Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

An Iberian lynx The Iberian lynx (pictured) is reclassified from endangered to vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. American baseball player Willie Mays dies at the age of 93. In basketball, the Boston Celtics defeat the Dallas Mavericks to win the NBA Finals. A fire in a residential building in Mangaf, south of Kuwait City, kills fifty people. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Mike Brumley Laurence Gluck James Kent Sara Facio Allan Saxe Paul Pressler Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed

Article: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed by US military forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Self-professed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and two of his wives kill themselves during a US raid in Idlib, Syria.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid in Idlib, Syria.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself and three of his children during a US raid in Idlib Governorate, Syria.
News source(s): Fox News and it is being widely reported. AP, BBC, AFP, Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is major news. Article appears to be in good shape and is being updated as info becomes available. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait According to most media sources (including the Fox News link, which says “believed to be” Baghdadi) his death is still awaiting final confirmation, and given that he has been incorrectly reported dead many times we should be extra cautious to make sure his death is reliably confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would definitely support upon confirmation; probably the world’s most wanted individual for the past several years. EternalNomad (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once confirmed - Aviartm (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment CNN is reporting he was killed when he detonated a suicide vest, so it should be described as a suicide. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once confirmed Although evidence is pointing out that he likely is deceased at this time. I agree with EternalNomad that caution should be taken. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support alt blurb 2 Nonstopmaximum (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support suicide scenario Rumour is he offed himself, so no "we got him" moment for Trump. Could be fake news, but Osama bin Laden wasn't exactly proven dead, either. Offered a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

He's assumed room temperature because the intelligence people found the murderous little SOB and the military went in. Whether he chose to go out like Hitler in the bunker or guns blazing is not material to my mind. President bone spurs had nothing to do with it either way. Same was true of Obama and bin-Laden. That said, if he did throw his own off switch that should be reflected and I would support the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler would have had no clue what to do with two wives. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

• We have contradicting blurbs here. Article, even-though detailed, contains sketchy narrations and an interesting timeline of the times he was reported to be dead/injured before. We should really be careful not rush in spreading this, notwithstanding the rushed reports of the "reliable sources" who are in competition to break the news first. Wikipedia should wait for the FACTS to emerge, after the hype dissipates. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb once confirmed per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added a simplified alt blurb. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wives not newsworthy. If posting before official confirmation, use blurb in passive voice: Man believed to be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed during a US raid in Idlib, Syria. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb 3 Trump confirmed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzn7lVBSq0g Added alt-blurb 3 on the basis of what Trump has announced 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – Independent confirmation would be best. Note, however, that Trump says unequivocally that he's dead. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Orange One is absolutely a trustworthy reliable source. WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say DT was independent – hence the however. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support suicide theory, just confirmed by the President of the United States. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if confirmed. NYT suggests death has not been officially confirmed yet. Once people are confident enough, it's a no-brainer for the main page. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the article is listing him as dead with heavy RS usage. Seems like he is very likely dead. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's been announced. I'm not sure what further proof we need. Calidum 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going against the flow here, I'm not sure he's worth a blurb. He wasn't Osama. RD anyone? – Sca (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't create new pages, but we should consider establishing a new article about his death. Just how we have one about Osama's death 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The Atlantic calls it an "end of an era", also even saying it is more notable than the death of Osama bin Laden because al-Baghdadi still had followers both as a head of "state" and a religious leader. US officials confirmed to death so good to go. --Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to note that he technically wasn't killed by the US forces as he detonated his suicide vest killing three of his children at that. This has been confirmed by the US government, so I strongly believe we should consider one of the blurbs that mention that it was suicide. Also, I am pretty sure that both suicide and child murder and forbidden in Islam so there's an argument to mention that he killed himself and his children if nothing else then to denounce this animal further. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with preference for alt blurb 2. The details about his death have now been officially confirmed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note to admins: if you're going to use either Alt-blurb 1 or 2 take note that he wasn't killed in the city of Idlib, but rather somewhere in the Idlib Governorate. Thank you. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ivan Milat

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That's a redirect to a section in an article about the murders he committed. He doesn't have his own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not at all sure why he doesn't have his own article, or why the article is called "Backpacker Murders". It's the result of a merger in 2008, after discussion on the talk page between 4 editors, all of whom seemed to have lived in the US. I guess that's maybe an indication of how the case was known there, but I think that in Australia, his name is better known than the term "Backpacker murders". The Guardian obit is titled "Ivan Milat, Australia's most notorious serial killer, dies aged 74" [2]. It also has another article "Ivan Milat's chilling serial backpacker murders still haunt Australia" [3]. The ABC has "Australian serial killer Ivan Milat dies in Long Bay prison, aged 74" [4] and "Secrets of the forest: Ivan Milat, Australia’s most notorious serial killer, is dead. How many more murders remain unsolved?" [5]. 39 of the 83 (ish) sources have the name Milat in the title. But I don't want to spend time on the article myself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen , I think the subject being the most notorious Astralian murderer deserves his own bio. (assuming there is enough material to write there). This should have been on ITN RD. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over half of the current article is about him, his trial and imprisonment, interviews about other disappearances, etc. There's plenty for an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per Muboshgu. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: V. Nanammal

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing. She was India's oldest living yoga teacher. DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Don Valentine

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dilip Parikh

Nominator's comments: Needs copyediting and grammar corrections Nizil (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article is adequate for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose: Political career is mostly a list of election results and positions held; any information available regarding what Parikh did in his role as a politician (new laws, political positions, projects, etc.)? Spencer^T•C 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  His short stint as Chief Minister was not much eventful because he was running a minority government. I could not find anything significant in references to add. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Brazil oil spill

Article: Northeast Brazil oil spill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Coastline of Northeast Brazil hit by mysterious oil spill. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mysterious oil spill hit entire Northeast Brazil coast.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A mysterious oil spill around the northeast coastline of Brazil reaches 200 localities in nine states, contaminating water, fisheries, and beauty spots.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A mysterious oil spill around the northeast coast of Brazil reaches 200 localities in nine states, contaminating water, fisheries, and beauty spots. Investigators believe it may have originated from Venezuela.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, CBS, The Washington Post, Reuters
Credits:

• Created and nominated by Chronus (talk · give credit)

 Chronus (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Recommend this nomination be as a regular item; Chronus, can you suggest a blurb for this? Best, Spencer^T•C 04:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer:  Done. Chronus (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and added alt 2 and 3. Article could use some improvement, but good enough for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article is light on specifics -- it's largely general information about the impact of any oil spill. Except for "confidentially" blaming Venezuela, there are only very general details like "30 tankers from ten different countries" and "As of October 23, contamination had reached more than 200 localities". The article leaves me, as a reader, asking "How much oil? Where? What damage? What's being done to clean it up?" The article lacks all of those crucial specifics. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oil was produced in Venezuela, that is a fact, but nobody knows how much oil (it just keeps coming) because nobody knows when or where or who caused the spill. It's a very mysterious spill. But it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) environmental disaster in Brazilian recent history.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the Amazon fires? But yeah, if they're certain it's from Venezuela, the only way to measure it is to ask Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @LaserLegs: This is a disaster that is still in progress. There is still no concrete information about the origin of the oil, nor about its quantity, much less about the environmental and human impacts, which take longer time to measure. Understand that the entire coast of the Brazilian Northeast has been reached, so there is not a single place to be mentioned in the text. What's being done to clean it up? Please read the fourth paragraph of the introductory text and you will have your answer. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kingsif: Amazon fires occur every year, but only received wide media coverage in 2019. About your question about Venezuela, see this and this. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Article is getting better, needs a copyedit. Everything is in the lead, the impact section is mostly fluff. Still missing crucial details on observed impact so far.--LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try I've sectioned it off and written a standard lead. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sturm (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uluru climbing ban

Nominator's comments: Very interesting piece of news; a ban on one of the most sacred and iconic landmarks in the world is certain to impact tourism at least in the country. EternalNomad (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality alone. The item has been global news for a day or so, but the article really needs substantial work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM. As far as I can tell, there's only actually a line on the actual climbing ban? PotentPotables (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both on quality and importance. Governments issue bans everyday. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per previous. Of interest to a specialized audience. Sca (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance. This is not any old ban, but has received much publicity worldwide, probably at least partly because many readers are likely to see it as implicitly significant in many different areas, such as 'God/Religion v Mammon', colonizers v colonized, alleged 'science/rationality' v alleged 'superstition', tourist rights v native rights, ancient v modern, conservation v jobs, politically correct v politically incorrect, and so on, and is quite likely to have knock-on effects elsewhere in the world as a result, even if these arguments are not necessarily spelled out explicitly in Reliable Sources and in our article (and perhaps rightly so, to avoid becoming UNDUE, etc). As for article quality, I don't normally regard myself as qualified to judge whether our quality standards are being met, but a superficial look at the article suggests, at least to me, that there is an orange flag that would need fixing, but assuming that gets fixed, I think the article currently seemingly gives a brief but reasonable and arguably adequate summary of the history of the disputes over native ownership and climbing rights, thus providing our readers with the background to this story, which at least arguably fulfils the first stated purpose of ITN articles ("To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."). But as already mentioned, I am not the best person to judge such quality issues. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Maria Butina

WP:NAC: this nomination has snow chance of being posted, with unanimous opposition. Release at the end of a sentence clearly won't gain consensus. Modest Genius ^talk 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Maria Butina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Maria Butina (pictured), Russian citizen convicted of crimes relating to the 2016 United States presidential election, is released from prison and is expected to be immediately deported to Moscow (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Maria Butina (pictured), Russian citizen convicted of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent and interfere with the 2016 United States presidential election, is released from prison and is expected to be immediately deported to Moscow
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Waddie96 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not updated and really not that noteworthy. She was sentenced to a crime, served her time and is now being released and deported. I'm not sure why this is of interest. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM, and from waves of possible NPOV violation later in the article. The intention and phrasing of this nom ('Russian citizen convicted of crimes in US') also seems to be trying to imply that convicting her was wrong, more POV (the article is not that bad, and is otherwise well-written). Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM as well, even then I don't think this is something significant enough to be covered in ITN. GreatZerosReef (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The conviction/sentencing was the ITN story, not her release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) 2019 Bolivian general election results

Articles: 2019 Bolivian general election (talk · history · tag) and Evo Morales (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, after days of violent protests and claims of electoral fraud over delayed results. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, after days of violent protests.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Amidst days of violent protests and claims of electoral fraud, incumbent Bolivian president Evo Morales is re-elected to office.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, though his party loses their majority in the Chamber.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Now the result has been officially announced, a general election blurb nom (see protests one below - they can be combined). Kingsif (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITNR election nomination with a succinct article, with prose for all suitable sections. Also incorporates the Bolivian protests (which for some reason have not yet been posted). Accessible.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also added a shortened altblurb130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ugh, should we really post this? I mean, this was clearly a fake election. We dont post election news in North Korea or China or Russia and being mentiioned on the main page of the 4th post popular website in the world would give this dictator more legitimacy when we should --5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is firmly in favor of posting the results of sham elections. We do have a history of contextualizing with "reactions," which we don't do for legit elections. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support/Comment what if we combine this nom with the Bolivian Protests nom and make both the election and protests the target articles? I added alt2 to reflect this. Make sense, or too much in one nom? ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's also the potential to include that his party lost their majority in the chamber; that would then definitely be too many things in one blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt2. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the results table appears to be incomplete. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: which part? looks complete to me. Percentage points are only given for valid votes, if that's it. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The distribution of seats? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just hit refresh, yeah. The other tabs of the vote results source gave the seat count, but these now appear blank. So... that's a problem. Separately, I might adjust the percentages to include invalid ballots. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be good now, found a Bolivian newspaper that reported on the TREP results on 21 Oct. - Chamber results complete, Senate reported at 83% counted. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 3. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted combined with protests nom below. Spencer^T•C 04:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Quantum supremacy

(Closed) WPV3 eradicated

(Posted) RD: Xie Gaohua

 Zanhe (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article clearly explains the subject's role as a politician, and is complete and well-referenced. Marking "ready". Spencer^T•C 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James W. Montgomery

Nominator's comments: 9th Episcopal Bishop of Chicago Teemu08 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article looks just good enough ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support not a hugely comprehensive article, but what's there is adequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks OK for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Bolivian protests

Article: 2019 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Violent protests (pictured) erupt across Bolivia in response to accusations of electoral fraud in the recent general election. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Bolivian elections reported as fraudulent (Monday), two years after president claims human rights violations to change the law and allow himself to run again. Mysteriously missing results and protestors decapitating a statue of Hugo Chávez to leave outside a politician's door (Tuesday). President calls it a coup, OAS says to redo but doesn't expect he will (Wednesday). Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Suggest blurb nomination; could you provide a possible blurb for the protests? Spencer^T•C 00:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed nom from ongoing to blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is in good shape. Event is very signficant.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two CN's need addressing before posting, but they should not be too difficult. Otherwise, would support. Very interesting that this country had a popular referendum overturned by a supranational convention almost two years ago, and now they're suffering political instability and protests. This is becoming a trend!130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no comment on the dictatorship vs. success rates of pseudo-socialist economic malpractice regimes in South America (all joking - and thanks for tag fixes) Kingsif (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, Support130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above, but as we haven't posted anything about the election, perhaps the blurb could go into more detail about it. Davey2116 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be hard to do, concisely and objectively. The immediate and stated cause of this is electoral irregularities of the most recent election (which is hard to take seriously, seeing that pre-election and exit polling are all in general agreement with the official results). More likely, the near-half of the country that voted for someone other than the winner, are upset that the winner is now taking on a fourth consecutive term in a country whose constitution explicitly bans any more than two consecutive terms, but this is still allowed because someone 50 years ago signed a treaty. The article gets this point across in, I think, an even-handed way, but I can't come up with a blurb that does as well. Best to just point to the article and let readers find out for themselves.130.233.2.47 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As said, but in short format, it's going to be hard to give a blurb about an election when it might not be over? Harder to make it objective. Kingsif (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major unrest. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted combined with election nomination above. Spencer^T•C 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Grays incident

Nominator's comments: International mass murder/organised crime investigation & Brexit implications. (There was an AfD closed as Speedy Keep). Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I do not know it this gets attention world wide because it happens in England. But it is for sure all over the world media and the article seems ready for posting. sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mass killing, apparently of illegal immigrants, by an international organised crime group. Of significant historical notability to the world, not just Europe. Similar to the 2000 Dover incident. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - worldwide notability indeed, and well built article. Sad we have to post it ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above supports. Seems well-sourced at first read. I notice a discussion on the Talk page regarding proposed alternate article titles. Jusdafax (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – It's widely published all right, but something about it makes me nervous. For one thing, the Guardian and the BBC say the driver/suspect is named Mo Robinson, but both are quite dodgy about it. Guardian: "believed to be Mo Robinson," BBC: "named locally as Mo Robinson." Neither statement is in the nominated article; if this were an official identification it would be there. Instead, we say he was a 25-year-old from such-and-such. I don't like it. Further, we know nothing about the victims or where they were from. Also, the 'Reactions' section conveys no real information. Suggest we wait for more details. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Name not included per BLP concerns. There is so little information on suspects that connecting only one man, who may just be an unlucky driver, to 39 murders, obviously not happening. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment – Sources re China: AP, Guardian, BBC. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Commenet For info, there's a discusion on the talkpage regarding the current page title. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Japan Series

Article: 2019 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Yomiuri Giants to win the Japan Series (MVP Yurisbel Gracial pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Torsodog (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is what an article on a recurring event should look like. Includes prose, pictures, and appropriate updates.--WaltCip (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WaltCip.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support almost as good as some of those bloody Boat Race articles... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man, damn those races and their high quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree the article is good. Some prose on the reaction or aftermath would be nice, but it's fine to post as it is. Modest Genius ^talk 15:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone else. A refreshing ITN/R article! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Let the boat race klaxons sound in support of the winners! Well sourced, plenty of prose between the tables, and a couple pictures. Rockphed (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 16:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WeWork CEO Severance

Nominator's comments: Absolutely gobstopping malfeasance, even by the standards of our latter day tech bubble/guilded age, that has dominated financial press for days. Decent articles. I can't find recent data, but as of 2012, the largest severance package for a CEO was $417 million, for Jack Welch of GE, in 2001. 130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose really nice piece of trivia well suited to other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not rise to the level of importance needed for ITN material despite all the hype. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Zeng Rongsheng

 Zanhe (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 03:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rolando Panerai

Nominator's comments: One of the best-known Italian baritones, partner of Mria Callas, long career, many recordings, active as director until last year. I did what I could about an article with no references. - Sad job. --–

• Support - Good job sourcing everything! -Zanhe (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hans Zender

Nominator's comments: German composer better known as a conductor. Stephen Climax, where more sources could be found. Sad. I once talked to him. Mostly out today. Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article looks good, but spot check of refs has some problems. I'm having trouble getting ref. 7 from archive and the original is apparently gone.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, that's ref. 8, Rheingau music fest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, replaced by a concert review from one of the concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) ... and found one for the other as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, then.130.233.2.47 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chris (sheep)

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, and seems to fully cover the subject, despite its short length Spokoyni (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni, need to apply {{convert}} to a lot of those measurements, because we Americans are not converting to the metric system. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you won't, you won't. I've added conversion templates, I don't know what '30 jumpers' converts to in sweaters, and nor does the template, so I think you'll have to live with that. Spokoyni (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ok. P-K3 23:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good, well referenced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marieke Vervoort

Nominator's comments: Needs expanding a bit. I'm nominating to draw attention to this article in case anyone has the inclination to improve it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose what's there is mostly okay, but it's hard to believe this is all we have to say about her. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the article is on the brink of being a stub. Many parts of it are vague or brief (eg. "Marieke Vervoort was a Belgian Paralympic athlete and Paralympic champion who suffered from an incurable muscle disease." What disease? That's the whole summary) but if extra work can be done on this article I'd support it, especially because of the way she died. Rockin 12:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks good now, thanks @RebeccaGreen:! Rockin 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - just barely, but it seems sufficient for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rockin. The article is basically a stub and is lacking in details. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support The article is still short but is much more satisfactory on information now. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'll try to update and add to it - there are several good obituaries to use as sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others, sadly it's basically a stub ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Great work in little time! Thanks ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started adding to the article, from obituaries and from articles in the Dutch, French and German Wikipedias, which all have more information about her and the early part of her career. None, I think, name the disease, so it should not be a problem that the English Wikipedia article doesn't name it either. I will continue working on this tomorrow, including finding and adding more sources for the information. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @The Rambling Man, RockinJack18, Nonstopmaximum, and Mike gigs: please have a look now. Does it need more work? I realise that there is no medal record in the info box. (I have added a medal record in the info box.) There is more info available in the other Wikipedia articles still, which I will check again in case there are more essential events and achievements, but this now has a summary of her major sporting achievements from 2012-2016, as well as more details of her illness, honours, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better, could still use some expansion but is good enough for RD now. I've changed my vote. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good article, sad tale.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the article looks to be in sufficiently good shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Leppard

Nominator's comments: Per the discusion on my talk, I nominate before I did the slightest thing. Planning to work on it, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose about half is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I said I didn't update, no? But I did now, please look again. His school is not referenced, nor his concertmaster of 14 years. I like such details, even if I can't find a ref. Drop them when they break the rules ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sufficiently referenced now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Following the addition of more references ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Emperor Naruhito enthroned

Northern Ireland direct rule

Nominator's comments: News coverage is a bit confusing: Although abortion services won't open in NI until 2020, it was decriminalized in NI as of midnight last night meaning women can access English services without paying and without committing a crime. Similarly, same-sex marriage won't be available until early next year when Northern Ireland's pension laws etc get updated, but the law mandating it has already come into effect. Smurrayinchester 08:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose certainly newsworthy but all three target articles suffering in their own ways from lack of quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Whilst this is good news, we've stopped posting the legalisation of same-sex marriage in even large & populous sovereign countries. NI is a small non-sovereign region with 3% of the UK population. Modest Genius ^talk 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The blurb is unenlightening, and visiting the bold link did nothing to clarify the issue. What's going on here? An Act has been proposed, and did not pass, and this leads to new laws being made re: LBGT and abortion? And according to the article this has something to do with Brexit and a renewable energy scandal? The lede states that this places the burden of legalizing these things onto the British (London) government in 2020; where and how does this new government/laws come into effect, then? If this is a routine change in government, I would support it on ITNR. If this is about legalizing sex and abortion, I would need more information before !voting. If this is about Brexit and/or some other scandal, the update should go to those respective articles and re-nominated. In any case, some clarification is needed before posting.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - both article and blurb issues that needs to be completed before posting. Not opposing posting when completed, ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but we have long since passed the point where we need to be posting each legalization of SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize it drop me a line. Otherwise, this is just more of the same. At some point we need to stop posting these events, and IMHO that point was a couple of years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agree with the opposes above on same sex marriage but am I the only one who finds the abortion part surprising enough to post, considering that GB legalised abortion half a century ago. I can't help but think that Northern Ireland just now legalising abortion is notable enough to deserve some thought. WP:LOGGEDOUT. 69.140.120.9 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I agree, the abortion aspect is by far more significant than the same-sex marriage issue which appears to have fixated most commentators here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the abortion part affects more people, but my opinion is the same: this law affects a non-sovereign region with a population of less than two million. We would not post the legalisation of abortion in just, say, Multan. Modest Genius ^talk 18:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ad Orientem. Legalization of SSM among countries around the world is steadily increasing. The abortion part is also rather unnoteworthy here on similar merit. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability; an interesting, newsworthy story which is being covered here in the U.S. as well. However, the issues with the articles still have not been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bengt Feldreich

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Thomas D'Alesandro III

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is all sourced, looks ready to go PotentPotables (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks well sourced ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Brother of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eric Cooper

Nominator's comments: Active Major League Baseball umpire (worked the playoffs just a couple of weeks ago), died unexpectedly at 52. Article is cited and has been updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks short but decent. Do we know anything about his early life? Just curious.Please add a source here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted (though details about early life would be nice) Kees08 (Talk) 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Post Posting Support Article looks good enough, but I am concerned about how quickly this was posted with little chance of reaching a true consensus. One support is not enough, even for a RD ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  mike gigs, precedent has established that an experienced nominator and an experienced admin together constitute consensus for recent death nomination. An RD nom doesn't even need a single support. If an admin is confident the article quality is good enough, they can post. I haven't seen an RD being pulled from ITN for at least the past year and half. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  mike gigs does have a valid point; this article is definitely on the brief side and I welcome Kees08 to joining ITN as the most recently promoted admin (and thus "experienced admin" may be pushing it, no offense intended), but unless the article is of more solid quality, I do prefer to wait for more improvement/expansion (and I would have preferred to wait longer for this particular nomination). Just my 2 cents. Spencer^T•C 03:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You can pull it if you like, will not bother me at all. Though including the nominator and myself, there are four supports. I took a look for more sources and did not see anything interesting to add, though that does not mean it doesn't exist! Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you did anything wrong - quick turnarounds on RDs are to be encouraged, not discouraged.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Canadian federal election

Article: 2019 Canadian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ ​In the Canadian federal election, the ruling Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), loses its majority but wins the most seats in the House of Commons. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, AP, BBC, AFP, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by 99.244.174.197 (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Pre-emptive nomination. Listed in WP:ITN/R. Results will be close so pre-emptively providing blurbs for the two front-running parties gripped in a tie in opinion polls. Blurbs and pictures can be updated as the results become more clear into the evening. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I'm not sure the pre-emptive nomination was necessary. You're right - it's on ITN/R, and so there's no question this will be posted. However, we must avoid posting in haste - we will only put a blurb up when it is clear whether it's a majority/minority parliament, and who has won the majority or won the most seats. As you say, if it's really close, that may take some time to work out. We will only post when we are 100% sure. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unable to vote until we have a completed article with properly cited final prose synopses of the completed election. Unless and until we have that, we cannot assess quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STSC General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. If you disagree with general elections being on the list, you are free to propose its removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Too soon. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the time this is posted the election will be decided so I don’t see that as an issue.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Important international event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when the results are added to the article. The networks have called a minority government for Trudeau. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but the Liberal Party isn't "them". (The) Liberals are. The party lost its majority, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

  Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

• Support upon condition - Prose required in results section. Otherwise article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until we have a prose summary of results. We have held up many other elections for that reason. We need to be consistent. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the results are basically tallied and final. For the same reason, a couple of people who opposed above would presumably withdraw that opposition now. Alsadius (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although there are a few seats still to resolve, the outcome is clear (Liberals largest party but without a majority). The article looks fine to me, admittedly on only a quick look. Modest Genius ^talk 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Results give Trudeau two more years. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Minority governments tend to last about that long, but not as a rule, and the leaders can stick around for another shot at a majority afterward. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs, we still need some prose on the results. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article is extremely wordy, and in my opinion gets far too granular. Except, for the one section that actually matters: Results. I'm not certain that intraparty events going back to 2015 are really necessary, nor is a whole paragraph about one institution's "promises kept" publication. But at the very least, flesh out Results.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Reading through the article, you'd think that the election hasn't finished yet, even though it has. Agreed with above that results prose is needed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The background is well developed, but the results section, which is the only current event worth posting, has not yet been updated with an adequate amount of well-referenced prose. --Jayron32 15:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WaltCip and the IP above him. This article seems to be more about the results of the 2015 election than the current election. Rockphed (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBDs?! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article has now been updated so no more TBDs but I would like to see some prose in the results section before supporting.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I will try again, with dead-neutral prose, but the odds are good that I will be reverted again. This was a very polarized (issues and regional) election, with no end to that in sight. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Results prose completed -- what do you think? I really hope this will suffice for posting. I know editing / article division is very necessary in the rest of the article, but I am hesitant to tackle it just now, since I really don't think I will get very far with any substantial changes until emotions calm down. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nick Tosches

Nominator's comments: Bilbiography/discography/etc. is an issue. Spengouli (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per nom, spot on. The majority of the article is just fine, but the 'ography sections need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on the 'ography sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – "I've gone more than 40 years without having to use an alarm clock or go to an office. At this point, I don't think I'd be capable of it. I don't think I could deprive myself of that sky. It would be like putting an animal in a cage."[11] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice work C&C! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I seem to recall that bibliography, discography, and film and television appearances do not require inline citations. Wanted to verify that is accurate before I posted it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kees08: we require some form of referencing (ISBN/OCLC or citation) on all claims on BLPs. I realized I missed a few things before. Everything should be good to post now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, glad I waited to post it :). Good work on the updates! Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: