Ingenpedia:In the news/Candidates

(Ready to post) RD: Indira Joseph Venniyoor

 * Support Article looks good, if I had to comment on one thing, though, it would be to add some more referencing.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but good for RD - I could only check the 3 English language sources, they seem fine. JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Dawn Wells

 * Weak support Figure is notable, but needs a lot of referencing.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Career & Filmography needs some more sourcing, will change to support when they are fixed JW 1961   Talk  21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Aden airport attack

 * Oppose For now, article is a tiny stub with little to no information on the attacks themselves. Support If article is cleaned up, already 16 deaths and it's only been about an hour or two. Gex4pls (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length and quality but support on importance. Last I saw, deaths were up to 22. --M asem (t) 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Pending details, expansion of article. Guardian puts toll at 26, Reuters says 50 wounded. – Sca (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait per Sca. We need more details about the event.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious support At least 20 dead and growing... There's some hope the Saudi ambassador was killed as well. CoronaOneLove (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's some hope the Saudi ambassador was killed? "Hope"? Seriously? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Abortion in Argentina

 * Support: once as the article has been updated. Significant coverage: The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, NPR. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once article is updated This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like gay marriage/rights, I don't think we can afford to recognize anything but the 1st country in a region to recognize abortion rights, barring other factors. --M asem (t) 17:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , why not? We also post all the recurring sports events, elections and natural disasters, not only the first ones in the respective region. And many of these are less impactful than policy decisions of this magnitude with global coverage. Support.  Sandstein   21:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that this is approach we have taking with past "social change" like gay rights/marriage. Where do we draw the line? Until all 200+ countries in the world pass such laws? Identifying the first few countries that take these key steps seems to be accepted, but beyond that, its part a trend that we don't continually need to report at ITN, unless it is something extremely significant (like Suadi Arabia and women's rights). --M asem (t) 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If posted, blurb should read "Argentina becomes the third South American country …". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. This chapter in an old issue doesn't seem significantly impactful. – Sca (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Mlb96 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Abortion plays a big role in today's society, but this is an old issue in Argentina.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem; we can't be posting every single country that does this, even if this is rare in South America. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is a consequential decision and may turn the tide in other Latin American countries as well. Davey2116 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Ready to post) RD: Elaine McCoy

 * Oppose missing refs, no prose mention of her death, bare URLs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment death is now mentioned, and I note from the guidelines on article quality for RD that "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article" therefore the missing refs shouldn't prevent this nomination from being posted. MurielMary (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. There's one remaining cn which I can't quite verify, but it's by no means critical to the article and can just be cut if others can't verify. Otherwise ready IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Looks much better than most RDs recently. Article is incredibly sourced and written.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is well sourced. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Howard J. Rubenstein

 * Weak support for such an influencer, not a lot in there, but probably adequate for RD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luke Letlow

 * Support. Well-sourced short article. One of the higher-profile COVID-19 deaths of the year. BD2412  T 03:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a bit short but fully sourced; still some editing being done but it's good enough now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems good to go. Fully sourced. High profiled Covid-19 death.BabbaQ (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Josefina Echánove

 * Support. Short, but extremely well-referenced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose several films and television appearances unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment all film and television appearances in the article are now referenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article will need to be expanded before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which part of the guideline on the quality of RD articles you consider has not been met, with regards to the guidelines here: https://ingen.miraheze.org/wiki/Ingenpedia:In_the_news#Article_quality ? TIA MurielMary (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , other than the filmography (set of bullets) this article is currently a stub. We have not promoted articles of a stubby nature to homepage / RD in the past. Ktin (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Amelia Lapeña-Bonifacio

 * Support - Have given the article a thorough overhaul and I think it's now ready for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - all statements now referenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's good enough for the main page.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Petrinja earthquake

 * For the reference, we posted the one in Zagreb in March. This one was stronger but away from Zagreb or other big cities, so the damage will likely be smaller overall. The town of Petrijna was hit hard, though. The article still needs some expansion. --Tone 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Pending details. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The strongest quake was reportedly even stronger than the one that hit Zagreb in 1880, which would probably make it the strongest in the country's history on record. There's a rising death toll and many buildings were damaged in the nearby cities, including Zagreb where power outages and other problems have occurred as a consequence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP, BBC, Reuters update toll to seven – dozens missing. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll is definitely higher than the one in Zagreb, it's receiving a lot of coverage in various news outlets and the article seems referenced as well. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Prominent coverage in UK news, article now appears of adequate quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Pierre Cardin

 * Comment – Widespread RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the article is improved. He was definitely a transforming figure in his field and the 'bubble dress' that he introduced has become a standard garment worn by virtually every woman in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Fashion designer seems to be a niche beyond a death blurb. Oscar de la Renta's death was not a blurb. Is there another precedent?—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given there was only one !vote there to consider a blurb, I would not use that as a precedent here. --M asem (t) 18:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We posted a blurb for Karl Lagerfeld's death last year. I consider both Lagerfeld and Cardin to be on the top of their field. Lagerfeld owned and run influential brands, while Cardin was more influential in the style of everyday clothing. As for Oscar de la Renta, I don't think he was of the same stature as Cardin considering that his name cannot be readily associated with something like the 'bubble dress' that changed the way of clothing. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, we are not a common law system here on Ingenpedia. Each case is assessed on its own merits. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's Lagerfeld's nomination. Certainly an extended discussion. I'll maintain my oppose here. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, once the article quality is addressed, per Kiril Simeonovski. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was a transforming figure in his field. Oscar de la Renta was not. I consider Pierre Cardin to be more important than Karl Lagerfeld. Tradedia talk 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support blurb, as someone who is self-admittedly NOT into fashion, this comes across as maybe one of the 5 designers I knew of... like Karl and Oscar de la Renta. Can we put this into RD and then debate blurb? Albertaont (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, strongly oppose blurb. He was a fashion designer, not an influential world leader or something like that. His influence may have been significant in fashion, but it's still just the niche of fashion. 1779Days (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Top of his field of work. He was a transforming figure within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not looked at the article yet, but I'd support a blurb on notability: even I'd heard of him. It's a pity we have no article on bubble dress, which currently redirects to skirt and doesn't mention Cardin. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unclear if there's enough sourcing for a full-fledged article on the bubble dress, sadly. All I could find was, , and , and , none of which are especially detailed. Irrelevant for RD/blurb, obviously; just in case anyone was thinking about creating it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice recent piece on bubble dresses. I may take this up though I can’t just now unfortunately. Thank you for the references! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb, please InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion on blurb/RD, but oppose on quality. Relies far too much on primary sources, mainly the official bio published by his fashion house. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but blurb-worthy if quality threshold achieved as a transformative individual in the field of fashion. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – The haute couture fame of the name notwithstanding, Cardin's passing at 98 lacks broad significance. Support RD when article deemed presentable. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, a influential person in his field. The quality must be improved before posting. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Revolutionized the fashion industry, needs work though. Once work is done it's ready.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Ready to post) RD: Adele Rose

 * Weak oppose It's well referenced but very stubby, could support if expanded a wee bit JW 1961   Talk  14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been expanded as more obituaries published in the last few hours. MurielMary (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support as sufficiently expanded for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Romell Broom

 * Reluctant support don't keen on the idea of promoting these individuals but RDs are RDs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I always find it interesting when looking over the RD page that the average article on a criminal tends to be so much better than that of artists, politicians, businesspeople. Articles on sports people tend to be either one-line sub-stubs or mammoth unsourced musings - Dumelow (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I'm sad that Barbara Rose, a life full of interest and achievement, is likely to be dropped off for this. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably because criminals are a more sensitive subject, so uncited content gets removed quickly. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Short but well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  14:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul-Heinz Dittrich
Posted - Dumelow (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. We could have let the carousel go to 7 for a bit here. Ktin (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ktin, the displaced RD K. C. Jones had been up for 23 hours which I consider sufficient to not break the guideline. I appreciate people's opinions on this vary and am more than happy if another admin wants to re-add Jones - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. I guess I have been greedily hoping for 36 hours (or at least 24 hours). Anyways, onwards and upwards. Thanks for your note and for all that you do. Ktin (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fou Ts'ong

 * Comment. Just a very quick note, one of the refs is currently showing as undefined. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On further reading, I agree with that the tone is too promotional. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Short but to the point. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rather a promotional tone at present. Hopefully someone can neutralise it a bit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? I think this article presents the information in RS in a very neutral way.Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  05:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find sentences like Noted by The New York Times for his "sensitive ear for color", "elusive gift of melody", and his "impetuous spirit", Fou was one of the first Chinese-born pianists to achieve international fame and A performing and teaching career that took him throughout the world continued, and he was acclaimed not only for his interpretations of Chopin, but many other composers, including Haydn, Mozart concerning. The NYT bit in particular strikes me as undue, and reads rather like album liner notes. There is also the (currently error-flagged) quote, apparently from a primary source, describing him as one of the greatest pianists of our times. In my view, that would have to be backed up by a secondary source to be of appropriate weight. (It is also not especially informative; what makes one a "great" pianist, in context?) I would also like to know what persecuted means in the personal life section, but that's obviously not a promo issue. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * couldnt disagree more with you.It wasn’t just some random people who said these things; they were music critics from the world’s biggest newspapers. Look at the GA Radu Lupu for example. Also the quote from Argerich, Fleisher, and Lupu is just their opinion and their declaration. But since they are among the most important musicians of their generation, it’s a very notable thing to include. Also,if you look into it, Fou’s parents faced political persecution by the CCP during the Cultural Revolution, leading them to die by suicide. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  06:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to alleviate your concerns; please let me know if this suffices. I still disagree with the view that this article's tone was promotional to begin with, but I will happily compromise, especially if it means not killing this article's chances of being featured in RD. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  22:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My promo concerns have been addressed. Sourcing looks good too, although I don't read Polish and so am unable to evaluate some sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC has deigned to notice his passing now, though the Guardian is still silent, so I'll have a look and see if I can improve further. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * as far as I can see, there are only three Polish-language sources in the article - and they all serve to verify his death from the coronavirus. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  01:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting they were suspect; I was just noting I was unable to evaluate them myself. Certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Zingarese, Espresso Addict, and I have been over this with a fine-toothed comb in the past few hours and I think it's ready to go. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear and, thank you so much for your help with this article. I appreciate it so much! Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  06:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted despite being a supporter, as no-one objected. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Lambie-Nairn

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like the claims have been referenced now. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Armando Manzanero

 * Oppose tagged and needs lots of referencing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per The Rambling Man. This is a Grammy winner so if it gets sourced I could change my oppose to a support. TuckerTVG (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Once the quality issues have been resolved, support. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Mahinder Watsa

 * Weak oppose I'm seeing "earned him accolades and awards" and then one minor award listed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuichiro Hata

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Jackman

 * Support much improved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Niekro

 * Support sourcing looks good thanks to Muboshgu's efforts. The fourteen navboxes at the bottom are silly, but not a reason to oppose this. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A bit wacky his photo has him as a Yankee, but (unfortunately) that's not a barrier for posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't hate on the best franchise in sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support adequate for ITN. Good to go! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brodie Lee

 * Comment - One cn tag, but very good article. I'm ready to change it to support as soon as this small issue is resolved.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've dealt with these. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Too damn young to burn up, but too damn good to fade away. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And it's gone already. Who cares if it's a very good article that won 8-0, Karima Baloch, who wasn't even notable in life, needs her week for one Support vote. I knew the wrestling curse wasn't over, never getting fooled again. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , no need to speak ill about someone, particularly folks who are no longer here. That said, your larger point is valid. This new mode of posting will NOT work when inflow (new RDs) and outflow (posts onto homepage) are not roughly synchronized (rate of inflow is equal to the rate of outflow), unless Admins and Editors work the articles from the bottom of the stack.
 * I'm not speaking ill. As a human, I feel for her survivors. But as a historical figure, our editors only noticed her death, it is what it is. Anyway, I featured him on my Talk Page. Never getting stale there, rubes! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in extraordinarily poor taste to dance on the grave of an activist while comparing her unfavourably to a professional wrestler. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And it is in extraordinarily poor taste to accuse other posters of 'dancing on someone's grave' when they have done nothing of the kind. Please do not assume bad faith. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. To be clearer, I have no feelings for or against Baloch or her work, never heard of either before this. But the article objectively has less information, had way fewer editors working on it for a much briefer time and got less support here than Huber's life story, which is six days more recently in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just had the same thing happen with Shamsur Rahman Faruqi and Sugathakumari. Good on User:Espresso Addict for restoring the former. Maybe given the huge backlog, Admins restore RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into the third line which imo is not a big deal particularly because we have a reduced set of news blurbs currently.
 * Ktin (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's consensus for more than 7 items. Personally I'd nuke all the stale news (which is arguably all of it) and fill with RDs imitating the German "Kürzlich Verstorbene" system, but I know I won't get consensus for that. (Probably best to take this to the talk page?) Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Just took it to the talkpage. My vote is to temporarily restore all RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into three lines. There is sufficient space and we have some space created by the news blurbs which are down to 3 currently. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Just took it to the talkpage. My vote is to temporarily restore all RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into three lines. There is sufficient space and we have some space created by the news blurbs which are down to 3 currently. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, you know what that means.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, probably one of the best wrestling bios I've seen nominated here. Consider nominating for IN:GA. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ho-ly shit! Ho-ly shit! Seriously, call The Signpost, if even The Rambling Man is marking out, that's a sign of something alright! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my standards for the main page are high, no shame in that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be too proud of, either, this bio met all seven other judges' standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about being proud, just doing the job properly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No pride, no shame, pure unanimous propriety. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * could you check Shamsur Rahman Faruqi & George Blake as they were marked good to go as well but appear to have been overlooked?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim McLean

 * Comment Quite a lot uncited in there as of now, will check back later. RIP, a great manager!  JW 1961   Talk  21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced sentences in there, but otherwise in good condition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Added a couple of refs for the awards. I can’t see anything contentious now.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Blake

 * Oppose a few cn tags and unreferenced paragraphs Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's good to go Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All pretty much sourced now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Far, far better than many RDs, and it looks sourced to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support article looks incredibly sourced and incredibly written. Good work as always, Bruzaholm. Tuck (come say hi!) — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Rose

 * Support A lot of work has been done in the article. I think is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shaping up well, but not ready yet, imo. There needs to be more chronological detail; where was she between 1985 and her death, for example? ""ABC Art", her influential 1965 essay, outlined the main philosophical currents of minimalism." isn't really sourced; the article discusses what was in the essay, but not what/how/who it influenced (and what does "philosophical currents" even mean?) There are too many journal/other writing publications; this should be slimmed to the most influential. The filmography comes out of nowhere... her film making is mentioned in the lead but nowhere described. The lead needs filling out. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Noted, but could you please tone it down when critiquing the language I've chosen? Calling my wording "pretentious" is overkill, especially when the article directly describes Alain Robbe-Grillet and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two philosophers, as key to Rose's analysis. Perhaps the wording wasn't apt, but it was in good faith. You can feel free to trim the publications as you see fit—I am not wedded to including any of them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Such (am I allowed flowery?) language is only ever permissible in the mouth of a expert, as a direct quotation. Apologies for offending you, I'd assumed it was in the article before expansion. I can't readily trim the pubs as I am not an expert in American 20th-century art history criticism. Google Scholar citations suggest that three of her books, "ABC art" plus an essay on Orlan that isn't listed get significant citations. I doubt I'd be popular if I slimmed it to that... Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Go ahead and do it. Publication lists, especially when extensive, are, IMO, rarely that useful. I am far from an expert either; I think Scholar cites are as fair a criterion as any. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've slashed the non-books; let's see if it sticks. I usually include all (co-)authored books and all edited books that don't look ephemeral (conference proceedings), but I mainly work on scientists and I know non-science fields often publish more by book/monograph than journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support enough there for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Reginald Foster

 * Comment. The tone is rather informal, is all the detail necessary? At minimum needs sources for a couple of paragraphs. Could do with a proper publications section. I do like the Vatican Radio programme :) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, ita vero. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Tony Rice

 * Oppose, per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose long way to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Lopez

 * Weak oppose a handful of citations needed (in the bibliography section) but the rest is decent. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The going requirement at ITN for citations for the mere existence of a book (not its awards) strikes me as overkill, especially when authority control exists. I'll try to find some, but really—the existence of a book, which can be quickly verified by the simplest of Google searches, is not something that requires cn. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. And I didn't add all the tags.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, in any event, they're now addressed. And I know that's not how it works—I said "the going requirement". I disagree with "how it works", because I think encouraging editors to add citations to Worldcat is very silly indeed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. Do you think our readers know what "Authority control" means??  Good work on the article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Posting-Admins, please consider expanding the carousel count to 7 when posting this article on IN:ITNRD the article that will be popping off has been there for ~7 hours. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , and, we could not handle the above request of leaving the carousel at 7 for a bit? Disappointing. This model will not work if we do not work the postings from the bottom of the stack, particularly when the postings as well as the inflow is 'bursty'. Ktin (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shamsur Rahman Faruqi

 * Support Everything's referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks just about fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Danny Hodge

 * Weak oppose death not covered in prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support added "death" section to article (could use expansion if someone has source for cause of death etc) JW 1961   Talk  21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an explanation of COD in the source you added. So you're admitting that you didn't bother to read it?  See my comment below about formatting puffery, yet another example of the fraud committed around here in the name of "article quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , The source I added specifically states "While the cause of death isn't known yet"! Yes I did read it or I wouldn't have asked for further explanations. Please don't accuse other editors of fraud!  JW 1961   Talk  17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with JW's statement above. Perhaps not my place to be saying, but, please be polite to your fellow editors. I would also recommend that you apologize to JW on their talk page. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose As usual, folks appear to be judging this solely on account of formatting puffery. As a biography, it's quite incomplete and chronologically all over the place.  It reads like a semi-random collection of facts which just happen to be backed by sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Missing a considerable amount about his government work, infobox photo and "Other" classification beg a few questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Soumaïla Cissé

 * oppose for now. Two cn tags. Personal life could use a little expansion, also more info on his abduction and release would be nice. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: K. C. Jones

 * Oppose still under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this one has been worked on, though admittedly not by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the coaching record (for example) from Basketball-reference.com? If so, it appears to be incomplete e.g. where is the 1972–73 season? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just passing through. 1972-73 was his season coaching in the American Basketball Association, so that’s a different league from the rest of the table. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to include that season, too. It depends on how that section is defined in the article. Sites like basketball-reference offer combined NBA/ABA stats as well as stats for each league. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1972–73 ABA stats are now in the table.—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing is sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Michael Alig

 * Weak oppose a couple of unref'd claims in there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenia protests
The article kind of updated to this week. I've not edited much here, but post on the Talk page,can someone help to update?2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC) I did a little update and posted in the talk page the links. The part about Nikol rejecting I didn't find, but I didn't look hard enough.2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please fix your nomination, the instructions on how to properly nominate an article are given on this page above. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Nashville bombing

 * Oppose. No article. Even if there was, this were no fatalities. Thankfully only 3 injuries and property damage. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced this rises to level of what we usually post at ITN. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed per IN:SNOW WaltCip''' (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and reopened. There is an article and there is clearly at least one death so far. While it might not reach consensus, to IN:SNOW is pre-mature. Also at this point the oppose is also based on assertions which have changed. Albertaont (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The only reason this is in the news is because it happened in the US. Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it. Only 3 people were injured, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no confirmed fatalities so far. This is not important on an international scale, and should be put under IN:SNOW. The Image Editor (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have had a lively debate on ITN when similar attacks happened in France and Austria a few months ago, I dont recall what the final outcome was, but to say "Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it." is not correct if we just look back at ITN. Albertaont (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Those discussions ended in no consensus, and were not posted. That gives even more reason for this to NOT post this onto ITN. I will admit, that the Germany comparison was in bad faith, but I still think that this doesn’t even approach the threshold of international news. If this somehow gets posted, I would argue that it would dramatically lower the standard of what is ITN worthy. But then again, who am I to judge. The Image Editor (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: definitely on the front pages of many news agencies, even outside the US. Singapore, UK, Germany, Brazil.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: The building collapse makes it front page worthy. Unknown-Tree (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait: Too much is unknown at present, such as whether there were any fatalities. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is still being considered as a domestic situation, and there is at most one possible death, typically far lower than what we would post. --M asem (t) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't have enough information currently to judge the significance of the attack and so far it seems like a small-scale incident. Plus, if we were to post this, then we would be setting the bar too low for these types of events Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know if people were killed & if it was a bombing by a terrorist group. If it was a lone-wolf attack in which there were no deaths or only one, it's not important enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait  – Puzzling & mysterious, thus interesting, but lacking in general significance – though that could change if the investigation uncovers evidence of terrorism. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Law enforcement seeks "person of interest."  – Sca (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I got it right the first time. WaltCip- (talk)  02:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Is it in the news? Yes, globally (per links posted above). Are readers interested in it? Yes: nearly 80,000 page views on day 1 of the article . Is the article of sufficient quality? Yes. Therefore: post it. It doesn't matter what country it happened in. BTW, the significance is in the mysteriousness of the incident, the size of the bomb, and the widespread AT&T telecom outage, which is now in its second day. I would suggest maybe an alternate blurb like "A vehicle explosion in downtown Nashville, Tennessee results in three injuries and widespread damage and outages." Levivich harass/hound 04:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does matter where it happened. This is the US, and I apologize to the rest of the world but we're basically idiots here when it comes to gun ownership and stuff like this. This is stuff that happens far too frequently here that, unless we're taking major death and destruction, we skip over these topics because they are "routine" for the US. Now, sure, maybe there's something in the investigation thta proves out something far more sinister than what currently seems as a typical US whack job to prove worthwhile to post, but this isn't anything damaging like the Boston Marathon bombings. --M asem (t) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing routine about this RV full of explosives that detonated in downtown Nashville after blaring a siren and audio warning to evacuate the area. The US hasn't had a vehicle bomb attack like this in ... I don't remember the last one. There is nothing routine about grounded flights, 911 being down, mobile phones, and landlines being down, in a three-state area, for two days. The US hasn't had an outage like that in ... even the California wildfires didn't produce outages of that scale; I don't remember the last time all communications were down in such a large area. An attack doesn't have to be the Boston Marathon bombings--the second-worst terrorist attack in US history, probably--in order to be worthy of ITN. And honestly, editors' subjective personal opinions about the importance of the event should not matter at all; 80,000 readers are interested, but a dozen Ingenpedia editors think it's routine, so we don't list it? How does that make sense? The only things that should matter are: (1) Do readers want the information? (2) Do we have the information? Levivich harass/hound 07:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is only of trivial interest because it happened in the US. It has no long-term impact, it is of extremely limited notability, and is only making news because besides Covid, there's nothing else for the US press to get on top of, since Trump has at last become a boring sideshow.  This is almost unencyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, the latest story on this is that the person of interest, believed to be the person that died in the incident, had paranoia over 5G (not unlike what we've already seen previously in the UK with 5G towers being burned down) and may have specifically targetted the local AT&T building because of that paranoia, and not so much as a "act of terrorism". Making this even less of an appropriate story to post here. --M asem  (t) 16:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If my memory of unprecedented developing crimes serves me faithfully (and I've seen dozens), our editors can't handle the information! Not just kidding, either. Ingenpedia is historically inaccurate (often prejudicially so) while investigations continue. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's lots of facets to this particular posting debate that have already been hashed out above, and in my view, the mysteriousness doesn't add to notability here. It's not an impactful mystery like missing people or backwards trials, it's "why did a bomb go off with nobody around", and the confusion over who and what and why in this case makes it less (not more) notable. We don't know what's happening, we don't know what the blurb really should be to be accurate. If the AT&T outages last any longer, because 911 is still down the last I heard, then we could consider posting that: "large parts of Tennessee and Kentucky are without cellular power or 911 access after bla bla bla" is an unusual and newsworthy blurb with widespread human impact. Kingsif (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now — Starting to look as though a solitary IT person, one Anthony Q. Warner, blew himself up. – Sca (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Metekel massacre

 * Oppose on quality way too many red links,plus a cn tag. Weak oppose otherwise, the death toll is pretty high, but the Tigray conflict is already in the ongoing section and if the massacre is part of the conflict,then I don't think a separate blurb is needed Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed: red links, cn . The sources mostly describe this as independent of the Tigray conflict. Geographically and politically, it's a zone of a separate region. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, weak support. I still think that the article is too short for a blurb,but hopefully it will expanded in the next few days Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, but the blurb needs to be changed. The massacre, with a death toll of around 100, is significantly more important than the army's response. Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on changing the blurb. I've proposed an Alternative blurb above. The federal army's response is significant. We (sources on en.Ingenpedia articles) have absolutely no information so far as to whether the 42 killings by the ENDF were necessary defence or extrajudicial executions (revenge). There are strongly opposing media narratives in the Ethiopian situation right now so including "both" sides is the most NPOV. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The much bigger massacre earlier did not go through mostly on the grounds of poor article quality and the main topic already being in ongoing. Seeing similar issues in here as well especially with the article as a barebones stub. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Metekel conflict & Metekel massacre are both very new articles which have neither been nominated before, nor been in ongoing. Are you thinking of the Tigray conflict & one of the massacres that's part of that? Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the Mai Kadra massacre that was nominated some time ago. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's part of the Tigray conflict & happened several weeks earlier in a different region of Ethiopia. The Tigray conflict being in ongoing isn't relevant to this nomination, because the Metekel conflict has never been in ongoing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's a large-scale massacre and the current version of Metekel massacre is sufficiently developed to encourage new editors to contribute. Warning: as attention to the article grows, it's very likely to be (temporarily) vandalised or POVed, based on the last few weeks' experience with Tigray conflict and Mai Kadra massacre. Several editors (mostly IPs, but not only), are absolutely sure that the perpetrators are X and the victims are Y (or vice versa) and anything that is nuanced and matches sources is false news written by naive editors. See this Ethiopian media analysis for a likely explanation. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose An encyclopedia article needs some degree of organization and flow. This reads like a twitter feed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really newsworthy, police clash with bandits all the time. The massacre itself is the part that’s newsworthy. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an argument against the original blurb, not against the posting of the article. An alternative blurb is listed. There's an empty spot for altblurb2. Boud (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the massacre that's the much more notable event. What should the alt blurb be? Jim Michael (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was already one alternative blurb, but since the reaction of the authorities is considered less important than the massacre itself, I've proposed ALT II above, which is While I think that the authorities killing 42 suspects is significant, we have no info on whether this was a minimal use of force or extrajudicial executions, or a mix of the two, and the broader context - an ongoing armed conflict in this zone - seems more relevant for the blurb. Boud (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: John Edrich

 * Weak oppose for now. As you said, the article needs a lot of referencing. It is a good contender though. Tuck (talk page) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Ivry Gitlis

 * Comment – FYI, Ger. Wiki RD: "Ivry Gitlis (98), israelisch-französischer Violinist († 24. Dezember)." Also listed in Fr. IN's Nécrologie section. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither of those Ingenpedia's bother with referencing, so hardly good examples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: John Cremona

 * Comment. Currently an undersourced stub. Are you planning to work on it? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

UK-EU trade deal

 * Oppose update insufficient and unreferenced. What exactly does the deal entail? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Documents such as this EU draft of 440 pages indicate that the details cover hundreds of pages, as one would expect. We can't expect to cover the fine print and the minutiae of ratification and implementation.  The key point that is all over the news now is that the deal has been agreed at last. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but we do reasonably expect some degree of high-level agreement points, stuff that I expect that the BBC and other good sources will have summarized in the next few hours. (this is similar to how we have summarizies of the key points of the massive spending bill in the US Congress in the press some hours after it was first published). We can wait for IN to be updated with that. --M asem (t) 16:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall asking for "fine print and minutiae", but when I looked at the article, it said (unreferenced) "a deal had been agreed", but gave no insight whatsoever as to the nature of the deal. Hardly encyclopedic, is it?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the news coverage and it seems clear that there will be over a thousand pages of dense legal text which will be gone through now by teams of lawyers, lobbyists and politicians. They will then give their various opinions and Laura Kuenssberg just said that "a tally of the wins and losses may take years to settle".  For example, while we've heard a lot about fish, it turns out that chips are big deal for some too.  Or is that really just small potatoes?  Anyway, the part which I enjoyed most was Larry's ferocious rush at a deal of his own! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose only that we should have details of what has been agreed to in the deal at this point in the article, as per the sources, this isn't the end stage and more negotiations are still to come on less critical matters, but this prevents pending severe issues that were to have occurred if no deal at all had been reached by 1 Jan. --M asem (t) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's best to wait until the specifics about the trade deal are released to the public so that the article can be properly updated. However, I think creating a separate article would be better Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * support the new article has been properly updated Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks like this isn't exactly final yet, let's wait till it is actually signed. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article may need a little more cooking, but I think the agreement is news today.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC).


 * I agree the news is notable right now, but with a single-sentence update which makes no real mention of the overall themes in the agreement, it's far from an encyclopedic update to post to the main page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it has actually been ratified and we know it will actually enter into force. Yakikaki (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Guys, if the last four years of news have taught us anything, it's that an agreement isn't final until it's final. No one has a damn clue what this deal means yet. Can we not wait until we at least get said clue? WaltCip- (talk)  22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I also find the proposed image highly unsuitable; the recent traffic jams are due to corona restrictions and have nothing to do with this article. Yakikaki (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true. There were massive queues before the borders were closed down as hauliers rushed to get jobs done before a potential no-deal Brexit scuppered things.  But the image is not appropriate because it conflates two separate stories.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, this is a huge deal in terms of scope and absolute numbers. I don't feel it appropriate to wait for formal ratification in this instance since it it expected to be put into operation on a provisional basis ahead of that. OTOH the text of the deal has not yet been released, all we have now are some headline summaries of some key issues. In the absence of actual details just yet I can't see how a true substantive update can be made, there are bound to be controversies that emerge once to text is in the public domain. 3142 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary versions of the deal are online here and here and these seem to be the main primary sources for press analysis and comment so far. As we're locked down, I may spend some time today looking through them but, right now, I'm going out for some exercise.  Brr... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article (by homebound Brits?). Coverage abundant, significance obvious. Alas, the fact that today is Christmas may retard editorial progress. Cheers! – Sca (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ninety-two footnotes, 4,200 words as of 22:30. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see why this isn't obviously ITN material. It's in the news, it was in the news before it happened and will be in the news for some time longer. Banedon (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the update comprises "On 24 December, the parties announced that a deal had been reached.[81]" and the article still says "This section summarises the sides' statements of their respective positions at the beginning of negotiations. It may be that these will change in a final agreement (if concluded)."  so supporting an article that is clearly inadequately updated is the reason why this obviously isn't ITN material at this time.   The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage continues – two current sources added above. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage and notability are not being questioned here. The paucity of the "update" is the issue.  The article hasn't even been properly updated for the passage of events and yet people are still supporting it?!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Compris. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, BBC has a quick summary points that would be an excellent way to start off a section to get it ready to be posted without having to read any of the actual trade deal itself or engage in OR of what's important. Took 2 minutes to find that when looking. --M asem (t) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's figgy-pudding-lag? – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Brexitapathy. I don't think most of us really care, it's a deal which won't suit a single person, so no-one can be arsed to actually even bother to update the article.  But there you go, it still gets support despite that.  Perhaps ITN is even more borked than we all think.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * P'r'aps we're all borking up the wrong tree here. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update Many news sources report that the full text has been published now but few of them provide a link. But I've chased that down and here's the relevant page at the European Commission.  I find that we have a page specifically for the agreement and editors have been busy updating that today.  I have accordingly updated the nomination, expanding the blurb to link to the agreement as the highlighted article. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kudos to who seem to be the main editors working on this currently.  Perhaps they can comment on what more there is to do and whether there are other important links. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It needs ratifying by the EU nations and the U.K Parliament, the EU are meeting to agree a provisional application so that it can come into force on 1st January which will happen in the EU Parliament on 31st December and the U.K parliament are meeting to vote on implementing the agreement on the 30 December.


 * Treaty Links
 * See the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
 * (Under external links)


 * The article has been updated to reflect the current status.


 * ChefBear01 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support — It's in the news, the article is of sufficient quality, and while it doesn't get any pageviews, that's because it's new and barely linked. However, the spike in pageviews of Brexit demonstrates reader interest. So, it fulfills ITN's purposes. Post it. Levivich harass/hound 04:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fulfil ITN's purpose of providing information readers will be looking for, i.e. it just says a deal has been done. Even the more specific article just highlights which topics were covered in the agreement, but fundamentally not how each of those topics were resolved and agreed upon which is precisely the information readers want to read.  That "a deal has been done" is all very well, but as an encyclopedia, we should be capable of summarising the key aspects of the deal (the EU managed to do that within a couple of hours of the agreement). In other words: no-one is looking to Ingenpedia to see if a deal has been done, we all know that.  We want to know what the deal means. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's great that an actual article was made for the agreement, however, currently the article only mentions areas covered by the agreement. I'm assuming that our readers will mostly be interested in the specifics. So a basic overview for each area would be a nice edition. But the document itself is 1200 pages!! Doesn't any news outlet actually talk about the specifics of the agreement so that editors can use them instead? Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you wish for. Once you get into the weeds of the detail, you find that there is indeed hundreds of pages of it.  I took a look at the fisheries detail, for example.  The press and politicians talk of a headline figure of 25% but that doesn't seem to appear in the document or its annexes.  Instead, you have a huge table of quotas by species and year.  So, for example, the quota for the Blue Shark goes 99.9% to the EU.  Why does the UK get only 0.1% and how was that figure arrived at?  It's not clear.  What about other sharks like the Great White Shark?  Are they included in the category "Deep-sea sharks" which goes 100% to the EU?  It's not clear.  What about whales?  It doesn't say.  What about scallops, which actually caused a minor war in 2012?  It doesn't say.  My impression is that it's mostly business as usual with a new fudge factor being added to the spreadsheet that is used by the bureaucrats that try to control the quotas.  That's the main take-home message – that there won't be a massive no-deal shock to the system on January 1 – just lots of fiddly adjustments. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the EU released a three-page summary of changes a few days ago, it was quite straight forward, however no-one can be bothered to update even the new article to reflect this. Frankly the article as it stands is not helpful at all as all we know is "a deal was done" and it covered "a lot of things" but we have absolutely no idea of the impact of the agreement on those "lots of things".  All we have is "Brexit deal was done" and that's not helpful to any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support now that I've updated the article with a summary of the agreement's actual contents. Proposed altblurb above.  Sandstein   14:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb – Looks reasonable. Still timely. – Sca (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Bachelder III

 * Comment. Folks, pardon the multiple notifications on this one. Can I request a pair of eyes on this one? The article has a very limited runway before it goes stale. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Checking again to see if someone might be interested in giving this article a look. Getting late here, but, can be around for a bit in case any edits are needed. Else, this is good to go imo. Ktin (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This article will fall out of this page in ~5 hours from now. Greatly appreciate your attention in posting this one to homepage / RD before it falls out. Ktin (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. All looks in order. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Martin. Ktin (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rebecca Luker

 * Support. Looks good to me; I just added a cn to one paragraph without citations, but none of it's controversial so I'm not too worried. Would be nice to have a bit more critical commentary on her performances, but that's not going to prevent me from supporting this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Awards, filmography, and discography still need sources. IMDb, Discogs, and Broadwayworld.com are considered unreliable. Joofjoof (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the awards section. Joofjoof (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing a lot of citation and maintenance tags that need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Leslie West

 * Comment. A lot of referencing is needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of info is uncited, including entire paras and most of the discography. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) South African COVID strain causing severe illness in young people has spread to Britain

 * Snow close on so many levels: (i) we already have COVID in the infobox, (ii) the evidence in anecdotal and (iii) its migration to the UK is not particularly important to the rest of the world. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it is actually somewhat notable, its duplicated. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kernowite

 * Strong support on notability, Strong oppose on quality. While this is a rare occurrence and normally would be ITN worthy, the article in question has 57 words and only two references. The article is a stub if I’ve ever seen one and honestly, I don’t see it getting up to scratch. The Image Editor (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure on the significance. I don't have any knowledge of mineralology but this November 2020 International Mineralogical Association list seems to show 43 new minerals discovered in 2020 and 110 in 2019? - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment struck, apparently not as rare as I thought. Have requested expert assistance at the relevant IN. Often a nomination leads to improvement in article quality. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minerals, unlike elements, are a dime a dozen (see Category:Minerals by element for example). Small variations in chemical make up and crystalline structure are sufficient for a "new" mineral, where as elements are very limited to what allowable organization of protons, neutrals and electrons can be sustained/stable for at least a few seconds. --M asem (t) 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Masem. We did not report the equally publicized discovery of Petrovite in Russia last month (1) and do not even have an article for it. It's worth noting that the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names approved 121 new minerals in 2015 alone. Literally the only ITN claim here would be based on the fact that British geology is better studied than most. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Basically an "and finally" article.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a cute story that would make a fun DYK if expansion to their minimum size were warranted by the sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose How many new minerals are discovered every year? a dozen? a hundred? CoronaOneLove (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sugathakumari

 * Weak oppose couple of unsourced sentences or paragraphs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook for this one? Happy to make any edits if still pending. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support everything is now sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced including numerous awards. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook? Happy to make any edits if still pending referencing. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. Please can you have a look when you have a moment. This article is ready to go to the homepage / RD imo. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I went in and filled the CN tags and removed the yellow boxes. If folks see any other missing ref / citation, let me know and I will have this covered later tonight. Trimmed the awards in the infobox. This is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Circling back on this one. I think this is good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not checked the sourcing but on a quick glance the tone needs work in places (esp. her death, the Abhaya material) and it's not been updated for tense throughout. The details on her notable relatives could do with pruning a bit. The awards in the infobox need pruning to the most important. Need to go offline now but will try to work on this later. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've hacked at some of this. The lead needs to discuss her writing (which I assume is her primary source of notability?) The awards still appear all over the place and need rationalising, with only the most notable in the lead and infobox. Dates for the works that don't have them would be useful. I've requested a source, but still not done any sources check. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , pardon the intrusion. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD. Please can you have a look and help assist. No reason why this article should wait to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the persistent intrusion. Edits have been completed for over 70 hours now (~ 3 days). Ktin (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)