an article? Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Greetings. Just by way of clarification, RD discussions are to judge merits of the article (stemming from quality primarily), and not about notability. More details on the criteria here WP:ITNRD. Put simply, if the person has a Wikipage that is not under discussion for deletion, the article is eligible for consideration for RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is missing many citations and has a few broken links too. Will need to be fixed before this article can be ready for homepage. Ktin (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Looks good per the s and note below from Muboshgu. One more pair of eyes, and I think this is good to go to the homempage. Ktin (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, citations added, the dead links have archive urls present so all should now be fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – short article, but look like it meets the criteria. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Navid Afkari[]

(Closed) RD: Terence Conran[]

(Closed) Cuties[]

(Posted) RD: John Fahey (Australian politician)[]

Nominator's comments: Premier of New South Wales in the 1990s. Cred with bringing the Olympic Games to Sydney. President of the World Anti-Doping Agency. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Clean article. Good structuring. Requires a good amount of references / citations across the sections (and I see that a couple of folks are already working on it). There are a couple of subjective lines in the career portion, that should come off during a round of copy ing.Ktin (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Article is terrible really, and a poor tribute to a man who contributed so much to sport. But it is fully referenced now at least. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we have some additional eyes (and opinions) on this one? Seems like this does fit the hygiene standards for homepage. Don't want to miss because this was lost in the midst of the other posts. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support To me, it seems good enough to post. I can't see any missing refs.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support article is in decent shape and sourced appropriately. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Peruvian political crisis[]

Wait for outcome. Stephen 04:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Article: 2017–2020 Peruvian political crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Peru's congress launches impeachment procedures against President Martín Vizcarra (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Peru heads into a political crisis as congress approves impeachment proceedings against President Martín Vizcarra
Alternative blurb II: ​President of Peru faces the possibility of removal after impeachment proceedings are approved by the Congress of Peru
News source(s): New York Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post El Comercio
Crs:

• Nominated by DoctorSpeed (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: May be too insignificant? DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨ 01:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality -- article isn't updated, and the lede is way too long. Also, the WaPo link is to the wrong article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment @User:power~enwiki It is the correct article. Please read it completely. DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨

A two-sentence mention in an article about Coronavirus is really the best coverage there is, or is supposed to signify this is In The News? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is a bit of a mess. The article identified at the top of the nomination as the one we are supposed to be looking at, is not actually linked in any of the proposed blurbs. What are we talking about linking on the main page in bold? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose article is missing refs and has a stubby update. Clean it up, when the trial is concluded either way we can post a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that Peru works like the US, this is only the start of a process, no former declaration of impeachment charges have been made (has had been for Trump). --Masem (t) 12:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Trump, they would not have started the process in the first place if they did not think they had a decent chance of success at impeachment(not the subsequent trial). The same may be true here. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so let's wait until the impeachment actually happens. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

References[]

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: