Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2022

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Ron Galella

 * Support Article looks fine, well cited, and generally no issues. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lyubov Panchenko

 * Oppose Article is in a horrible state, hold off on posting until the major grammatical issues are fixed and more sources are added. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support I have fixed up the formatting and grammatical issues with the article, as well as some sourcing. Will need another editor's opinion on it, however. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article looks acceptable but could be improved even further. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough to me. Tradedia talk 05:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Quite short but fine. Yakikaki (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: [1] Things mentioned in the intro are often expected to be explained in more details in the main body of an article. Yet, things such as her 2001 award were only mentioned in the intro but not in the rest of the article. Please re-organize and/or expand the materials. [2] (a minor technical issue that should not impact on RD nom, but may interest some admins) The earliest edits in the edit history do not seem to belong to this article. Likely errors from previous page-moves. --PFHLai (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved the 2001 award out of the intro and into the main body. If someone can add some info on that and explain what that award was meant for, it would be great. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naomi Judd

 * Support I’ve added references and I don’t think there’s anything left unsourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 19:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is too short for me to believe that it's complete. For one, the CBS obit gives her cause of death as suicide, but the article only mentions that she had suicidality. I'm also seeing here about a memoir published in 2016 not mentioned by our article. What else is left out? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Only as a comment that I see mention in other articles that her death involved a problem with her mental health and I can see why some may want to steer calling the death a suicide in that fashion. --M asem (t) 12:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is indeed short but should be posted. Jusdafax (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is short and could go into further detail about her career/impact but it's good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Not the strongest article, but it's better than when I looked at it two days ago and it's good enough for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mino Raiola

 * I suggest blurb. First, because he was No 1. football agent in charge of many football transfer sagas (including ongoing ones), "the most recognisable football agent in the world"  top in his field. Guardian's front page says "Leading football agent". Second, because his death was first reported by number of Italian newspapers, then such high-profile publications as marca.com and Eurosport. Then the news was countered, and reports started to emerge that he is alive, with his Twitter account being active and issuing a post. Today it emerged that he died. So this is the case of death being the story - unusual circumstances surrounding it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Our article gives nowhere close to the type of recognition that is needed for a blurb. Being the most famous at something is not a reason for posting a blurb. What transformative aspects did he bring to the field? --M asem (t) 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if he was somehow transformative in the world of sports agents, I wouldn't blurb him, regardless of death circumstances. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He changed the game in football, becoming "the most powerful individual in the game" - the title of Forbes article "How Erling Haaland’s Super-Agent Mino Raiola Became More Powerful Than Most Clubs" speaks for itself. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't use headlines and we also do not use Forbes contributor pieces as they are considered unreliable. --M asem (t) 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are lots of newspapers decscribing him as superagent, or world's biggest agent. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't die in any sort of notable/newsworthy way (which imo is a requirement for a blurb, if the person isn't at the Queen Elizabeth level of notability), and merely being a soccer bigwig is clearly not that. WP:ITNRD states that In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. 4iamking (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He did die in unusual way: after reports about his death emerged it was denied on his twiiter, with him being angry, only to die two days later. Most major newspapers reported that . Isn't it unusual and blurbworthy? Also, being the agent of Paul Pogba and Haaland, his death affects two upcoming transfer sagas Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's more an issue with conflicting reporting I'd say. Dying from longstanding medical issues in your mid 50's isn't exactly that unusual or newsworthy of a way to go. He also isn't major household name, so in my opinion thats a negative on both of the possible criteria that would qualify for a death blurb. 4iamking (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The first paragraph of his career is unsourced, and there are some other slight issues in that section (e.g. "He resided in Monaco." being unsourced and randomly-placed). -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose He was good at extracting more money for himself and his clients. No discernible contributions to new business techniques or models, unless we include being good at manipulation being a "field" of "endeavour/achievement". Also, pretty sure they was a rejection for Bernie Madoff being posted a blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a common knowledge that he and his like changed a game to considerable extent (the most popular game on the planet). If not for pandemic, the transfers 150-200 mil would have been common now. He was textbook example of football agent that was criticised by those in game . Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "The super-agent died on Saturday aged 54, leaving an unforgettable legacy on football’s transfer market...Gamechanger. There is no better way to describe Mino Raiola and his impact on the transfer market". - from The Guardian piece on him . I don't know, these seem strong words. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb flatly. There's a standard we have on ITN/RD and he does not meet it. I'm not even sure we would have blurbed George Steinbrenner.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: How's article quality? Is this wikibio ready for use on MainPage? Enough talk on blurbiness. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article quality is completely fine, otherwise we would have had tons of opposes on article quality. It’s why everyone is only discussing whether he is notable enough for a blurb.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Georgia Benkart

 * Multiple unreferenced paragraphs. Stephen 23:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Have asked for some assistance in remedying. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added many references. Mvitulli (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The paragraph on her serving on various editorial boards could use more REFs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph DeLoach

 * Support American football player, swooped in at the nick of time to help the Jets destroy the Colts in the winter of '81 before riding off into the sunset forever, multiple independent sources verify this and more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good enough for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Kabul mosque bombing

 * Comment Where is terrorism listed on ITN/R? Canadianerk (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, mistakenly added the "/R" Mooonswimmer 15:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Canadianerk (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment No ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough. However, sources disagree in regard to the death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Fairly high toll – 50+ – but needs more sources. And BTW, Reuters & Guardian agree on 50+. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb contains incorrect content, at least ten people died and the statement that the death toll was 50 is yet to be confirmed. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dunutubble. The 50+ deaths are yet to be confirmed and the Afghani interior ministry said that there have been 10 deaths. As of now, there's varying claims on the amount of deaths. We'll just have to wait for a confirmed number.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 22:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't for natural disasters. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added alt-blurbs (also not sure why Sunni is listed out specifically), though the article is still barely a more than a stub. Gotitbro (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that, too, but just shut up, clicked it and improved something. Still far from perfect, of course, but what isn't? If posted, I Prefer Omitting Ramadan. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jihadists disproportionately target Shia mosques, so it's relevant that this one isn't. I don't think the blurb should mention Ramadan, because it's not relevant enough. Jim Michael (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. To me, it seems the term "jihadist" was just disproportionately used against Sunni insurgents in the Western press during the American occupations, for reasons far too numerous to get into here. But now that the Taliban is back in charge, the post-9/11 rules have changed, and the article has nothing on any suspects, perpetrators or victims, much less their associations, histories or motives. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Guardian still running their 4/29 story. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose DISASTERSTUB --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Except for Guardian story mentioned above, RS coverage is virtually nonexistent. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another bomb in Afghanistan... Tradedia talk 05:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve McMillan

 * Support no major issues. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Quency Williams

 * Support Article is fine. Well sourced and meets minimum RD standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neal Adams

 * Support: Looks good in terms of sourcing. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Doc Strange. Also, although I'm not necessarily advocating for one, Neal Adams is probably one of the handful of truly transformative figures in the history of the comic book medium who might at least warrant a blurb discussion. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ehhhh, he's definitely edge case for a blurb. We 100% blurbed Stan Lee as his influence was clear. Adams has a definitely influence, but its far more subtle and really only known to those deep into comics (eg refining Batman towards a darker theme than the camp of the 60s for example). There are definitely comic people that are getting up there in years that are more likely blurb targets than Adams. --M asem (t) 13:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In agreement with on this one.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above Support !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are missing for a handful of his awards. He directed and starred in a movie? That needs to be sourced, too. (Or removed.) Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a reference for the film, that part's sourced now. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All these awards should be sourced now too. It was a little tricky to find a source for the Goethe Awards especially, but I think we should be good when it comes to sourcing in the article now. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister in Montenegro

 * Comment I will hopefully continue expanding his article tomorrow. There is still a lot to add and clean up. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither a general election nor an executive position, so not ITN/R. Not a particularly big story. Bio's not ready and the other two articles are mostly uncited. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an executive position? From what I am seeing the prime minister is as significant as the president here. Gotitbro (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the part of President of Montenegro that says he decides who can run for prime minister? That's a clear step above, from where I'm sitting, no "mostly ceremonial" head of state here. Also, in December 2010, we set precedent for not including the new PM in a story about the old one resigning, specifically because he wasn't the president. It was a long time ago, but I see us overruling that stance in the archives. Anyway, what is political significance if not debatable? To me, the president has more global power. To a domestic Montenegrin, the parliamentary leader might seem like head honcho. You think they're equals, and I respect that opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As Prime Minister of Montenegro and President of the Parliament of Montenegro both omit anything about duties, privileges or functions, I'm not even sure who even really heads the government. But it says the president of parliament takes over commanding the military, proclaiming laws and representing the country inside and out if the main president leaves early, suggesting she outranks the PM. The new one doesn't have an article, though, so maybe insignificant to English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is similar in the Czech Republic: the president of the Czech Republic selects the prime minister and he/she then proposes ministers to the president, who formally nominates them. The new government then goes before the Chamber of Deputies to pass (or not) a vote of confidence. If the president dies, his duties are exercised by the president of the Chamber of Deputies (or of the Senate, if there is no Chamber of Deputies) and the prime minister (all powers he/she shares with the president - eg. abolition/amnesty). Although the president has some strong reserve powers (partial veto over legislation, nomination of judges, naming of the board of directors of the central bank etc.), nobody disputes it is the prime minister who really rules the country. Pavlor (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the prime minister rule the country through any explicable means, such as some comparably strong reserve powers? If not, consider me the first to dispute the reality of his rule. I'm not the first to dispute the ITN/R applicability, though, that honour seemingly goes to in 2010, . InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please refer to In the news/Recurring items, go to Elections and heads of state and government; ”Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.” And per ITNR procedure, List of current heads of state and government, heads the prime minister as green and the executive which makes it ITNR. It is also important to note Montenegro is a parliamentery republic. There is nothing to dispute here. BastianMAT (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By my reading, the constitution lets the president administer the executive of the state and his office should be highlighted in green. But you're right, the list says otherwise and it's the boss in this system. I stand by my objection to the article quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know much about Montenegrin politics, but assuming what Pavlor says is correct, it's a similar situation to the recent Shehbaz Sharif blurb. The Kip (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This gives me deja vu of the Shehbaz Sharif blurb (Prime minister ousted in a no-confidence vote and a new one voted by parliament). There are very few references in Dritan Abazović but once the article quality is improved, I will support this.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 07:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and has no tags. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per Pavlor. Also Im not particularly fond with supposed-consensus that less-powerful or supposedly-ceremonial head of state are excluded from ITN. Even when they are less powerful or largely ceremonial, they will have impact on that country's politics regardless and I am in favour of posting all changes of PM or President or monarch of any country even if they are largely deemed ceremonial. Nyanardsan (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ceremonial heads are that only and posting those routine changes on ITN won't be of any significance. Though monarchs (long serving or otherwise influential) might merit blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article seems ready. It's ITNR because Prime Minister is the person who holds and exercises the executive powers of the State. In fact, Article 102 of the Montenegrin Constitution attributes to him the task of "manage" the work of the government. There is no debate. The president relates to the executive branch by appointing its members. But this happens in monarchies (Spain, Japan, etc) and in parliamentary republics (Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal and half of the planet, tbh). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good and this is an ITN event. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Montenegro may be a small country, but it's big enough to push Elon outta of the box – for now at least. – Sca (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Why is it OK for the main page to feature two virtually unsourced articles on obscure government subjects, but not allow famous recently dead if even one line, no matter how uncontroversially plausible, is missing a footnote? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where's problem, please, InedibleHulk? Wikipages linked in boldface are vetted here on ITN/c and must be properly sourced. Not every linked wikipages are "featured", though. --PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Abazovic's article appears fine to me, for the main page, neither am I seeing any unsourced sections therein. And from what I can see the opposition for death blurbs mostly stems from the introduction of "Recent deaths" in ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Prime Minister of Montenegro and Parliament of Montenegro. They have three citations between them. Apparently, that's OK because they aren't bolded or pictured. But for similarly styled titles, linked lower and without full sentences and bullets drawing attention to them, we have standards. It's not right, even if it's tolerated by most. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is not really okay, but more like "beyond our scope". In most cases, we focus on one or sometimes two wikipages at a time. It would be great if every linked wikipage can be fixed up before the blurb appears on MainPage. However, getting one article up to snuff often requires quite a bit of effort already. Do we want blurbs with only one link to feature only one wikipage? Perhaps such an approach can be discussed on WT:ITN, not here on ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mino Raiola

 * Comment - death is being denied.    OZOO (t) (c) 12:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. O Globo, despite saying earlier that he had died, is now saying he's in serious condition.   Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Depp v. Heard

 * Strongest oppose irrelevant celebrity gossip. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gossip, wiki is not a tabloid magazine. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would only think worthy of inclusion if some major ruling occurred.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Diego

 * Support Article looks good, maybe needs a few touchups. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be better if some more content about his professional career could be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs expansion in terms of his career. Support Great work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. - Cheers, KoolKidz112   (hit me up)  21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article improved. Seems enough for me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth Tsang

 * Oppose Filmography and Career sections need additional citations. Please fix them. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judy Henske

 * Questions: [1] Can someone look at the pic in the infobox, please? Not sure if the license is legit. Wondering if this pic should be removed from the wikibio before a link to this wikibio gets onto ITN-RD. [2] The lone source in the Discography section is a fan site. Not sure it's considered RS. Is there a better source, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the discography, I've now added a second source - Allmusic - which in this case is almost completely accurate as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, Ghmyrtle. I'm not sure if this is considered RS; if it's good, it may be a useful source to beef up this wikibio. This wikibio is long enough (800+ words), and there are no concerns regarding its formatting and the deployment of footnotes. IMO, this is READY for RD -- I find the photo in the infobox iffy, but I'll let the posting admin handle that. --PFHLai (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but didn't feel it added much and is written in a very bizarre style, as though by a bot. I ignored it.   I will personally be offline for the next few days, so any progress needs to be led by someone else.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready enough. Meets standards, I guess. Contra  distinguish  ing  00:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Attention, please. I think this wikibio is ready for RD, except that the license for the pic in the infobox seems iffy to me. The pic was likely taken in the 1960s. Maybe another license is needed. Maybe the pic should be removed before the a link to this wikibio is added to MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted without the photo (which is now under licence review at WCommons). --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam

 * Support Article is in good shape. Would even be willing to consider a blurb, given the details of the death (controversially executed) rather than merely having died of natural causes.  -- Jayron 32 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Jayron. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait until the execution of Datchinamurthy Kataiah on Friday, and blurb them together. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Kataiah was given a stay on execution. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb Man breaks laws and gets punished because of it. Yawn. This man's death nor the circumstances surrounding it were 1) leading or 2) transformative. Kane Tanaka was blurbed because the circumstances surrounding her death (dying at 119) were transformative (in the case of genealogy). Does meet standards for RD though. (Also, ITN is not the place to make anything right, which the blurb appears to try and do.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 15:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither "leading" not "transformative" are exclusive criteria for having a blurb in the ITN section. I looked at all documentation, and neither seems to be a requirement.  -- Jayron 32 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given our approach for RDs, these should been seen as minimum thresholds for blurb usage. Death blurbs should be exceptional when RDs are commonplace now as other we keep fighting on bias on these blurbs --M asem (t) 22:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a blurb is not an award we give for being Famous Enough. A blurb is a means to provide information and nothing else.  It's not an endorsement of the person in question, it's not a recognition of value or worth.  It's a way to tell people "something about this needs explaining".  -- Jayron 32 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If a blurb is a "means to provide information and nothing else", then why don't we just blurb everyone on WP that has an article that died? That's right - because blurbs have extremely high standards. If Melissa Lucio were executed, I'd want to blurb that because she has a whole movement for her and against her execution. This man didn't. He broke a law that had capital punishment as a penalty, and he was executed for it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb let's not lower the bar any further, it's too low. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Nagaenthran's execution is a major controversy in Singapore and has been for months. The fact that he was an intellectually disabled Malaysian Indian involved intersectional campaigns by many activists, leading to international conversations about racism, drugs and disability. It has massive connotations for the abolition of the death penalty there, and the loss establishes the firm rule the authoritarian Singaporean government stands by, which itself may also signal how successful progressive activists might be against Section 377A. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Elevating this to a blurb would be RGW per se, as routine enforcement of the law is not noteworthy. While I personally find such harsh persecution of the already marginalized horrific, this too is much more than the standard than the exception.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nagaenthran's execution is exceptional in terms of the opposition towards a routine enforcement of law. So much work had been put into his case especially, and it resulted in a straight loss for the huge movement. – Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So the situation is still the same. There's no transformative element here.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, not opposed to blurb. Quite shocking for a supposedly modern state. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Not important enough for a blurb. Tradedia talk 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Capital punishment where a state recognizes it is not itself noteworthy (though its abolishment might be) when not of a known figure or not entailed by significant protests, rallies etc. Gotitbro (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, slight oppose blurb A country enforcing its penal laws for the most part isnt blurb worthy (unless it is such an egregious case that the punishment gets worldwide attention). I dont think this is that though, as SE asian countries are known to have particularily tough narcotics laws. If there is a blurb, I think it should be ALT1 (After friday).4iamking (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Tradedia and Gotitbro. Surely we're not going to blurb every controversial execution? Nagaenthran is not a known figure. The potential addition of Datchinamurthy is even more questionable - are we going to blurb every executed drug trafficker? Read Capital punishment for drug trafficking, there are over 30 countries with the death penalty for drug offences in law, and hundreds of people are executed each year.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Controversial executions unfortunately happen all the time in a large number of countries. This one isn't especially notable enough to overcome that. The Kip (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb like mentioned by many above, a country enforcing it’s laws is not blurb-worthy no matter how controversial it is. It could be notable if it was a well-known person being executed but this man is not well-known.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 07:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only – Oppose blurb for all of the reasons cited above. Not generally impactful. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I've flagged the article as ready for posting to RD. There does not yet appear to be consensus for posting as a blurb, but RD has clear consensus.  I'd post myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED.  -- Jayron 32 15:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Stephen 23:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support both RD and blurb, since the case itself was exceptionally hitting at the centre of the global attention towards the case and it became notable even in the West NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elvera Britto

 * Long enough (400+ words) . Formatting . Use of footnotes . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PFHLai. Article is for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Klaus Schulze

 * Support as an important pioneer of electronic music. Jmj713 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Discography section needs additional citations. Support All issues have been fixed: marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per Jmj713. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a {cn} tag on the sentence about his film scores. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geraldine Weiss

 * Support Looks to be in good shape. Adequate sourcing and length. Canadianerk (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Salvatore Pica

 * Support&mdash;Very well-referenced in general, with the only statement that could still use a citation being: "and ones from his friend Lucio Amelio's Modern Art Agency." Otherwise, I think it's already fit for the main page. (Side note: do you think his parents foresaw his future as a prolific artist, seeing as they saw fit to give him a name like Salvatore Pica?) Kurtis (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Side note, would you mind signing your !vote? Thanks! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 15:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops... done. Thanks for the heads-up! Kurtis (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha, it's all good mi amigo! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 22:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Short (249 words), but ok. Grimes2 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Decent enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 07:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alabo Graham-Douglas

 * Oppose for now. No mention of his death in the body of the article.  We need some prose update; a mere addition of a death date is not enough.  Otherwise, the article would be fine for posting.  -- Jayron 32 11:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 I have added some additions to the body of the article with additional sources that transcend a mere death date. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good! -- Jayron 32 13:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Curb Your Enthusiasm. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimum requirements. 2 sources are dead. Grimes2 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Has enough information, Alex-h (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane Yellowbird

 * Support Article is well sourced and meets the standards for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced article, and after my own review the article seems to meet standards required. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready for RD per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ursula Lehr

 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Meets minimum requirements. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the article is well-sourced. Vida0007 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Twitter purchase

 * Oppose - "Rich man makes business deal" does not a newsworthy item make.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * altblurb on size of deal as that is also significant. --M asem (t) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A massive buyout by an individual of an extremely notable company that has made headlines around the world is certainly a noteworthy event. PolarManne (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PolarManne. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a major development for a globally influential company. Prefer alt blurb. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Widely covered and the buyout of an influential company is blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not just somewhat, but I would say substantially more impactful than the Activision-Blizzard deal, and ditto on the coverage. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A change like this for what is arguably one of the largest social media platforms on the internet, I believe this to warrant a blurb. Also, it appears to be well-sourced in the article. Captain  Galaxy  20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is such a major deal with implications for billions of people, I created Elon Musk purchase of Twitter. Any help fleshing it out would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an absolutely unnecessary spinoff. It's a major deal but not yet shown on the order of the Disney/Fox merger. --M asem (t) 21:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just requested a move to Elon Musk and Twitter where the broader history of his relationship with Twitter can be discussed. Thriley (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain Still not forgiven him for this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – After all the high-dollar acquisitions and mergers nominations ITN declined over the years - why is this one different? Because it's social media/internety/hipster? CoatCheck (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Twitter is a major social media platform, and its perchance my Elon Musk is also something noteworthy. Redoct87 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- but wait until purchase goes through. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Significant acquisition, potentially affecting millions of users worldwide (including Remember Him?). – Sca (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Appears to be a consensus for posting. – Sca (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 blurb. Should include the Takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t think we need an image of Musk. Thriley (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per Pawnkingthree, don't like the idea of this takeover and what it could mean for media control, but it is notable enough. I also agree with Thriley that Elon's picture is probably unecessary.4iamking (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 but please link the article for the takeover. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 the standalone article is the correct one to feature, Twitter is a gigantic mess. Picture of Musk is fine, since we don't post logos (though in this case an IAR might apply to the logo since Twitter is a non-corporeal entity). I don't like Elon Musk, I don't use Twitter, I mostly don't care, but like it or not this is in the news, and that's sort of our WP:ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support second alternate blurb per Pawnkingthree. Multiple sources show certain notability, and it's definitely been making it's way around the Internet population. iWillBanU (User:Mattx8y) what did i fuck up now 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No issue on featuring the new article with its expansion, but the blurb should include the 44 billion figure as that is what makes this significant now. What might happen to Twitter is well informed speculation but speculation nevertheless. --M asem (t) 00:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No indication that this takeover is more significant than other major acquisitions or mergers that we have not listed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per above. It's in the news, which is literally why we exist. "Rich man buys company" is much different than "Richest man in the world buys enormous social media company". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The issue here is not so much the financial transaction but the political ones of cancel culture, digital authoritarianism and freedom of speech. It would be too ironic if we were to suppress this story. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am neutral on this posting. I agree that the significance does not hinge on business aspects as much as the political implications of it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a huge fan of the usage of "takeover offer" or "buyout" in the main page blurb. Perhaps there's a better way to reword it? Such as "acquisition" or "purchase?" I feel the current wording is harsh and a more succinct candidate would be either of the two I mentioned. Ifrenkel (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic has been through several titles and is now Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. The word "acquisition" seems to have won. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Pull the Twitter board accepted the offer - but at this point, no shares have exchanged hands. Twitter is still a public company and there is no guarantee that all shareholders will accept the deal, not to mention pending regulatory approval. Juxlos (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that is in conflict with the blurb we have posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The implications for free speech are enormous. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was the picture of Robert Golob so quickly replaced with one of Musk? Do we really need to run Musk’s picture? It could be up there for a while if nothing else noteworthy happens this week. Thriley (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ITN, to wit "The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb. The picture's caption and the parenthetical (pictured) direct readers to the context for the picture." The Twitter acquisition is the uppermost blurb, thus the picture will stay there until such time as a new blurb supplants it as the uppermost.  -- Jayron 32 16:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose, albeit reluctantly: in all likelihood, this story is probably more significant than the outcome of an election in East Timor or Slovenia, but we do not usually post business news on to front page, do we? True, it can hardly get any bigger than this—one of the world's largest social networks, albeit only 17th, is acquired by the world's wealthiest man—but I have never seen it before. If Tencent were to acquire Kuaishou, which has nearly 70% more users, would this make the front page? --Varavour (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be more akin to Tencent acquiring Hawtai. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We post significantly large business deals measured both in magnitude of the deal (tens of billions of dollars a minimum nowadays) and the likely impact on the world at large. Eg if two capital investment groups merged at a value of $100B, but otherwise would really affect they business, we'd not likely post that.--M asem (t) 17:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I posted this as an uninvolved admin, but FTR I agree with the clear consensus. While I have often been skeptical of merger and acquisition business news nominations, this is obviously on a very different level for all the reasons that are making it the biggest non-war related news story out there. It's even pushed Ukraine off the lead on a lot of news sites. This is what almost everybody is talking about right now and I don't see any realistic chance that it is going to get pulled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Ad Orientem. Whatever the reason, this was certainly the biggest story of yesterday and remains a big story today. As for "shares changing hands", the formalities of concluding the deal are not the newsworthy part, it's the announcement and reaction. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Per the above two; the story was in the news, which can be proved by looking at actual reliable news sources. All of the pull comments amount to "but I don't want this to have been in the news".  Wikipedia relies on reliable sources not on personal feelings, and that holds here.  The story was covered by the news at a high level of depth and breadth, and the article is in good condition.  There is no other criteria necessary for posting to ITN.  -- Jayron 32 18:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but pull the picture Being unreasonably and appallingly rich should not get you a picture on the front page of Wikipedia if that can be avoided. Either revert to whatever it was previously, or maybe somebody, like the one single non-white-male person currently listed there? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard is that the top story gets a picture, and as we don't set the order that news comes in by date, it happens that this is the picture that best represents the top story. Now if it stays there for 48+ hrs, maybe we can talk about a rotation, but otherwise, swapping it out because it happens to feature a rich white guy is a bias. --M asem (t) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as he's not an old rich white guy, I can tolerate it. Not wearing a tie helps, too. I think we've all been there before. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How very dare you! Don't be such a pratt. Some of us have standards, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, there's nothing wrong with spotlighting old people in general or Kane Tanaka in particular. Just old rich white guys. And even then, they're better to look up to than birdlike corporate logos. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, his mug trailed the blurb by 12 hrs. —Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pulling picture on grounds that have nothing to do with Elon Musk's immutable characteristics. Buying a not so profitable social network might be notable enough to get you text in the news section. But more than that is pushing it. Connor Behan (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a done deal?: "Tesla shares sank 12.2% overnight, wiping $126bn off the company's value amid investor concern that chief executive Elon Musk might sell his shares to fund equity for his $44bn buyout of Twitter.  Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether a "done deal" or not, the story is still prominently in the news, n'est ce pas? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess if it all falls through we'll just adjust the blurb. And change to a less happy mug shot. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted): Kane Tanaka

 * I think this could also y for a blurb maybe, considering she was notable for being the oldest living person alive (and the second oldest person ever) 4iamking (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD Nice article, nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the few RDs I recognize, and also this is a notable death. CR-1-AB (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD As CR-1-AB said above, this is one of the few RDs I can know at the first glance. RIP. Probably not on blurb per some pushback (via WP:BIO1E), but I'd support that. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * main reason I wanted to suggest it is because WP:ITNRD states that "If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Being the oldest person alive and the second oldest person ever to live on this planet (and that being what's newsworthy about it); in my opinion that fulfil this criteria. 4iamking (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD – certainly notable and article is of sufficient quality. Despite BIO1E, I would likely also support a blurb considering the overall significance of her death as the oldest living person. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD and Blurb Borderline for a blurb in regards to being just the second oldest person, but also for being the oldest person alive for nearly four years is noteworthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Looks to be well referenced. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Discussions on merits of blurb may continue.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Tanaka became the second oldest verified person ever few days before her death, last time this happened was with Sarah Knauss in the 90s so she is certainly a rare case/event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, lukewarm blurb support There's always someone who is the oldest living person in the world, and every time one of them dies, it shouldn't necessarily be blurb-worthy, but Kane Tanaka is particularly notable as the first person to live to be 118 or 119 in the 21st century. Except for Jeanne Calment, who died 25 years ago and, at 122, is an outlier in this field, she's the oldest person ever.  Every person in the world participates in some way in human longevity, and she advanced the field for all of us.  So there's that.  On the other hand, her longevity is the only real reason for her notability on Wikipedia.Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Only 35 wiki pages on the subject now. Gilbert Gottfried had 78 pages and was not blurbed. William Hurt had more than 60 wiki pages and was not blurbed. The most common objection to person being blurbed is that they are not known in the world. She is hardly household name. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason for why a blurb could be appropriate in this case would be due to the notability of her longevity, not because she herself is a household name. The guidelines provided for in WP:ITNRD generally state that RD's may be promoted to a blurb when the death itself (or the circumstances around it) are a newsworthy event. In this case, her longevity is about the only reason why it is in the news. 4iamking (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per WP:ITNRD section "Death as the main story" as stated by user 4iamking. I'd consider this a case of the individual's title and notoriety warrant a blurb. Captain  Galaxy  19:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Revoked section reasoning, still support blurb. Captain  Galaxy  20:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Blurbs are meant for those that were leaders (not necessarily of governments) or transformative figures.  Living to an old age, on its own, absolutely does not meet that. Those reading "death as the main story" is when we are talking unusual deaths like Kobe Byrant's helicopter death or Robin Williams suicide, not death by old age. --M asem  (t) 20:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * cough, "strong oppose" = oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ny opposition to a blurb here is that it totally breaks the system we gave around blurbs. They are not meant for people who die of old age with little impact on the world at large. Simply being one of the world oldest living persons does not met what we have envisioned for blurbs when we broke out RDs and gave those wide allowance to be posted. Tanaka has not changed the world in any way and to give a blurb means editors are completely ignoring the system in favor of personal preference. --M asem (t) 14:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It could, and is, argued that Tanaka was a transformative figure in the field of gerontology. The discussion around her age (and becoming the first person since 1999 to turn 119). It is also argued that, due to the circumstances surrounding her death (once again, 119 years old) and the fact that she has WP:SIGCOV (she wrote a book!) and is generally notable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 16:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per Tanaka's article "Her longevity, along with that of Jeanne Calment, has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years". TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually "Support RD " = Support RD only. And there are many votes with "Support RD". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you're taking a jab at my support !vote. Well, might I add that I also ended it off with a support for a (then potential) blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Second oldest person ever, oldest person alive in the last roughly 25 years. For many younger Wikipedians, Kane Tanaka is the oldest person who has been alive in their entire lifetimes. 1779Days (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki page says she was oldest person for around four years. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think 1779Days means she was the longest-lived person since Jeanne Calment who died 25 years ago.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But she only became this oldest person since Jeanne Calment in 2020, before that Chiyo Miyako was the longest-lived person. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Chiyo Miyako did not live as long as Kane Tanaka did. Tanaka got the closest to Calment. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I did not have an opinion about this at the beginning. But after reading all the arguments for and against i am leaning oppose. Tradedia talk 11:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, moreso for longetivity record than simply the fact that she was the oldest in the world. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but mainly because of her longevity record (the most recent one to reach 119 was Sarah Knauss, who died just 2 days before 2000); I was initially going to oppose, but Kane Tanaka's lifespan – a record in the 21st century – and her being the oldest living person for nearly four years, are noteworthy. Vida0007 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is every supercentenarian blurb-worthy? How many were blurbed? Was Jiroemon Kimura blurb worthy? Chiyo Miyako, the previous record holder, and Nabi Tajima do not even have own wiki pages? How is that so? Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Every supercentenarian is clearly not blurb-worthy, but if the feat they managed to pull off is particularly noteworthy, id say it does warrant one. Jiroemon Kimura, being the oldest male to ever live did get a blurb, the last person to reach the age of 119 and achieve this feat died in 1999 before wikipedia was even a thing, it certainly isn't a regular occurrence and thus I would consider it to be a particularly noteworthy case when talking about human longevity. 4iamking (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Emma Morano also got a blurb in 2017 - she was noteworthy as "last person born in the 1800s."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is another interesting case because Tanaka is the second oldest verified person ever a feat not accomplished since Sarah Knauss in 1999 (over twenty three years ago). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment my support blurb is for the altblurb2, just for clarifying. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt II. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nowhere significant enough for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Oldest person in the last 25 years is notable enough. Davey2116 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb -- the second oldest person to have ever lived has died. I think that's noteworthy enough for a blurb. Also, I'm starting to think that the position of "the world's oldest person" is a cursed one. Everyone who gets that position eventually dies. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, our current world champion (whose ascension apparently isn't blurbworthy) wishes for death. At least two winters ago, she did. Maybe she's changed her tune now, with newfound fleeting glory to live for, but regardless, Weak Support for the old oldest woman's too-late recognition. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clayton Weishuhn

 * Long enough (700+ words). No concerns with formatting or use of footnotes. This wikibio is READY for RD --PFHLai (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can move this to MainPage, too, but I would prefer having at least one other pair of eyes from an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) to look at this nom (and vote support!) before I do so. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gave this a look -- meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Please promote when you find it convenient. Ktin (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kaushalya Madushani

 * Support article seems to be well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Article is fine, nothing less, nothing more. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion: The subject's date and place of birth, alma mater and coach's name are listed in the infobox with no footnotes (and are not mentioned in the main text on this wikipage). Please add REFs for these things. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. I was unable to confirm the place of birth and have hidden this from the infobox. The rest is now mentioned in the prose with footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election

 * Comment While this exit poll may be accurate, this shouldn't be posted until there is prose and statistics for the result. I also ask whether the precedent for multi-party systems is to post the election result or the government formation, or both. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Election results are considered ITNR, precedent is to post the election result, see Czech election for example. Jansa has conceded so its done, but yes article needs updating before being posted. BastianMAT (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Elections are ITNR per se, so it can be published perfectly well regardless of the formation of the government. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait -- For more complete returns. -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is in a bad shape. The timeline is list-like and ends about a month before the election took place. The parties section is weakly sourced. Too many issues at the moment... --Tone 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Elections are per se ITN/R, to say nothing of Europe's first elected Green government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Slovenia already was a pretty green place, with clean energy, high biodiversity and more forest than not. Even if this green party minority win turns into a functionally green government after the coalition compromising's done, what more could a reasonably powerful group of environmentalists hope to achieve? If one of the coal countries went green, I could see us saying something. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the "Timeline" section should be converted to prose, rather than being bullet points. And no prose about the impact of the election results either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks okay now, but as below, would put below French election, which is more widely covered. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Put below french election however. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , alright, have updated the article, and results are finished, consesus is in favour for it too, good to go! BastianMAT (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll add some more about reactions and then I'm posting. Tone 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support great work! Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting (though I edited some myself, but the support was there prior to my editing). Ha, I am pleasantly surprised we got the article in shape in time, yesterday it was a mess. --Tone 16:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side note, feel free to reorder with the French election when you decide to change the image. Tone 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , alright, great work mate! We managed to fix it up, amazing. Have added you as an updater, if you could be so kind, can you hand out the nom credits on my talk page? Trying to document them as you can see in my user page. Once again, good work from all of us. BastianMAT (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 French presidential election

 * Wait the page says nothing so far in stats/numbers about Macron winning, just that he did in a few sentences at the end. Please fix this. Support Article has been fixed. All issues have been dealt with. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support after updates Macron's is fine, the election article looks like its being updated live but its well-sourced for details of the past so just needs to get the rest sorted. --M asem (t) 18:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I and several others have added some more information to the article and cleaned up bare links, what do you think now ? ev iolite   (talk)  18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait his victory seems to be based on exit polls predicting a win, not confirmed results. And we'll need the normal article quality too (e.g. prose summary about results, outcomes, reactions). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are seeing now is a little more than an exit poll, it's a projection based on counted actual votes. Historically this has been very accurate, and with such a margin Macron's victory is in no doubt. We post US presidential results prior to 100% completed counts based on broadly similar information. That said, we don't need to be in an unnecessary rush here. --LukeSurlt c 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time this was posted, per the Reuters article, Le Pen had already admitted defeat to her supporters. That's sufficient for us to use as an election result even though the full results won't be in until tomorrow. --M asem (t) 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Le Pen conceding defeat happened after I posted the above. And the article still needs quality fixes too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait -- For more complete returns. -- Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting now pending article quality Exit polls seem confident enough to avoid "Macron Defeats Le Pen". 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)
 * Wait until the official results come in. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, so we can’t post results based on projections and exit polls.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * SupportI added the acceptance of defeat by Marine Le Pen.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously a huge deal and a relief for Europe. In all the news. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the results are in. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, as per Kiril Simeonovski. Even if Le Pen has admitted defeat to her supporters, a candidate is elected only after all the votes have been counted. At least, that's how democracy (is supposed to) work? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 98% of the votes have been counted and Macron is up by 17%. If that's not enough to show Macron has been elected I don't know what is. ev iolite   (talk)  22:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, facts only need to be 98% true at Wikipedia, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -but wait a bit  He seems to have this one in the bag, but let's wait until tomorrow . 100% of results are in. Macron has won. It is undeniable. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, 100% reporting, clear victory for Macron, LePen has conceded. This should be posted now. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Results are fully in now, and they have all been added to tables in the article by and myself, so those concerns should be alleviated.  ev iolite   (talk)  23:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Vive la France! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Enoch Kelly Haney

 * Comments/Suggestions: The section on his political career lacks info on anything after 2005. Did he retire? When and how? Some elaborations on what he did at his various posts over his long political career would be good, too. For his artistic career, sources are missing for a few of his artwork mentioned in the prose. Please add more REFs. And for an RD nom, there should be at least a line on the when, where, how, etc. regarding his death. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Sansoni

 * Support article seems well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 07:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Nothing more, nothing less. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnnie Jones (civil rights)

 * InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Why isn't this article at Johnnie Jones? The person at that location is only borderline notable. Black Kite (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe not history book material, but the younger Jones was on TV and in stadiums, which traditionally helps kids remember. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. No issues with the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: The subject's military awards, apart from the purple heart already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, should be referenced with footnote(s). I'm not sure if all the bare URLs in the various refs are okay. --PFHLai (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are not considered bare URLs, as they have accompanying text. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * True, those URLs are not as bare. Not used to seeing as much.... --PFHLai (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations for the subject's military awards are still missing. This RD nom will cease to be eligible in less than 19 hours. --PFHLai (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Awards are now sourced. Thriley (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan

 * Oppose got stale, sorry. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Alsoriano97, this happened on the 16th of April. Moskva, which is currently the second blurb on ITN, sunk on the 14th of April so I would say this can still be posted.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 16:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination got stale. What we can't do is nominate news until it gets "older than the oldest ITN blurb" because there hasn't been the desired result. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For ITN blurbs, it's only considered stale is it's older than the oldest ITN blurb. The oldest ITN is from 11 April (when Shehbaz Sharif took office), and the airstrikes started on 16 April, 5 days later. So this nomination shouldn't be closed as stale. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose In that this is still reported in sources as a he-said, she-said situation. We don't seem to have real on-the-ground third-party validation of the situation. (This is also a very real problem with what's happening in the Russia-Ukraine situation too, so its not limited to just here). --M asem (t) 16:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Iffy reports, getting stale. Suggest close. -- Sca (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Orrin Hatch

 * Support in principle, but there are still some cn tags that need to be addressed. All issues have been fixed. This article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment adding new cn tags. Far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently about 10 {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find a reliable citation for this statement: "At the time the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments were being debated, he introduced a bill endorsed by the National Association of Realtors to severely limit who can file anti-discrimination suits and to make the proceedings a private affair." The only thing I've uncovered that isn't a mirror of Wikipedia is Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. 46, and only a small portion of the text is available via preview, meaning I don't know if it directly addresses the statement re. Hatch's supposed bill and the NAR endorsement. Kurtis (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember, there are other ways to fix unsourced content. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment  I have fixed the remaining CN tags. This article should now meet RD standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added a couple more cn tags, in the last paragraph of the "U.S. Senate tenure", just before "Political positions and votes" subsection. But that doesn't stop the article from being ready. Good job! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * New cn tags fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, can someone please get this posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Garland Boyette

 * Support Article looks fine. Nothing bad, but nothing spectacular. Suitable for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 00:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please confirm place of birth and high school. Prose and infobox do not match. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the discrepancy with reliable sources. Hopefully should meet RD standards now. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guy Lafleur

 * Oppose on quality. Woefully under-referenced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will go through it this evening to clean up the article. If myself and other editors can improve the quality, I think his notability is worth an RD submission. Would you agree? RoyalObserver (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no notability test for RD. If you died, and you have a good enough Wikipedia article, you get posted to RD.  That's it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added citations for all the listed awards and many paragraphs in the Legacy section. The stats and records broken in that section still need cites. Yee no   (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This section is now fully cited. Yee no   (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good at this point. Well done!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good from here. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Many citations tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources added, I haven't vetted them.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - All citations tags have been addressed. Article is fully referenced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb Clearly in Shane Warne's tier. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cricket is a game followed by 2 billion people, played internationally for 150 years. Warne's fame is among people all over the world. I could do a lot better than an article from his own city to show his fame. There were articles from all over the world. Warne died unexpectedly at a much younger age. From his article - "Warne revolutionised cricket thinking with his mastery of leg spin..." HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are articles from all over the world on every celebrity. I don't know which bureau my CP story came from, but it was meant to show he was lying in state, pretty big deal. Unless you're raised in cricket country and don't know hockey, I get it, thanks for explaining. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know the original form of hockey, and ice hockey. Both are played in my city. There's roller hockey too. So is cricket, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My town has jack shit for team sports beside normal hockey, curling and indoor volleyball. And even then, we've never had anyone make it far. Must be cool to know so much. I'll defer to you on the big civilised picture. But I still bet I'd beat you at schlockey, one-on-one, no holds barred. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to accuse people of being wrong based on the country they're from, that's not at all racist. Before you respond to me, I know ice hockey and get that he's a big deal in that sport, but we don't post deaths of people from every sport. Warne was one of the top 5 players of all time, and there was significantly more coverage about his death than Lafleur's. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No racism intended, and I only meant HiLo by "you're". We all know what we see better than what we don't. I plead ignorance on what leg spin even is, much less how the thinking on it changed, but agree Warne had more mourners and am fine with RD Only, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In case your suspicions stem from the Kibaki nom, trust me, it wasn't because he was black. All of the sources described his legacy and career as "marred", "tarnished", "dent"ed or something else to the effect of not great. I'm not going to vote for a dead president who's remembered for corruption, unrest and failure, even if he or she was my closest relative and did arguably balance it out with a decent and promising start for general public education. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It stemmed from the fact that it seemed like you were dismissing just because they're Australian. Maybe that wasn't the case, and maybe I could have phrased my original post better, I apologise. Although I also think the Kibani non-posting was wrong, this isn't the place to argue it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All good, thanks for elaborating. Nobody's dismissed and text has always been an iffy way for us netizens to communicate. The important thing is Kibaki and Lafleur were both big names in their own ways, and now our readers are more likely to learn more about why, to some degree. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you already apologized, but I'd really appreciate it if you could please refrain from idly throwing around accusations of racism in the future. It's never a productive way to engage people. Kurtis (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'll weakly support an altblurb that includes Mike Bossy by coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Shane Warne had significant obituaries all over the world. Lafleur hasn't had that level of coverage, and so isn't ITN blurb worthy. He's also way less notable and blurb worthy than the former Kenyan president that wasn't blurb, so posting this would be a clear North American bias in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Article looks fine for RD though. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as the original nominator I didn't think he was worthy of a blurb. I would oppose the addition of the blurb. RoyalObserver (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Quality is now sufficient for the RD at least. I think he warrants the blurb, but hard to see that with Bossy not even nominated.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that a discussion regarding a blurb is warranted, but am not sure he quite meets the mark. I don't think the prospect should be dismissed so flippantly, though. He is one of the all-time hockey greats (and I think we would hypothetically probably blurb Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.). Connormah (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(closed) RD: Daryle Lamonica

 * Oppose for now, as woefully undersourced (particularly the Raiders section). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD or blurb: Mwai Kibaki

 * Comment Support RD only. I would lean RD only. We should absolutely have blurbed Daniel arap Moi, but I'm afraid that Kibaki is not really an adequate substitute. If you search for his name on Google Books or Jstor, there is limited scholarship on him and his time in office - the distinction with arap Moi is quite revealing in this respect.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support He was president of a major african nation for 11 years, certainly blurb-worthy. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as a leader for 11 years- we posted another African former leader a few months back who'd served for a similar duration. A few citations needed in the 2002 and 2007 sections (a couple of unsourced sentences in each). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support for RD only. His death does not necessitate the explanation that a blurb provides; died of natural causes at an old age.  Support is weak because, while the article is very good, there are a few stray sentences that don't make sense and need cleaning up (examples "Kibaki won and was sworn in what remains to be a contentious issue at twilight."  Don't know what that means.) but it's a decent article on the balance.  If it was given a quick once-over for copyediting to clean up these issues, and add a few missing refs, this would be a full support for RD. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "His death does not necessitate the explanation that a blurb provides". That applies to any old age person whose death we blurb. The point is whether what he achieved in life merits it, and I would think the 11-year leader of a reasonably prominent country is at least in the conversation for that. George H. W. Bush was blurbed after only a 4-year presidency, in which he also arguably achieved a lot less than his predecessor. Not saying the president of Kenya is as important as the president of the US, but I think this is a decent shout. He's also going to be accorded a state funeral. Re quality, I'm working my way through it, will hopefully be done with copyediting later tonight. CHeers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was something I read at the guidance for ITN recent deaths, which says, and I quote, "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used...if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link." Just following the rules.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why must we do this same dance every time? It is bordering on WP:POINTy to feign ignorance of the "Major Figures" criteria which applies to the vast majority of blurb nominations. Every one gets to decide for themselves if the figure is significant enough for inclusion, but invoking this "old man dies" straw man argument is disruptive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said that others could not support this using the major figures criteria. It is fine and right that they do so.  I've never begrudged anyone for making such an argument, nor ever called it a "strawman" or told anyone they could not vote that way.  I'm not sure why your vitriol is suddenly being directed at me.  I chose not to invoke it for this nomination, but that's why we have votes.  People are free to read the articles, read the news, and make their own assessments of how they apply the criteria involved.  If you feel differently, you can certainly vote your conscience on this one.  It's completely unreasonable that you demand that I vote your way, for no other reason than you insist on it.  I've never done such a thing to you, and I ask that you not do it to me again.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above Support !votes. Article can use some citing work, but I'll get to that. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Doesn't seem like a transformative-enough leader or public figure to merit a blurb, and cause of death is routine. The Kip (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb 11 years isn't long enough to attribute notoriety to a particular president (vide Bouteflika's or Mugabe's nominations). He doesn't seem to have been a transofrmatory figure either in his country or in the region. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As said above, H.W. got a blurb, only president for 4 years, and certainly did less than this guy. Saying he shouldn't get a blurb while being leader longer and doing more than Bush is blatant Americentrism Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing that doing the wrong thing in the past binds us to continuing to do the wrong thing forever is not a convincing argument. Saying that Bush should not have been posted as a blurb has no bearing on this one.  If you want to argue this one on its merits, that's fine, but invoking the wrong things from the past has no bearing on this nomination.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I didn't even participate in that debate, so it's none of my business. I would have opposed it anyway. I don't think it's coherent that presidents per se have to have a blurb when they die because they have presided over X country. And we have Jimmy Carter who is almost 100 years old....  _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hcoder3104 HW did less than this guy? Are you forgetting one key thing that he did during his presidency? Cheers. WimePocy 17:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * HW certainly . But being leader for almost 3x the length he must have done more. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If wars in foreign countries are the key indicator, then I'll see you with Operation Linda Nchi during Kibaki's rule... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Jayron32. Not every head of state should get a blurb, only a very select few. I don't consider POTUS to be an automatic blurb qualifier either. And I don't see any arguments for posting that indicate that the death has become a story in and of itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don't agree with this seeming trend of giving every former world leader a blurb. It's just not necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment When Jimmy Carter dies, I know y'all will be posting a blurb. Wikipedia should be an unbiased, global encyclopedia. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter has a Nobel Peace Prize. And do not even joke about that second part, I'm redacting that per WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only – oppose blurb – As far as I'm aware, Mr. Kibaki was arguably notable for eastern Africa, but not what could be described as 'transformative.' Also, he died at age 90. – Sca (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, no blurb. Bedivere (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb I think a blurb would be suitable for a long-serving Kenyan President and regionally significant figure, but I also think a blurb would have been/in future would be far more warranted for any other Kenyan leader. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RD When Ready The article's Death section is even shorter than the proposed blurb. That's possibly unprecedented. Needs a setting, at least, if not a cause or circumstance beyond "90". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was the longest-serving president of Kenya and per Wizardoftheyear. I remember when I proposed Valery Giscard d'Estaing for a blurb when he died someone mentioned that former G8/G7 leaders would merit a death blurb and I feel that's a good rule. However, looking at Mwai Kibaki's death coverage it is being covered globally and held constitutional reforms, won in a controversial re-election campaign in 2007 that divided the nation, and we also posted an African leader before under the count of his long presidential tenure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was a very important person. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * why? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He was president of Kenya... with lots of controversy... if i rmb correctly, some Allah-knows-what boat comptetion in england got a blurb recently. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * !!!BOAT RACE KLAXON!!! (Is that right? LOL) Howard the Duck (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Heavily covered by mainstream media. Deserves a blurb and not an RD. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posting RD. I don't see a consensus for a blurb at this point but the discussion can continue. Also, for RD, the referenced update about death is sufficient for the article, I'd say. A blurb would require much more coverage. --Tone 13:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For those that are in support of a blurb, the article lacks any serious indication of any type of legacy or the like for supporting a blurb like that. Simply being the longest running leader of a country doesn't help. --M asem (t) 13:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Broke the hold of KANU (founded by modern Kenya's founder Kenyatta) through broad coalition; subsequent involvement in corruption, voting irregularities and re-constituting a new constitution. Article looks mostly fine, legacy and death can be expanded but this shouldn't hinge on it. Gotitbro (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If we have to dig around in the article to make that determination for a blurb, the article is not ready in quality for a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As the leader of his country for 11 years, he had many achievements, which are noted in the article. Included amongst these is the passage of the new constitution, and providing free primary education. If those two things aren't transformative, then what is? Chrisclear (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Inspiring Mario Lemieux, among others, to also be great. Have any younger politicians said Kibaki helped them somehow, as a mentor, trailblazer or hero? If so, that'd indicate something bigger to me than being a part of major government programs does. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m a little confused on the point you’re making. Hockey and politics seem to me two very different beasts. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Basic greatness is the same wherever you look. Peers, experts and students either make it abundantly clear in tribute/mourning statements or they don't. You don't need to put things together, read between the lines and form your own opinion when the sources speak directly to the point, as they do for Lafleur and don't for Kibaki. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not transformative enough. Kenya is not a top country in the world. By the way, every US president should be blurbed. Everyone around the world knows about the US president and care about him. USA is the world superpower and should be treated differently. In the same way, every CEO of Apple company should have a Wikipedia page. Tradedia talk 22:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(closed) Mazar-i-Sharif mosque bombing

 * Oppose standard disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality per LaserLegs Nyanardsan (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because its death toll makes it important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article should be expanded before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality. The body of the article has two sections "Background" and "Reactions" with very little on the bombing and its aftermath, except a short bit in the lead.  Someone needs to do some serious expansion before this is main-page ready.  Consider this a support after that is done.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as per LL and Jayron. Neutral on whether it should be posted if issues are fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support once article is expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on quality, now. Alex-h (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Issues have been addressed, ready for posting. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still thin. -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I think there's enough there. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Notable event but the article needs some work. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Should the 2022 Kunduz mosque bombing be added to this nomination, or nominated separately? Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be better, there was also a vehicle bombing not sure if an article for that has been created. All appear to be related/coordinated ISIS attacks. Gotitbro (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Not good enough to be on our front page. Tradedia talk 19:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality the only prose explaining what actually happened is in the header. There is no prose about the incident in the body.  That isn't good enough for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(posted to RD): Renate Holm

 * Length (800+ words) . Footnotes are in expected spots in the prose, as well as at the end of each bullet-point after the prose . Formatting looks alright . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I was a bit ashamed how much was missing in the article. I added now from the GLS and Vienna State Opera obit, and will add more but am busy RL. I wouldn't mind credit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Hamsa

 * Support Seems in good shape. Bedivere (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There are two paragraphs with no sources at all.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 03:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hamza Ali Shah, I have fixed those two paragraphs. Hopefully this article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work Fakescientist8000.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 01:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

(closed) Dadu village fire

 * Oppose Sounds likes a rather tragic but otherwise mundane urban fire accident in comparison to something like the Grenfell Tower fire. --M asem (t) 12:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not in the news, generally. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Bedivere (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because, unless it's proved to have been delibearetely started, it's nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Robert Morse

 * Oppose while the Early life section isn't resolved. Bedivere (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of footnotes is a problem not only in the Early life section. There are {cn} tags across the prose. Filmography needs to be sourced, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is still one {cn} in the prose. Filmography has remained unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourced filmography, Support RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 East Timorese presidential election

 * Oppose on quality. Standard problems with election articles that don't end up being posted: table heavy, prose light.  If this is fixed, then it can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No updates on results yet in the article. --Tone 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hopefully this being posted on ITN gives it some extra attention to get it over the top. I'll work on this myself later today when I'm done my university work, but I want to implore anyone who has the passion and drive to do so, to take the initiative. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability. Will change vote once article is fleshed-out a bit. The Kip (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment also hope it will meet the quality requirements. And sorry for the maybe a bit weird question, but I am new to ITN and asking in good faith. In case there is not much to add to the election article and it won't meet the requirements; is it possible to post it without linking to the election article but just to José Ramos-Horta?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Significant election, and finally updated. Not perfect, but I think post-able. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The article is still severely lacking prose. At least a couple of sentences about the aftermath is needed, for example. Tone 06:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * weak oppose lack of Aftermath sevtion and prose on first round results. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Just added aftermath and campaign sections. Would implore more informed editors to add more information if they see fit. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting now, the updates are there. Short, but sufficient. Nice work! --Tone 08:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Just doing my part to help out! Ornithoptera (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolando Hinojosa-Smith

 * Long enough (500+ words) . Formatting looks fine . Deployment of Footnotes looks fine . Coverage (but his being Dean and VP, etc. can be mentioned, too, I suppose.) This wikibio is READY for RD. I just have one small thing to pick on: What is "Ellen Clayton Garwood professorship"? This was mentioned in the intro, so one would expect some elaboration in the main body of the wikibio. It's ref'd in the article and can be verified on his CV, too. This small issue should not stop the RD nom from reaching ITN, but please add some details if possible. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done – specified that it was in the field of creative writing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bloom. --PFHLai (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Umang Gupta

 * Long enough (800+ words) . Formatting looks fine . Deployment of Footnotes looks fine . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much appreciate an Admin picking this up for posting. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Earl Devaney

 * Moral support since it's kind of old news already. Bedivere (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that RD items can be posted to ITN as long as the announcement of death was within the past 7 days, so until the nomination drops off the page into the archives, this is still active and eligible for posting. Best,  Spencer T• C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I'm fine with it, then. Thanks for clarifying. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * support - Looks good to go. Indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brad Ashford

 * Support Bedivere (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Angelich

 * Support - Sourced and ready. Good to go as far as I can tell.BabbaQ (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support class start (500+ words), prose, format , source coverage , sources : relies too much on one source (NYT orbit). Grimes2 (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted While I agree with Grimes2 that the NYT obit was used quite a few times, it's not bad enough to be a showstopper. It was not used as a sole source in any paragraphs, and there are 10+ other refs in the wikibio. It's okay, IMO. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Another Species of Hominin May Still Be Alive

 * Oppose I see absolutely no text in the target article that contains any information remotely like what the blurb states. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Also, the linked article is an opinion piece.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Doucette

 * Length (500+ words) . Footnotes . Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

 * Comment Article appears to be a stub. Please expand and give more of a prose explanation of the results. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article is mostly a statistical entry with very little prose. The point of ITN is showcasing quality content that happens to be in the news. Not merely showcasing poor content that happens to be in the news (and even then, this year, ITN/R notwithstanding, with everything else happening, the Boston Marathon is not being that much on the news either...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality needs more content like race summaries and the wheelchair results listed (rather than just the elite races). See 2021 Boston Marathon for the kind of race summary I mean- that article made the front page last year. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, article needs a major prose expansion. If that is fixed, this can be posted.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harrison Birtwistle

 * Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - what do you think about the infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting article. Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Turkish military offensive in Iraq
*Oppose per Jayron32. As a stub, it's not eligible for the main page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) *Support (change to neutral, see comment below) I have been updating the article the recent days and it is not a stub anymore. The article as it stands has several prominent international/English sources such as Reuters, Associated Press, Voice of America, then the daily Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the weekly Die Zeit, which are both reliable and probably some of the most prominent RS in regards to newspapers from Germany. Regionals are from Al Monitor, Arab News, Hürryiet and Bianet etc. and many more can be added. And it is not just a battle in a 40+ year war, it is a cross-border incursion by one sovereign country into another sovereign country which has been publicly opposed by prominent politicians such as Iraqs President and foreign minister.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to be a skirmish in a conflict which has been ongoing for 40+ years. And it's not getting much attention -- nothing currently in the BBC's Middle East section, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not well developed enough for the main page. Once we strip out the lead, background, and reactions to the offensive, we have maybe like 3-4 sentences of text.  That's not good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article is expanding, but not really in the right parts. We have more background and more reactions.  What we really need is more on the operation itself, which remains woefully undeveloped.  Still can't support fully until that is fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reopened this per discussion at WT:ITN, as the article has been expanded and some of the above opposes no longer apply. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not enough coverage to justify a posting at ITN. Rightfully closed the first times, as only one of the opposes actually related to article quality- the rest pointed out that it isn't newsworthy enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of the opposes - Jayron and me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment will support when expanded, but right now it's still basically a disaster stub. Two operations in a week after four years of relative calm certainly seems notable enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All references in the "Operations" section, which should be the one that should be expanded, are Turkish. The aforementioned German sources are in the "Reactions" section which thankfully still doesn't have the flag soup. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not in the RS news much at this point. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Links to RS news sources in the nomination seems to contradict this assertion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Several days old, old chap. -- Sca (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * CommentI am a bit alone in updating the article and there are quiet contradictory sources on the event available so I am not feeling comfortable anymore in maybe promoting an article with the wrong info for a wider readership and leave ITN to ITN. Efficient editing to all.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel that the quality is not good enough to be on our front page. Tradedia talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What would you specifically have enhanced? And comparing the notability to other articles of ITN, I guess this one could run. A cross border incursion by a sovereign state into an other sovereign state who openly opposes the incursion we don't have often, and this is what is happening. At least a day or two compared the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the sinking of the Moskva for days seems appropriate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bridget Tan

 * Support Referenced, meets minimum standards for depth.  Spencer T• C 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Everything seems to check out. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: N. Sankar

 * Support Referenced, depth of coverage appropriate.  Spencer T• C 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Radu Lupu

 * Support Article in good shape. I was about to nominate this myself. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION NEEDED] Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan

 * There's a lack of good reporting on the ground here for this that I would be a bit careful on this story. Airstrikes from Pakistani on Afgani ground happened, but who and how many were killed is not clear and there's little western sources to help supply good information that assures who were among the dead, since Pakistan claims the strike was against a militant group. --M asem (t) 17:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only mention I've seen on main Eng.-lang. RS sites is AlJazeera's "Afghan woman, children killed by Pakistan rocket fire." – Sca (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which only gives a death toll of 6. Pointing to the lack of on-the-ground reliability here for this. --M asem (t) 18:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Continue to Oppose this, as while we have more Western sources reporting on this. They are all along the lines of claims of the respective government and not results of neutral third party eyewitnesses. Details are still lacking corroboration here. --M asem (t) 15:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A country launching airstrikes in another country is a very notable event. The fact that the English-language media from the Western world don't heed this event sufficiently because they care very little about anything happening outside of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand isn't a reason to omit it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not an issue of lack of Western reporting but the fact that exactly what happened on the ground as a result from the strike is extremely unclear with numbers all over the place. --M asem (t) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else should be clarified when the death of at least 40 people (whether they're 41 or 45 doesn't change much) as a result of the airstrikes has been confirmed. But it's not difficult to decipher what's going on here: Taliban authorities aren't reliable, Afghan people are sub-humans because they're not European, and Pakistan isn't an enemy of the Western world to be blamed for its actions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is absoluitely not degrading the people of Afghan, but it is the fact that how many civilians were killed is a very unclear number as that 40 deaths is not consistently reported in sources. That's my point, the lack of Western sources - which usually work to validate these figures - is leaving us with a very unclear picture of the end result, and that's a sad systematic bias of Western media, not us. --M asem (t) 21:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only claims of the death count are coming from the Taliban as of this moment, which has an active political interest in the numbers. Nothing has been verified from onlookers or otherwise reliable sources. That's the problem here, not "western bias," although as Masem says, there is a systemic element to the lack of coverage. The Kip (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn’t one exact claim on the amount of casualties as in the sources provided here, some are claiming there to be 40 deaths but then Al Jazeera are claiming that there were 6 casualties with a local confirming this. We can’t really say how many casualties there are in the blurb for now due to the two different claims. Until there is better news coverage given, we can’t post this.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 15:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunately because we are lacking good coverage. Per Hamza Ali Shah, we don't even have the sources agreeing on the number of casualties. And to add on top of the confusion, the Pakistani government hasn't publicly acknowledged the airstrikes. There's no way to confirm if it was an airstrike or a set of rocket attacks, which in the case of the latter, is nothing new. We are effectively dealing with "circumstantial" reports on the ground.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a notable escalation and a high death toll. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – Per Masem, Hamza, Mar4d. Situation murky, not corroborated by dependable sources or RS coverage. Not in the news to speak of. Epistemologically fraught. – Sca (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The death toll has now been confirmed by Al Jazeera, France 24, NY Times and DW.
 * Preceding comment posted by Ainty Painty. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Sca. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Sca. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in a very good shape, well-developed, well-written, detailed, and superbly referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced, now more widely covered.  Spencer T• C 16:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. RS's are beginning to cover this story, so it should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the article is in a good condition and the deaths problem has now been sorted. This can now be posted.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 17:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One-sided unverified POV claims of airstrikes when this source says it was rather a drone strike and that no airspace violation occured. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A drone is a killer flying robot, brother. The whole story may have its problems, depending on perspective. But a drone strikes from the air, and that's a fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, we have decent coverage in third party sources now. The claims of both the Pakistani and Afghan sides as well as neutral sources are represented in the article. There may be differing positions, but what matters is that they are all reported adequately. While Pakistan claims it was a drone strike and Afghanistan claims it was done by helicopters/aircraft, it can be agreed that some form of airstrikes took place. The blurb captures that.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing earlier vote to Support, lots of coverage from RSes now and article has been significantly expanded. The Kip (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support An important issue with a good article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose the current blurb, as the article doesn't use wikivoice for the casualties, saying Afghan officials said the attacks killed at least 47 civilians, mainly women and children, and injured 23 others. BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:BilledMammal, I have now added an alt blurb.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 04:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support more coverage now in reliable sources with consistent reporting. Elmisnter! (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Well?--WaltCip- (talk)  16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Jasper

 * Length (400+ words) . Footnotes . Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David G. Barber

 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article seems fine.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 14:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb

 * Support Ticks all the boxes, good RD nomination. Yakikaki (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zippy Chippy

 * Support article looks well sourced and long enough for RD. Animals with their own articles are eligible for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Baidyanath Chakrabarty

 * Length (500+ words) . Footnotes . Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Art Rupe

 * Support sources: ok, size: ok. Grimes2 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liz Sheridan

 * Oppose for now You said it yourself. Filmography section NEEDS citing. Article looks fine otherwise. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * + 1 cn. Grimes2 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * just finished sourcing the filmography and addressing the 1 CN tag. Hope that's alright now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you. Grimes2 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Christopher Moore (preservationist)

 * This wikibio currently has only 178 words. It's still a stub. ITN-RD generally does not accept any nom that has less than 300 words. Please expand it further. --PFHLai (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. I couldn't recall the exact minimum. Thanks for the info so I know for the future @PFHLai Star   Mississippi  01:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Star. Please feel free to beef up the article. --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per quality While well cited, this article is currently a stub. Please work on expanding the article to meet the ITN criteria. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bilquis Edhi

 * Comment: Needs some copyediting, such as tense changes and moving some info from the lede to the body.  Spencer T• C 00:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have made these edits . Please have a look at your convenience. Happy to make any additional edits. Ktin (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article sourced and not stub. Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Bossy

 * Support Legendary NHLer. Article is extremely well-cited. The Kip (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited, nothing to complain about. RIP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Records, stats and awards require sources, please. --PFHLai (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Look under External Links. Hockey pages use several websites (EliteProspects, NHL.com, HockeyDB, etc) for career statistics and awards, without in-text citations. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Footnotes, please. Not only for the tables at the bottom of the wikipage, but also for various claims in the Accomplishments section, including those "achievements that are not official NHL records". --PFHLai (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The accomplishments section may need work, but if you want citations/footnotes directly with the tables, you'll have to take it up with WP:NHL because that's not how it's ever been done. Again, "career statistics from [websites]" has always been an adequate solution. The Kip (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can add some inline citations throughout today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed several of the non-records there; being the 7th or whatever is not defining in the context of someone who actually held records in various fields, and is only going to be a challenge to source. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing seems sufficient. Star   Mississippi  20:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Now meets sourcing requirements. Flibirigit (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Newton

 * Comments: There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. The golf results in the boxes following the prose also need to be sourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose has no more {cn} tags, but the tables need references. There are details in the tables, such as dates, scores and names of other competing golfers, that are not mentioned in the prose and need to be verified or removed. --PFHLai (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are now footnotes following the tables, which I AGF that they cover all the tabulated info. The prose is long enough (700+ words) and has footnotes in expected spots. Formatting and coverage seem ok. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

''' BEEN MARKED READY FOR OVER 24 HOURS! ''' HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's probably stale already. Bedivere (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian cruiser Moskva

 * Oppose Bully for the good guys. But this is covered in ongoing. Ships, even big ones, do get sunk in large wars and this aint the Bismarck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. This definitely needs RS sources linked in the nomination. The last I looked this had not been confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, Beeb added Venkat TL (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Largest warship sunk by hostile fire since 1945. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not forget ARA General Belgrano --Andrei (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Moskva is still larger though (in tons displacement and in length), albeit only slightly. UlyssorZebra (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but also proposing alt1 --Andrei (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and better image is File:Russian cruiser Moskva.jpg --Andrei (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support In several ways a major event. Yakikaki (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing. If the fact it is the first sinking of a major military vessel during war since wwii, that seems to be a DYK blurb. --M asem (t) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not even the first: the cruiser General Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Belgrano displaced 12,000 tons fully loaded, less than the Moskva. -- Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, 323 people were killed aboard the ARA General Belgrano although captain, Héctor Bonzo was not. Ukrainian sources report that First Rank Captain Anton Kuprin, commander of the ship, was killed on the Moskva. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Large warships do not sink every day, even if the cause is disputed(the Ukrainians say they fired missiles at it while Russia does not acknowledge that- though the rest of their ships moved further away). 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I've corrected the original blurb and alt1 to the proper active past participle (had sunk->sinks). -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. According to The Guardian, it is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed during the 1982 Falklands War. This makes it notable and interesting. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Their reporting is not perfect. This ship is larger than General Belgrano. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Fuck you Russian warship. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just a more-or-less routine part of an ongoing war. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As per Jehochman. Unexpected and a major embarrassment for Putin. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is already covered by the ongoing item. There’s really no need for this again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unbelievable. Largest naval vessel sunk since WWII is historic indeed. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:CD5E:38F5:904:DA3E (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support came here to suggest this myself. Largest vessel to sink since WWII and most significant since the Falklands war in 1982.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, covered by ongoing. No need for play-by-play updates here. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Most significant naval sinking in four decades. Notable enough to surpass the ongoing event.The Kip (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (with blurb) Intentionally or not, the most significant naval sinking in decades. --Bruzaholm (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There's a good choice of pictures and we've seen enough of Shehbaz Sharif, who has been pictured for 4 days now. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is likely the largest ship destroyed since WWII, and potentially destroyed by a novel anti-ship cruise missile system. The The last time a ship of this size was sunk was in the ARA General Belgrano in the Falkans conflict. It displaced 12,242 tons while the Moskva displaced 12,490. Not only by size, it was the flagship of the entire Black Sea fleet. It's a very big and important event regardless of your views. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Covered in ongoing, not notable enough for its own standalone blurb. Reads more like DYK trivia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the New York Times reports that "the loss of the ship was not likely to alter the course of the war". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 00:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * [Strong] Oppose - Okay, a ship sank. This is a small part of the bigger picture (one that is already listed in "Ongoing"). We can not (or at the very least, should not) create a blurb for every single update in this war. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling the Admiral ship that has the command and control of the naval theater and leading the entire naval effort in an ongoing war, as just a 'ship' is a massive understatement. I think you are also massively discounting the part about "important symbolic and military asset of Russian Navy". The news came in last couple of hours. It will be the major news item and will be in the headlines across the world. Perfect fit for WP:ITN. --Venkat TL (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How many important and historic building in Ukraine have been damaged or destroyed by the war? Plenty, but all covered by the ongoing. There is nothing special that a major military vessel sunk from an explosion (cause still being determined) in the midst of war from the same with buildings. We also didnt post about that aircraft that was destroyed early on. I get the relative importance from military and warfare buffs, but it the larger picture, this is just an effect of the war.--M asem (t) 23:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the destruction of the Antonov AN-225 was quite notable. Not sure if it was ever nominated. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support As said above, this is a major naval vessel, the subject of the most important sinking in decades, and is currently across the front pages of global media. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support A modern cruiser armed with nuclear weapons sunk by enemy's cruise missiles? The largest navy vessel sunk since the end of World War II? If this singular event does not deserve to be blurbed, I dont know what does. Daikido (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now, because (a) it's not yet entirely clear what caused the sinking, a Ukrainian missile or a storm as the damaged vessel was being towed, (b) the 510-man crew had been evacuated (i.e. no fatalities), and (c) the significance vis-a-vis Russia's naval power remains to be seen in the Black Sea, where it maintains sizeable forces. – Sca (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also opposed. But fwiw as an ex naval person I am deeply skeptical of the Russian version of events. For a modern cruiser to be destroyed by some kind of fire/accidental detonation of ordinance would necessitate a level of incompetence that would be breathtaking, even for the Russians. I'm also not buying the zero casualties claim which is almost risible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Moskva was 39 years old. -- Sca (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Flagship, (meaning the ship that flies the Admiral's flag) and leads the war effort with three tiered air defence system, does not sink easily, even if hit by missile. As Admiral Stavridis said, massive incompetency was involved here. Everyone knows the significance of this kill and Kremlin is trying to salvage its honor by spreading alternate theories about the cause of this blunder. With the amount of capabilities and weapons sunk, along with RN honor, this is a very significant event. Venkat TL (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless clearly established as a major turning point in the war (such as enabling Ukraine naval forces to fully seize the seas, which is clearly not the case), all this is speculation of the impact of the sinking on larger events. Hence why its ideal to be covered by the ongoing. --M asem (t) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia was around during the Falklands war, then I would have supported the inclusion of the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano as well. Big ships sunk in conflict are extremely rare after WWII. Also, the flagship of a fleet of a world power sinking, regardless of context, is big time news. This is still significant even if it somehow has zero impact on the conflict. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We've never needed every detail before, nor do we speculate about the future, so I don't know why we do now. I would note the only claim of the crew's evacuation is from the Russians, who have a record in this conflict of not being honest about their level of casualties. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: A ship sank in wartime, both sides claim for different reasons. The war is ongoing. The Moskva is not.    SN54129  23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major ”achievement” escalation by Ukraine. Definitely for ITN in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasons: article is in good shape (much better than the railway station attack failed nomination); topic is in the news and it's a big story (per many above); even the Russians are admitting it sank (the details will get clarified in due course, or the counterclaims will become part of the story); posting it'll push the other Russia/Ukraine war story (UNHRC) off; and perhaps we need to test the notion that a listing to the overall (and massive) article in "ongoing" supersedes single, specific, major events in a larger story. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support very large ship and incident Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- largest ship since World War II to be sunk? Definitely worthy of ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good enough and it is notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but, if the sourcing gets improved, support on principle. That Russian warship did indeed get fucked. Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support For reasons given by others. Largest vessel sunk since WWII etc. It would be notable enough even in peace time when the consequences are less immediate. Having major news item buried somewhere under the ongoing link is not a good reason to oppose notable events in the war, I think. And in general we shouldn't be afraid to highlight them on their own. Shanes (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support widely reported historic event. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 00:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment To give some sense of scale, Reuters news service has directly stated: "If Ukraine's assertion that it hit the ship in a missile strike turns out to be true, the attack will go down in history as one of the highest-profile naval attacks so far this century." Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN does not care about superlative records like that. That's DYK's department. --M asem (t) 01:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't asserting it should be posted due to a record, they are just noting the importance here. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this article is definitely in the news. Aaron106 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not convinced by all of the blurbs, but this is remarkably significant and noteworthy enough to be included despite the ongoing (I'm not saying all instances were justified, but this clearly is). And likely a good reason to replace the previous Ukraine-related UNHCR resolution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The US government says the ship sank due to a Ukrainian attack (though does not specify the weapon used). I've adjusted my proposed blurb. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Full disclosure I am involved, having opposed. However consensus is clear and by a margin that is not realistically going to be reversed. But if another admin disagrees, feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like Blurb 1 and 2 than the one that was posted. Ukraine for instance could be lying and Russia telling the truth. Russia does not say that there was any Ukrainian attack. For neutrality's sake, the blurb should avoid picking sides and just say it sank. The article can deal with the nuance of cause. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it does say "following", not "because of"; although I would tend to agree a better wording than the current one could have been chosen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved to the first alt blurb. RS sources are generally reporting that western intelligence believe the ship was sunk by the Ukrainians. But I will leave that issue to be sorted out below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please give the credits. Alt Blurb that is posted is good in my opinion. Clarifies that explosions happened without taking sides. Venkat TL (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * credit given. Venkat TL (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Largest Russian asset lost in this war, in dollar and symbolic value, and irreplaceable. Possible turning point in the Russian war in Ukraine. Connections to the famous “Russian warship GFY” trope. Insight on a new Ukrainian long-range, high-tech offensive weapon associated with the sinking, and on Soviet history due to the ship’s Ukrainian origin. —Michael Z. 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It is the largest conflict since WW2 (per the main article) in Europe and related superlative events should be expected (largest ship et al). But it seems we are giving minute-by-minute updates to anything "major" related to the war on ITN, more so than we ever did even for COVID (where every significant nom war shot down). The purpose of ongoing seems to be lost and nomination to remove it does not appear to be so frivolous, as was being shown, anymore. Gotitbro (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether the COVID pandemic was widely described as a war crime or genocide. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "minute by minute" update. Ships are not being sunk every minute. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Three ITN items relating to the war just this month, which has barely gotten half-way through, all the while having an ongoing listing does appear excessive by ITN standards regardless of its nature. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the Ukrainians sink the next Russian flagship that it should not be posted, or even the next large warship. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support First loss of a Russian flagship since 10 August 1904, the Tsesarevich was lost, during the Battle of the Yellow Sea. Viewsridge (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Equivalent to the sinking of the Bismarck or the Hood.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The WWII ships cited each carried thousands of crew, nearly all of whom were killed in both cases. The Moskva carried 510 crew, all safely evacuated before she sank. Arguably notable in the context of the Rukraine war, but not beyond that. The sinking of Bismarck was pretty much the end of Nazi Germany's surface-navy ambitions, that of the Hood a national tragedy for Britain. -- Sca (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only source for the claim that the crew was evacuated is from the Russian government, which has a record of not being honest about its casualties in what it won't even call a war. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And we haven't seen Captain Anton Kuprin paraded on Russian state television either, so one might fairly assume they are not being honest about his death either. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of a caption in a Polish newspaper: "Milan Kundera has not given a single interview in 35 years and does not appear in public. He didn't even comment on reports of his own death." I know it's OT, but who knows... Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody except Russian state media is parroting the "no casualties" claim, and this is the same source that still claimed as of late March it had only suffered about 5,000 casualties (including deaths!) total. The Kip (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This is a highly unusual, unexpected event and the biggest sinking of a navy vessel by enemy fire since World War II. Russia was regarded before this war as the second-strongest military in the world. To lose a flagship vessel in such a way is incredibly notable and newsworthy. Literally the exact thing ITN is for. Ongoing does not cover this. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose insignificant in the broader sense of the war, adequately covered by ongoing which is becoming more and more superfluous by the day. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Users understating this event, should note that main Russian State media is having a meltdown and declaring - Venkat TL (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Russian media has been in melt down mode since before the war began with their hysterical propaganda. At the time, I did not agree with the proposed removal from ongoing. But if this continues I may rethink that subject. These regular updates of major developments in the war are starting to undermine the raison d'etre for the ongoing link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Olesya Loseva, the host of Vremya Pokazhet on Channel One, said the West was now supplying "zillions of weapons” to Ukraine." "It's definitely not a joke". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The likely imminent fall of Mariupol if/when it happens will be militarily far more significant than the sinking of this ship. Are we going to post that? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll have to see if and when it's nominated. Unless you're suggesting a placeholder already? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that ITN is becoming a de-facto news ticker for major developments in the Russo-Ukranian War. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't post the Russian retreat from Kiev. Mariupol has alredy been flattened. There is still some organized resistance, so I don't know if the final consolidation of Russian control will be such a notable moment that it would be posted. That depends how it's reported in the press. If Russia drops a tactical nuke somewhere, we would definitely post that, but hopefully they aren't listening to me and thinking about ways to get a "win" on the home page of Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure we're even on the hit list. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Russians don't want Mariupol for its buildings or scenic view. They want it for its strategic location. And if/when they get it, that will be a much bigger deal than the sinking of a cruiser. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman, " No one is thinking about using...a nuclear weapon: Kremlin spokesman". Regarding Mariupol, I believe we should discuss the event when it comes here.- Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment There have been four events in this war that have made ITNR:
 * The invasion itself.
 * The Bucha massacre, the first mass killing on this scale in Europe since the Yugoslav Wars.
 * The expulsion of Russia from the UNHRC, only the second time this has occurred in the nearly 80-year history of the UN, and made more significant by the fact they're a UNSC permanent member.
 * This, one of the two largest naval sinkings since the end of WWII, and the largest since the Falklands.
 * None of these are "trivial" or routine combat updates, so I fail to see how we're operating a "minute by minute" news ticker for this war. For the record, I don't think an eventual fall of Mariupol should make ITNR, but a potential battlefield nuke should. The Kip (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And the expulsion of Russia from the UNHRC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, which in itself was extremely significant as it has only happened once before (in the nearly 80-year history of the UN) and especially not to a UNSC permanent member. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost like, *shock horror*, ITN is for events that are In the news! Really struggling to understand why some people find that so confronting. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The expulsion from UNHRC was new ticking. Let's be clear, they weren't expelled from the UN, they were expelled from the UNHRC, which is a borderline useless and ineffective body. There's a reason why nobody is talking about the UNHRC exit anymore - literally more people discuss a football match a month afterwards than are still discussing the UNHRC thing. This sinking is kinda news ticking too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. It is a rare event as has been pointed out by many above. But I do note here that the era of warships would have been over a long time ago, were not not for the fact that there have been many military conflicts against very weak enemies. With anti-ship missiles like the DF-26 it would be game over for any navy right when a conflict starts. Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose per all above. Covered by ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support wide international news coverage, more than worthy of a blurb for this event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PPO Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * would it be possible to lift the term flagship for those not nautically minded? It’s an important part of the blurb. 2600:1011:B061:E079:3800:B89D:8FFA:F67E (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support On principle. For those pointing to COVID precedent - I'd have probably supported some of those noms if I was active here then, for the same reasoning. And I'm inclined to support, because ongoing remains in my opinion, utterly useless to most readers at covering specific news events within a larger conflict/event. They can, and should, coexist - claiming that Ongoing adequately covers individual incidents remains laughable, particularly for COVID and this war. We are not a newspaper, but we also should not pretend that most people clicking on the Russian invasion link are getting adequate coverage of blurb-worthy events. I will continue to maintain that they are best served by a combination of the two. Yes, there's nominimumdeaths, but in this event, it was initially a mostly a symbolic blow to Russia, vs. a notable development - until things escalated further. I am also increasingly concerned some people are supporting these nominations for the wrong reasons, and that is worthy of review and criticism. I support, only barely. Canadianerk (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, was that escalation just coincidental? Either Putin was lying that the ship was not hit by Ukrainian missiles. Or he falsely used the sinking as the pretext for the missile attack. Which would be more likely? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support. The warship wouldn't fuck itself, so the Ukrainians fucked it. Sorry for lateness, been sorting a big mess out over at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Killing of Patrick Lyoya

 * Wait As with several other numerous protests around the world, we need to see if there's longer-term effects from it. I would also add that reactions when there is police misconduct against minorities are frequent, and unless this turns into the next George Floyd situation, we should be careful. --M asem (t) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. Not ITN-worthy for now as this is not a newspaper. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Should not post this unless it actually sparks some type of serious unrest. It's too early to say that it will. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed article documents a stale event with a section on the protests, whereas Police brutality in the United States is way too general. If this protest doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, I don't think it's notable enough to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose many killings, particularly in the US, spark protests. This one has not as yet generated ITN-worthy coverage. We are not an American news site, so don't need to cover every US news story. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. Police killing people is common in some countries, including the US. Nothing about this case makes it important enough for ITN. It's more suited to DYK. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... per previous three. If this becomes a major legal case, the verdict could be nominated here. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose fled police during a lawful traffic stop, made a grab for a police weapon, got shot. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mak Ho Wai

 * This wikibio currently has only 188 words. It's still a stub. We generally do not accept any nom that has less than 300 words. Please expand it further. --PFHLai (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai expanded further. 339 words now. – robertsky (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the expansion, Robertsky. It's still short, but it's now long enough to qualify for RD. Referencing and formatting look alright. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bill Sadler (engineer)

 * Comment: There are a lot of 1-2 sentence "paragraphs" that could be condensed into larger 5-6+ sentence paragraphs since they have related info. Would make the article look a little more organized.  Spencer T• C 06:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been updated with an accurate date of death - now 5 April 2022. Other minor changes.Kumboloi (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Michel Bouquet

 * Please be reminded that the tabulated materials after the prose should be referenced, too. --PFHLai (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alvin Walker

 * Length (1800+ words) Footnotes  Formatting . (Somehow this sports-bio has no stats tables to worry about. Not that I am complaining.) This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom McCarthy (ice hockey, born 1960)

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Freddy Rincón

 * Oppose For Now, per nom. But he does seem like a legit multinational star, arguably died young and definitely injured five other people in dying. So a blurb would at least make sense, whether or not he was previously known to North American football fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue against a blurb; I don't feel he was particularly transformative. Unable to lead his national team to glory, only once named his league's best player... he was unquestionably great, but not worthy of a blurb IMO. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume a blurb would come under the "death is the story" criterion rather than the "transformative" one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as the article needs a lot more sourcing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Spork

 * Support nice article. Ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larysa Khorolets

 * Support - I see no problems. BabbaQ (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support OK, sourced, start class. Grimes2 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gilbert Gottfried

 * Not yet ready for posting as the filmography needs to be sourced. Of course, this was just announced so it will likely take time. I wonder if a blurb would be appropriate here.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere close to top tier or transformative leader here. Blurb would be inappropriate. --M asem (t) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much unknown outside the US, I'd say. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of there he's just a talking parrot. And hey, Hollywood Squares aired in Canada as well! -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of people were that talking parrot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And Canada. He's known to us, too. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, we know him alright. Knew him as a peg or two below Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald, but more charmingly influential than Louie Anderson. At least that's how he's remembered in Northern Ontario comedy networks, in case you're not the Kurtis I know; if he was a rock legend, he'd be Corey Hart, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're thinking of Kurtis Conner. My name is Kurtis Co&mdash;erm... a strikingly similar surname that also happens to start with the letter "C". Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my guy is too lowkey for Wikipedia or Vine, and his last name begins with W. Funny how that almost turned out, though, small world. If I ever run across North York Kurtis at a true north club, I'll have to remember to introduce myself properly (as for you, hi, I'm Hulk!). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pleasure to meet you, Hulk! Are you, perchance, this Hulk? To the best of my knowledge, he is also inedible (assuming you don't cannibalize Bruce Banner). Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A common misconception, let me tell ya, but I'm "actually" a twisted mutant offshoot of that brother from another mother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not too bad, but there's a number of unsourced statements and the filmography. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but would support RD when any citation issues are fixed. rawmustard (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD once reference issues are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - certainly neither transformative nor top of his field... Unless that field is cancel culture. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Accomplished, perhaps, but not 'transformative.' – Sca (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as per above comments on the matter. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD after the reference issues are done. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb&mdash;An iconic comedian in his own right, but I don't think he quite rises to the level of Robin Williams or Richard Pryor in terms of significance. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD No more tags, sufficient overview, familiar name. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many places that should have citation needed tags- I have added all the ones I noticed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by the remaining two-thirds of my reason, adding only the fact that it's truly in the news (if that counts). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD as well for now, as there are many sources still needed, and the article violates WP:CSECTION (shouldn't have controversy sections). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now called "Jokes". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb: The article seems to have been cleaned up a lot from the original opposing. But I would oppose a blurb as he wasn't that well known outside the US (mostly known just for his work as Iago and of course "YOU FOOL!!!") and not transformative or top in his field.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many unreferenced paragraphs. Filmography also needs sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now based on quality concerns, mostly over referencing issues. When those are fixed, I would only support an RD posting; death does not require additional explanation in the form of a blurb, so RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Culturally significant figure within comedy and voice acting. Was a staple on the Howard Stern Show - one of the most listened to talk radio programs in the world. 94.157.236.103 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Gottfried was amazing and def deserves an RD, but was nowhere near known/transformative enough for a blurb. The Kip (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality to be included in the RD, not notoriety, but quality is also taken into account. The "Filmography" section has no sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support He was one of the most famous and beloved comedians in the 1990s and late 2000s and his death is significant in popular culture. Plus his voice credit is also notable especially considering the uniqueness of his voice. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, A familiar and famous name, enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lack of references in Filmography still to be dealt with.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Three days and we still can't get this thing posted. I think filmographies are the #1 reason actors can't seem to get timely postings on RD.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is ironic considering that WP:V states: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The work itself (the article, book)". A film is a published source available to the public and should be considered reliable in of itself for cast and crew. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If one were talking a starring or suppurg role where their name would certainly be on the main credits, perhaps yes, but the bulk of filmography tend to be cameo and minor appearances that require that additional sourcing to confirm because of the not obviousness under WP:V. --M asem (t) 13:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Getting rather stale. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still good for another 30 hours or so. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 New York City Subway attack

 * Isn't this nom a wee bit early? Last time I looked, this was an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No deaths reported, so this doesn't seem ITN worthy. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a bit early to say it isn't ITN worthy, as deaths could still occur. No WP:MINIMUMDEATHS exist either. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It won't take that long for this event to reach a critical point. I'm OK waiting; just figured it would make sense to nominate it while it was in the news.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hcoder. The criteria we have used is the same, so it's not ITN-worthy for now. Nor does it look like a terrorist attack, which is always an aggravating factor in situations like this. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait many are coming here to oppose this for the "usual reasons". Please don't. Lets just wait to see what the motivations of the shooter are. If political it's terrorism and we can weigh in on that, if otherwise we'll just close it for the "usual reason". Please lets not erect a wall of opposes just yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait but leaning oppose. Far too soon for this. That said, early reports suggest no fatalities. Mass gun violence is a more or less daily event in the United States and unless there is something that marks this out as truly unusual, I generally lean against posting events that are almost routine in the area where they occur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How routine is a coordinated attack in the NYC subway system? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention one involving smoke bombs and explosive devices. WaltCip- (talk)  19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not routine. Someone tried to jihad a station in the 2010s but luckily made a suicide bomb error and just caused ear pain and a few minor burns, mostly to himself. A guy shot four thugs on the train in the early 80s but at least one later admitted they were robbing the shooter and the shooter had PTSD and long-term injury from a surprise shove through glass in a previous robbery (one of the shot guys later raped a pregnant teen). There may be more but that is all the subway robberies in the metro area I know (LIRR is not the subway) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass shootings are commonplace in Amurica and this appears to have limited notability. Suggest it's redirected to the ever-increasing perennial "mass shootings in the United States in [YEAR]" article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - In the news, article is in good shape and smoke bomb attacks in the US aren't typical. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While gun violence in the U.S. is an ongoing problem, it is indeed not the norm for a dude to walk on to a subway train, throw smoke bombs, and open fire while having some potentially explosive devices on hand, and escaping the scene, leading to a manhunt. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No deaths, gun violence in the U.S. is already very common (the 2022 Sacramento shooting which had six deaths wasn't even posted) and per Hcoder3104 and Alsoriano97. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per all previous opposes. Scary for NYers, but wider impact seems negligible unless some significant motive surfaces. AP: "Five people were in critical condition but expected to survive." – Sca (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 2 weeks ago I tried to get a massacre in Mexico that killed 20 people to the front page and wasn't able to. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Latin America has 8% of the worlds population and 33% of the murder. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to post (or to not post) BTW --LaserLegs (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – this is a normal occurrence in the United States. Yes, it is awful and prayers to NYC, but this isn't notable world news on a global scale. cookie monster   755  20:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems that many editors here need a refresher: oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems you need a refresher on the intent/spirit if you think that applies to the Cookie Monster's comment. It wasn't an oppose because it is only American, it was an oppose (by my reading) because US shootings (as a category of event) aren't news. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I said "many editors". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is a routine incident. Americans shoot each other literally every day and sometimes even more frequently. A shooting in the United States is like a minor traffic accident in any normal country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Haven't seen any news coverage, and I was reading on two apps before logging in. So it isn't in the news cycle, though local sources clearly exist. At least need to wait to see if it was a bad mugging or a bad terror attack. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like a clear consensus against posting. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - not interested in violating WP:3RR (so I won't undo his edit again), but User: The Rambling Man is quite obviously an involved editor. Will an uninvolved editor please review this closure? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. When anyone can see a clear consensus, they can move to close. Your edit-warring is not welcome.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you reverted my contention regarding consensus, it's not edit warring on my part. Don't make involved closures on ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn, stop wasting my time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Horlen

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Cooper (basketball)

 * Support Looks to be satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) South Africa floods

 * Rainfall has been way below average for the past six months where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You live around Melbourne right? According to climate change in Australia it's supposed to get drier, at least on average. And the natural volatility of hot Outback-y fire years followed by floods, bumper crops and mice explosions seems to be getting worse. I heard that each of your 3 oceans has an El Niño-y cycle which contribute to the interesting problem of different Australian cities having opposite problems in the same summer 2022. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sydney had its average annual rainfall by early April. Stephen 22:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article is sufficiently detailed, very well referenced, and good enough for the main page. Major news sources are covering the event.  Checks all of the boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – BBC puts toll at at least 59. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That BBC article has now been updated, and says 250. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please update the article itself, with new sources, to show the changes, so that we can update the blurb as well. The correct order to do this is 1) cite the source 2) update the article text 3) update the blurb.  We need steps 1 and 2 before we can do step 3.  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talkpage, as there appears to be different numbers. But the fact there's more deaths means that it's probably more ITN worthy, in my opinion (once the details in the article have been sorted out). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been fixed in the article. I've updated the blurb above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle 250 deaths is significant, and there is continued coverage on sources such as the BBC. Article needs some work e.g. being consistent on number of deaths, before it can be posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * AlJazeera says "officials" put toll at 259, France24 "at least 253." -- Sca (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of which are consistent with "at least 250"; two significant figures is likely enough once we get over 200ish. Incrementally increasing the numbers every single death is not all that useful, though of course if the numbers significantly change, we can update the blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle ... pending some expansion of 540-word article. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca; its current length does not do justice to the available coverage.  SN54129  15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's getting there. (About 700 words now.) -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, likely to be more rain-related disasters soon Sheila1988 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - notable natural disaster with significant death toll. The Kip (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, the article looks long enough now. --Tone 06:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Indonesian student protests

 * Oppose so far I don't see ITN-worthy. Protests as there are in many places and whose effects, for now, are trivial. Moreover, they are based on "rumors". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How about alternative blurb, as there are demands aside of the rumoured election delay and third term.
 * Alt blurb: Students across Indonesia protested against delaying 2024 election, extension of Joko Widodo's term, and rising price of cooking oil.
 * I think its ITN-worthy just based on how widespread the protest is, that the protest occured not just in big cities in Java but also spread to almost all provincial capitals. Nyanardsan (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think that simple protests are not ITN-worthy per se. There has to be something else: very important changes in the political landscape (local, regional, national), clashes or notorious violence in the streets.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently here at ITN the only protests that are posted are those that result to deaths. IANAL, but presidential term extensions might need a constitutional amendment(?) and may be ITN if indeed is pursued all the way. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently, because deaths resulting from clashes in protests are rare and notorious. Protests that are apparently peaceful or very minor in scope, on the other hand, are commonplace and usually trivial. And I have my doubts that a small constitutional amendment is ITN-worthy, frankly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually checked 2020 national electoral calendar, and there were at least 10 constitutional referendums, but ITN only posted two: those in Italy and Russia, plus an independence referendum in New Caledonia. I mean, that's par the course on ITN posting news mostly participated by white guys... but I suppose a referendum in Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy, if ever they'd want Joko Widodo, the person with the largest mandate on Earth recently, can run again is most certainly not a "small constitutional amendment." Howard the Duck (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The referendums in Russia and Italy proposed the reform of something more (3 articles at least of the Italian constitution and many more changes in Russia) than the simple limit of the term of office of a head of state/government. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I love that you're focusing on the quantity of the amendments, but not on the quality. Loosening of term limits are quite a big deal. FWIW, Indonesia never had referendums(?), and I'm assuming such amendments should lead into one, but it seems that in this case it won't so I dunno how that should play out. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The protests are mostly based on a "rumored" election delay (which apparently isn't happening anymore along with the rumored term extension). Unlike the other economic breakdown protests that we have posted so far (Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Peru) this is a secondary factor here and I am hesitant as to that, would like to wait and see if they sustain. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not widely covered. Impact doubtful at this pt. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - With a lack of high-level political/social change, deaths, or notable coverage, this doesn't seem INTR-worthy. Maybe ongoing, but for the moment they're just street protests. The Kip (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless I'm mistaken, these lasted for less than one day, demanded a stronger assurance of Election Day proceeding as planned and got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per, it appears to be less than one days of protests. News coverage seems to have dissipated massively today. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) January 2014 interstellar meteor

 * Oppose – Stale. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Really? I mean, 3 and 8 years respectively, but really? Come on. Don't violate WP:STALE like that... :( Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment we complain about things being "unconfirmed" and when confirmed complain that they're stale. IDK what to tell you. Probably this is more suited to DYK anyway though. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a lot less stale than the light from stars billions of years ago as these impacts and fireballs are happening right now. Here's a good account of the matter which makes the point that it would precede the discovery of ‘Oumuamua, thought to be the first interstellar object, by three years.  We ran the ‘Oumuamua story in 2017 describing it as the "the first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System".  Our article now explains "It is possibly the second interstellar object known; the first being a purported interstellar meteor that impacted Earth in 2014".  So, it might be good to publish this update as a correction. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The update is thin. Also, the preprint was from 2019, and the news at the moment is that the data has been declassified, which is not the incremental update. --Tone 08:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The declassification is the confirmation. ITN should not publish unconfirmed results, and this is just the confirmation of the hypothesis from a few years ago. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on multiple grounds: no peer-reviewed paper despite years of opportunity to write one; Avi Loeb's preprint which originally suggested the interstellar classification was submitted to a journal in 2019 but never published, suggesting it failed to convince referees during peer review; even if it's true there's limited significance, as little can be learnt from a single bolide; and even NASA seems to think this is a minor footnote to their press release, which says "the short duration of collected data, less than five seconds, makes it difficult to definitively determine if the object’s origin was indeed interstellar". Frankly I'm not convinced this is well enough established to merit even one paragraph our article, which seems to over-state the confidence, let alone an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely in the news, insufficient update, questionable notability.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - seems worthy imo - further support/background text/references copied below - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied from "Talk:Interstellar object" - for consideration/discussion:

FWIW - seems an interstellar object may currently be on Earth - recent news   may be of possible interest to some I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Updated the lede of the 'Oumuamua article as follows => *Oumuamua is a known interstellar object detected passing through the Solar System.(+ref) It is possibly the second interstellar object known; the first being a purported interstellar meteor that impacted Earth in 2014.(+refs)" - seems better - comments welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

FURTHER Updates (also for consideration/discussion) - originally in the "Interstellar object" article as follows:

'''The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our Solar System was 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was 2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object was purported to have impacted Earth, based on its estimated initial high velocity.'''
 * Interstellar object - LEDE

'''In 2019, a preprint was published suggesting that a 0.45 meter meteor of interstellar origin, did burn up in the Earth's atmosphere on January 8, 2014. It had a heliocentric speed of 60 km/s and an asymptotic speed of 42.1±5.5 km/s, and it exploded at 17:05:34 UTC near Papua New Guinea at an altitude of 18.7 km. After declassifying the data in April 2022, the U.S. Space Command confirmed the detection through its planetary protection sensors.'''
 * Interstellar object

In April 2022, astronomers reported the possibility that a meteor that impacted Earth in 2014 may have been an interstellar object due to its estimated high initial velocity.
 * Interstellar object


 * Oppose Per Sca. Yeah, might be just a teeny bit stale. This was news when it happened. I don't think it will make nearly as many headlines. 108.16.109.139 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was in the news in 2014, which is when it should have been posted in my opinion. It's certainly not got ITN-worthy level of news coverage right now about it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - To be clear, the LEDE in the "Interstellar object" article has been newly adjusted, in part, as follows => "The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our Solar System was 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was 2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object was purported to have impacted Earth, based on its estimated initial high velocity." - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gary Brown

 * Weak oppose the article is quite short, a bit of expansion would be good. He played 8 seasons in the NFL, and there is two sentences of text about this. There must be some more that can be said about his NFL career. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks breadth. A mere one sentence in the body on his pro career. Zero on his college career.—Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New Pakistan PM

 * Adding an altblurb which can be used to replace/update the current blurb at ITNC. --M asem  (t) 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support replacement altblurb. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support replacement with altblurb DogeChungus (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Routine update. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the parliment election of Sharif should be discussed to a degree in the no-confidence article such that would remain the target article. Sharif's article is also well-sourced (as a quick glance) and can also be a target. --M asem (t) 12:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Original blurb does not mention the no-confidence motion, links to article relevant articles mentioned. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with ALT1 replacing the current Imran Khan blurb. Change of head of state is ITNR, the no-confidence vote article is already bolded on ITN (so is clearly good enough), and Shehbaz Sharif article looks good enough too. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. The update is kind of short, namely that he was elected the new PM, but this is really all what can be said at this point, and the rest of the article is in a good shape. --Tone 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Plateau State massacres

 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on all criteria.  SN54129  20:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Massive event but entirely lacking in media coverage in certain parts of the world. Putting it in ITN would be good for some amount of awareness over the incident. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 Per above and altburb2 is the most descriptive Nyanardsan (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb2. --PFHLai (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Tropical Storm Megi (2022)

 * Support - Notable storm with significant death toll.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good enough, and unfortunately there has been a significant death toll. Which means it meets requirements to post on ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo Request Since death is apparently the significant part, not meteorological record, could something illustrating destruction at least better convey this, maybe from a human eye level? I know free images aren't exactly easy to find or shoot, so it's not a dealbreaker. Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, these storm images don't really add much, when you can barely see them on the front page, yet alone understand what the significant is. So I don't know why we insistently post them on ITN anyway, if/when this gets posted, I imagine an admin will replace the clear image of a person with a confusing image of a storm. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a picture of a landslide in the article but at 100px it doesn't show much, just mud... that buried a village. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philippe Boesmans

 * Self-taught as a composer, he became composer in residence at La Monnaie in Brussels, where his last opera will premiere in December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, although "Other compositions" could use refs, the remainder of the article is well sourced and substantive. IMO movies, books and music are all published sources in of themselves and don't actually need references, but others may think differently. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference for all works is right below the header Works, and not repeated for individual ones. Some works have additional other refs. The link goes to the IRCAM site which offers two lists, by performers and by date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Drew (basketball)

 * Comments: It does not seem right for the wikibio to have more words in the section on his drug addiction than that on his playing career. He was a two-time NBA All-Star (not to mention a CBA All-Star, too!) --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion on his playing career, Bloom6132. This wikibio is long enough (700+ words), Its footnoting and formatting look fine. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Suficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Masters

 * We have a prose summary! We need some more citations in certain places and the tables need the "scope" parameter per MOS:DTAB. Close to ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails MOS:JARGON. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality needs more sources, and agree that there's too much jargon. The selection criteria section is ridiculously long and complex- I know most golf tournaments seems to have this field and criteria explanation, but it's way too long and complex for anyone without extensive subject knowledge to understand. It has loads of numbers in brackets that aren't explained (I assume there some numbers of criteria in some golf rules somewhere, but it's not explained anywhere in the article). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Once issues are addressed, Support per WP:ITN/R Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe it's because I'm familiar with golf, but I'm not seeing what the issue with WP:JARGON is here (though I agree the whole qualifying section is a mess and probably not needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidum (talk • contribs) 10:29, April 11, 2022 (UTC)
 * Was curious about that too. I see the term "bogey" should be linked to Par (score). What else is the issue, beyond the qualifying section needing some cleanup? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up in previous golf noms. Probably every golf term such birdie, eagle, tee shot, chip-in, front-nine etc will have to be linked. (Also I'm not sure what the "top shelf of the green" is exactly.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't even explain what the sport is – there's no link to golf. And it doesn't explain the particular format – stroke play, match play, handicap, pro/am, gender, &c.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopedia written for readers who know nothing about the topics.  It's not the sports pages, written exclusively for fans and followers of the sport. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Following my comment, someone added the word "golf" to the lead! Looking at the edit history, I notice some heated edit-warring about the colours of the score-card.  It's also amusing to note that the page has a list of plants with wikilinks – the names of the holes at Augusta – Tea Olive; Pink Dogwood; &c.  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Per above. Alex-h (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Swatland

 * Length (400+ words) . Footnotes   Formatting   Coverage, I assume his career in real estate has nothing to write home about. This wikibio is READY for RD.  BTW, that was a lovely retirement quote. --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Degen

 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. AGF foreign language sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Chris Bailey

 * Oppose way more sources needed, have orange tagged it for sourcing issues. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Joseph2302...more sources now added. 58.179.71.231 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be fully sourced before it can be posted to ITN.  Spencer T• C 00:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jack Higgins

 * Oppose almost all the career section is unreferenced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still rather low on referencing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Birgit Nordin
Looks as if she died 7 April, but the news came around only yesterday, - leaving it here for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for RD. Looks ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ. Article looks fine. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eleanor Munro

 * Support well sourced now, more than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Grand National

 * Article should be updated with the race results and prose about the race itself, per norm for such sporting events. --M asem (t) 01:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Race results added just needs prose Lankyant (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality This is far from being anywhere near good enough for the front page: barely any prose whatsoever, most of it is stats table, and even assuming a little paragraph or two could be written about the race, that would still not really solve that this isn't the kind of high-quality content we want to be showcasing to our readers (mostly because it isn't "high-quality", even if it technically is statistically accurate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Lacking any substantial prose. Lacking sources. Large paragraphs are completely unsourced. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Death toll My attention was caught by the final section entitled "Equine fatalities". This is rather euphemistic but makes the point that several horses died.  The number now seems to be up to four but the article only lists three.  This seems quite a remarkable death toll for a sporting event but the article's lead doesn't mention it nor does our blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as there is no race summary text, and very little text at all. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Imran Khan loses no-confidence motion

 * Support This is the first successful no confidence motion in Pakistani history against a Prime Minister, and as Pakistan is such a large country, this is definitely newsworthy. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above. First time this has happened in Pakistan, a country with the fifth largest population in the world. Cheers. WimePocy 20:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A new Prime Minister will probably be elected tomorrow as well. CreativeNorth (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Major international news. Thriley (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 20:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The vote of no confidence can be posted on notability, and his succession will be ITN/R. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 21:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. First time it has happened in Pakistan. Noticable developments in the region. Haris920 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Fifth most populated country in the world, first event of its kind in the country, likely to have long-term implications on the future of South Asia, will probably result in a new Prime Minister taking power sometime soon, in short, basically all the arguments presented by the good people above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Major political event in an important regional power. The Kip (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for Successor, as usual, tack on Alt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment there was a previous discussion about this which can be found below on this page. Should we close that discussion to avoid confusion between the two?  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 23:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternate version: In Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan is removed from office through a motion of no-confidence.⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternate version: per above. Tow (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now until Khan's successor is appointed, mentioning in the blurb that a motion of confidence has taken place. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment When will this discussion be closed, it is a clear support vote. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Per InedibleHulk DarkSide830 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support post NOW! Those wanting to wait are asking for this to be delayed for an unknown period of at least two days. That's not acceptable. This is big news NOW! HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Can the discussion be closed? It is a major event and should be updated. It is all over the news as well.        ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan  💬 03:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait A successor prime minister is very likely going to be appointed in a short while which will automatically make this ITNR, as already pointed out both items can be tacked on as the case has been for past noms. Another thing to remember is that ITN is not a "breaking news" ticker, we have and will wait. Gotitbro (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per above votes - No need to wait. And we need to link this article as well No-confidence motion against Imran Khan Sherenk1 (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but I've altered the links: no need to link "motion of no-confidence" in general when we can link the specific one (and that article has more details on Khan being ousted than the other one. Not opposed to waiting, but it's always possible that there won't promptly be a successor (nobody gains the confidence of the house) and we'll have to wait for elections, so we shouldn't delay too much on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  05:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - We shouldn't wait based on a WP:CRYSTAL just because a succession is ITNR, when we should have already posted one of the 2 nominated articles above to Ongoing. What if the successor's article is not upto the mark? Are we not going to post anything at all? Is this one of those WP:GEOBIAS at work again? 119.159.203.68 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Dunutubble.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per SteelerFan1933 BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because he has lost his position as PM. Add his successor to the blurb when it becomes known who it will be. Jim Michael (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous. Head of govt. in a country of over 200 million. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted with a more concise blurb: "The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, is removed from office by a motion of no-confidence."  Sandstein   13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider putting "ending a constitutional crisis" at the end of this blurb and shortening the controversial posting of the 'Protests in Peru' blurb instead. Also consider replacing the current picture with one of Imran Khan's. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't part of the blurb proposed above. Blurbs should be concise. Whether this ends the ongoing crisis is OR. The Peru blurb can be discussed in its section below.  Sandstein   16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Comment I disagree that anything is being posted based on "media hysteria". As far as I have seen, all the instances of war crimes have been reported fairly and sensibly, at least by the British press. And I'm not sure how you distinguish between valid !votes and "pile-on" !votes. If that's obvious to you, you should make that clear at the time? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should stop the 'endless parade' of blurbs, but we should in turn keep this as ongoing until a peace agreement can be arranged. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Out of the question. No. 1 continuing story worldwide, at this pt. overshadowing even the (subsiding?) pandemic. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the position that removal of the ongoing is basically BS, ITN's purpose is not to highlight stories that have massive coverage in worldwide news (ITN is not a news ticker, nor is WP a newspaper). We are looking to post articles that reflect the best quality we can do that happen to be in the news, along with a subjective view to avoid certain biases (eg excessive US politics, for example). We have to keep that in mind here for stories out of the Russia-Ukraine war too, given we have Ongoing already present. Just because this one attack killed 50+ and injures 300+ doesn't outweigh that hundreds of Ukrainians have already died before, for example. --M asem (t) 17:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This strikes me as an incredibly bad-faith proposal. How about rather than diminishing the deaths of innocent civilians as an "incremental instance of media hysteria" and snidely accusing editors of basically being woke keyboard warriors by attempting to link to WP:RGW(but instead linking to Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars) you try and assume good faith and consider what ITN is for. It's called "In the news" for a reason. According to the opening paragraph at WP:ITN, ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Of course you seem to think ITN is for pathetic celebrity trivia such as Will Smith being banned from the Oscars. I literally cannot fathom how utterly insulated from reality you must be to think that nugget of celebrity gossip is more relevant to the frontpage of a global encyclopedia than a nuclear-armed UNSC member blowing up children. AusLondonder (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * well said! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We declined to blurb (and failed to nominate) countless very important events during the pandemic with the understanding that Ongoing covered them. Never in this did we suggest these events were trivial, only that we expect a great many important things to happen within the context of the COVID. So too should it be with Russia. The removal of anyone from a human rights body that includes *CHINA* is laughable under normal circumstances, but absurd here. But there it sits, mocking anyone who cares about the credibility this project. True, the solution is to stop blurbing, not remove the ongoing. LL has a long history of making pointy suggestions here out of frustration, but they do so with good intent. It's the exact opposite of bad faith.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, good faith, perhaps. Every knows "nuclear weapons = good human rights", no? That's the inescapable absurdity. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "LL has a long history of making pointy suggestions here out of frustration" that's a really interesting way of saying they're wasting our time and sounds to me a lot like the literal definition of bad faith. Regarding trivialising the situation I'll let the words of LaserLegs speak for themselves: "incremental instance of media hysteria" when we're discussing posting a couple of lines about a brutal bombing of civilians fleeing war. Please don't insult us by talking about "mocking anyone who cares about the credibility this project" when LaserLegs was here arguing for us to become the Daily Mail and post puerile celebrity bullshit on our main page *literally yesterday* AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Still top news across the world, I see no good argument to pull. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is the biggest massacre of people in Europe for 75 years. Of course this is extraordinary times, and of course there will be ITN posts and Ongoing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - definitely still ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is ongoing, and a major news item. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Bad-faith proposal. Schierbecker (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Post close note: no nominator's argumentation is not "spot on" at all. You might want to re-write the close rationale in a way that reflects all the comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The argumentation that we shouldn’t post a blurb and an ongoing item for a story at the same time deserves attention but not here and not in this way. That the removal from ongoing is unanimously opposed and the discussion should end immediately is clear. The closing rationale reflects both.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ... "incremental instance of media hysteria"? No. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That particular comment, albeit not in the spirit of good faith, doesn’t affect nominator’s right to raise a concern. The problem is that it was done in the wrong place where the majority was able to dismiss it by completely ignoring it. That said, it’s very natural to close the discussion and guide the nominator to a better suited place for his concern.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the right raise a concern. And yes, I agree it's the wrong place to do it. But I will not accept that current posting of items has anything to with a reaction to "media hysteria". The opening sentence of this nomination, i.e. the entire premise, is not "spot on". Sorry, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , that was a bad closing statement. Keep it neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dwayne Haskins

 * Support this article is comprehensively cited Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Could use another ref for his one year of inactivity at Pittsburgh. --PFHLai (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else fixed it before I could get to it. — Chevvin 21:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 AFL Women's Grand Final
Article is in good shape. Fully referenced. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  08:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no prose describing the final itself, only box stats. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It will be filled in tomorrow after the newspapers come out. Like I did this last year. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I am simply pointing out that it would've been better to nominate it when that was done. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've filled it in now. The quixotic effort to document women's sport continues. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sporting news from Australia that I'm seeing is the 2022 Australian Grand Prix, not this event. I wasn't even sure what AFL was and so had to look it up.  Seems too minor and so not getting the coverage given to other sports like MMA or horse racing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The AFL Grand Final is at WP:ITN/R. I seem to vaguely recall a rule which meant that if a male event is at ITN/R, then the female equivalent is as well. Maybe someone could set me straight. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if they are held concurrently, like the tennis Grand Slams. The men's and women's AFL finals are separate events. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, this exactly. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, women's sports are never noteworthy in their own right, only if they are part of men's events. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was saying. I was saying women's sports need to demonstrate their notability/importance for ITN, and it shouldn't be presumed just because the men's equivalent event is ITNR. And I don't believe the coverage of this event meets the ITN threshold. And I've opposed many other men's sports events here for exactly the same reason, so stop trying to accuse me of sexism when I'm only trying to apply the ITN guidelines on importance. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be better to nominate the article, when that was done. Alex-h (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we're not obligated to post this just because we post the men's equivalent event, ahich gets way more coverage than this. Article is also insatisfactory for ITN article quality too, but I still oppose posting even if fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support AFL final is in WP:ITN/R and the women's event shouldn't be treated any differently. Now stop being sexist. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not sexism, it's based on the amount of coverage. The men's and women's competitions are separate events not run at the same time, so should not be considered the same. There is barely any coverage of the women's AFL compared to the men's one, and not enough to demonstrate that it should be on the front page of ITN. This is an application of ITN rules on importance, not an application of deliberate sexism like you claim. Go complain to the world's newspaper companies that they didn't cover this as well as the men's event, because that's the reason why it's not being supported for posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia is not there to WP:RGW. Sports coverage is sexist - not much we can do about that, but we can't start applying different standards to men and women's events just because "sexism". Looking at a variety of international (non-Australia) news sources, neither the Grauniad; BBC; CBC or NBC have any mention (much less "prominent mention") of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sadly, it just isn't in the news. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chibuzor Nwakanma

 * Long enough with 400+ words. Footnotes appearing where they are expected. Formatting looks right. This wikibio is READY for RD. If possible, please fill in the empty stats slots in the infobox. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Need some guidance. Hi all, I know this is perhaps the wrong avenue, but, there is an IP editor who has been adding unreferenced changes (particularly to year of birth). Details here. I think one of us (either me or they) might be in violation of the WP:3RR if we make the next edit. I would ideally take this to the talk page. But introducing unreferenced changes (and that too into an article on the homepage) is a red flag and I would stop that asap. Appreciate some help / inputs. Ktin (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mimi Reinhardt

 * Comments: In the section on "Early years", only the first sentence is referenced. In the section on "Oskar Schindler", everything is sourced to the same source. Can we have more footnotes and references, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks to who has added new footnotes to the wikipage, footnoting is now adequate footnotes (AGF on non-English refs).  Length (400+ words)  Formatting . This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Will Smith banned from attending Oscars

 * While this is significant outcome from the event, in words of Michael Bay, Oppose as there are far more serious things happening in the world right now. --M asem (t) 23:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this has been a top story since it happened, the article on the subject if very high quality and since the LAPD didn't press charges this seems to be the end of the disciplinary path for the matter. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 00:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Celebrity gossip with zero near or long term significance. The fact that it is getting attention in in the MSM does not alter that fact. We are not Page Six. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose An unimportant story. Thriley (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the blurb be more neutral? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose celebrity gossip/procedures. NN Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose suited for DYK. This would be ITN, if Wikipedia stooped to the levels of gossip magazines. *yawn* Next! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Kramatorsk railway station attack

 * Oppose Unlike the massacre from last weekend which was vastly unusual for a war, this is what is expected of war activities, and thus covered by the ongoing. --M asem (t) 20:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This massacre of civilians at a train station who were fleeing the invasion is clearly a war crime and easily important enough to post. It's far from normal military combat. The article is easily good enough to post. If an attack by a VNSA group or a rampage killer had a similar death toll, we'd have posted it within a few hours of the article being created. Likewise an earthquake, flood, gas/chemical/radiological leak, accidental explosion or transportation disaster. Jim Michael (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The war is linked in ongoing. I am sorry to say it but this is pretty par for the course when we are talking about Russian war crimes and we can't post them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A mindless and indiscriminate war crime against civilians. Both sides say Tochka-U missiles were used. Possibly with cluster munitions warheads. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Apparently another horrific war event,  , but Russ contend they had nothing to do with it. Story seems still to be developing. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Russia had nothing to do with it, doesn't that make it more newsworthy? It would not then be covered by the ongoing matter. BD2412  T 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pro Russian media outlets and several Telegram channels reported earlier in the day that Russia had launched a successful missile attack on "Ukrainian forces" at the Kramatorsk station. When it became apparent that the attack killed a large number of civilians instead, the announcements were allegedly removed, and Russia started calling the attack a hoax" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia first claimed that they had launched a missile towards military targets in Kramatorsk, but subsequently about-faced in an attempt to deny responsibility. (: Some initial reports on Russia state media said the missile fired at Kramatorsk hit a military transport target. Subsequently Moscow denied responsibility for the strike. It then blamed Ukrainian forces.) If is a reliable source, then this is even more silly than it sounds. I mean, in the long list of denials of war crimes by people who committed them, this must be one of the least credible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the event is ITN-worthy irrespective of who was responsible. We covered the 2020 Beirut explosion before anyone knew what had caused it. BD2412  T 22:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Beirut explosion did not happen during the war and its consequences were really devastating for the Lebanese economy. However sad it is to say, the murder of 50+ civilians is not really an out-of-order war crime. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic Council is a think tank but is generally OK to use. Russia's banned it though back in 2019 as apparently it endangered the constitutional foundations of Russia. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should post every war crime Russia commits in ITN, unless they are so outrageous and unusual that they spark some real actions (at least by mass expulsions of diplomats, which don't mean much in practical terms but are at least more than "deep concern" and "condemnation"), as was the case for the Bucha massacre. Saying that some war crime is "run-of-the-mill" is probably inappropriate in general, but I wouldn't say that this particular incident would be something that would be seen as something "extraordinary". Besides, with all due respect to the heightened interest in my fatherland, we should probably limit the number of Ukraine-war related ITN items to these: major military victories (fall of Mariupol/breaking its siege, capture/liberation of really major cities, (God forbid) attack on yet another country or probably wholesale retreat from northern Ukraine, which I would find good enough for ITN but is a little stale at this point), major diplomatic actions that carry real consequences for the war (suspension from decisionmaking bodies carrying substantial power, such as the UN in general or its Security Council in particular, announcement of meaningful ceasefire/truce, beginning of trials of Russian officials responsible for war crimes in the ICC/ICJ, total economic blockade or at least in the oil/gas sector etc.) and some particularly heinous war crimes. Other stuff happens in most, if not all, wars with active military combat, thus it is covered by the ongoing event listing. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have this in ongoing already. We shouldn't have posted the last thing we did, or the UN thing, we certainly shouldn't post this. Enough already, it's in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to explain why this doesn't need a separate blurb: Russia isn't going to admit deliberately targeting civilians, and Ukraine will never consider it anything other than deliberate. All we know for certain is that the train station was bombed. It's not going to change the outcome of the war one way or the other, it's not pulling NATO in, it's not galvanizing the Russian people for or against Putin - in short it's an utterly insignificant tragedy in the middle of a tragic war which is already posted in ongoing. If so many news outlets had not been in precisely the right place at precisely the right time in a whole huge country with thousands of kilometers of battle front to witness this event it wouldn't be getting the attention it's getting with Jake Tapper shrieking about "genocide". This is what makes it media hysteria adequately covered by the ongoing item. The supports have done nothing to highlight the significance of this event as it would impact the course of the war. Yes, if this had been a terrorist attack in wherever we would blurb it - if the terrorist attacks in wherever weren't already parked in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support If this many people were killed in a terrorist attack - or even a hurricane - it would be on ITN already. The fact that it is happening in Ukraine should not be used as a reason to make an exception. BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Missile hit on fleeing civilians to the loss of 50+ people. Single significant tragedy in and of itself. CoatCheck (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ongoing is for lower-level things, individual events (such at 50+ people dying in a brutal attack by Russia) is notable enough for ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support On the basis that it's a significant tragedy in isolation, but to address the "ongoing" points - I keep seeing them and it's just gotten tiring. In my opinion, ongoing is utterly useless at helping readers find a specific story - but to focus on this case... Ongoing links to a full recap post of the 2022 invasion - it has its place, and is important to have, but finding the latest developments? Did a ctrl+f in the ongoing target article, and the only result for "Kramatorsk" was unrelated to this attack - the link to this article is buried in a collapsed box, which only lists the name of the city alongside dozens of others without much context for why it's listed there. How can readers clicking that ongoing be expected to find any info on this within a reasonable amount of time? It is useful as a hub that connects to other articles, which connect to other articles, and for providing a relatively brief recap of the macro-level machinations that have brought the situation to where it is. However, it is not enough to just assume anyone who is unaware of this attack could find this information, nor a good way for people aware of the attack to find information on it. "See ongoing" can be useful, and we obviously don't want to flood ITN with stories from one specific war - I'm relatively still new to Wikipedia, and even I am not confident in navigating the absolute wall of text that target article is. Canadianerk (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of oppose arguments here don't make a lot of sense. This is clearly in the news in a significant way, has attracted international attention and coverage, and is not a routine event. The argument that "It's in ongoing" is unhelpful. The main article is enormous and barely addresses this attack. I completely concur with what said. A natural disaster or terrorist attack on this scale would be posted without question. The fact the attack was perpetrated by Russia on a peaceful neighbour makes it even more ITN worthy, not less. AusLondonder (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I wonder what’s the purpose of the ongoing item if we single out every single attack in the invasion. No matter how much is this in the news, the sticky’s purpose is to contain this. I was against posting the Bucha massacre as well, and I knew it’d make a precedent for posting single events. There are many other deadly attacks which made the news in the past weeks, but we didn’t even consider them for posting. The sticky is fine, live with it, ITN shouldn’t become a Russia-Ukraine news-ticker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If we posted "every single attack" that the Russians had launched against Ukraine, they'd certainly be no room for any other news items. And I suspect ITN would need to cover not just the whole of the Main page, but several thousands of pages thereafter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently two stories directly pertaining to Russia and resulting from the invasion in the ITN box: the invasion sticky and the blurb on the suspension from UNHRC. If we post this, then exactly a half of all stories (four blurbs and two stickies) would relate to the invasion. We denied every single story related to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global event, which was tons of times more important than this invasion, just because it was posted to ongoing, so there’s absolutely no room to make any exception and navel-gaze on Russia. In sum, a resounding no from me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it may be difficult to quantify how many tons of times that might have been. There may be a structural problem with the existing posting policy for ITN. I don't see the reporting of hideous war crimes as "navel-gazing" on any level. You have made your view on this very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's the number one news story in the world right now. We frequently post terrorist attacks with similar death tolls. Worthy of inclusion despite the war being on ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - number one story everywhere. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant enough to override the fact that we have the invasion in Ongoing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Saturday's coverage (and consensus 2:1 in favor here) convinces me this attack on civilians, killing 50+, rises to ITN significance level.    – Sca (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not a Russia-Ukraine War news-ticker (as it wasn't for COVID-19 either) and this is already covered by ongoing, despite what is being claimed here ongoing is not for forward linking every major update but an acknowledgement of constantly developing news stories which are receiving top coverage all over (likewise with the pandemic). Excluding exceptional noms, e.g. the Bucha massacre, coverage for this should not be expanded at ITN (we have already posted more blurbs about this than we ever did for the pandemic). Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Heavy coverage in the media and headlines. It holds a significant death toll; constituting a relatively unusual level of mass casualties contrasted to most fatal events in 21st-century Europe. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic and needless suffering, but Wikipedia is not there to WP:RGW, and ITN is not supposed to be a news ticker for events which happen every other day (and given that this comes just days after the previous war crime, that seems an apt if distressing definition of this). Additional concerns about balance of the ITN coverage, as others have expressed: this is Wikipedia, not Russian-invasion-of-Ukraina-pedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the heedless, lethal violence against civilians trying to flee that raises this to major significance. You may say "that's war," and it certainly was in WWII, but since then int'l. law ostensibly made such militarily unnecessary attacks on civilians illegal. -- Sca (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet this is the second time in the past week that this kind of horrific and illegal event makes it into worldwide news. We can't include everything which gets in the news, we need to have some balancing criteria, and frankly, between the previous 300+ casualty event, the UNHRC resolution, and this, this seems the least significant (however unfortunate) of those. War is war. Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. Sadly, not something we can do anything about, but given this is already covered by ongoing, doesn't seem necessary to overload the ITN section with stuff related to it. Think that Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine kinda illustrates the point how, unfortunately, this is "happening every other day". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The ongoing line was exactly created to avoid spamming ITN with headlines on the same topic over a short timeframe. If we're going to post any blurb about the war, it needs to rise beyond a stardard war type action. --M asem (t) 17:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the big picture, the UNHRC expulsion might be more telling politically, but none of the above persuades this user (retired journalist) that ITN -- probably the most-read fixture on the main page -- should ignore an event of such high mortality and putative villainy. -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not about popularity/readership of stories, that's a function of a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. We're also amoral so we cannot let emotionally charged stories alter our views of what we put into the blurbs (which is often a problem with RD blurbs). We're trying to focus on quality articles that happen to be in the news and we purposely created ongoing for a situation like the Russia-Ukraine war to avoid spamming the box. --M asem (t) 17:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not talking about 'readership,' talking about significance. -- Sca (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, something that happens so frequently it practically doesn't get out of the news cycle isn't significant enough to start posting every instance of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying the violent deaths of men, women and children in an unprovoked war of aggression are no more significant than deaths from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Sca (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia (and showcase it's good articles), not express moral outrage over the recent events. And, unfortunately, since they have been happening every day for the past month and a half, and since this is the least significant of the recent news items about this, yes, this isn't significant enough on its own to justify a blurb separate from the ongoing. I'll remind you we didn't post a single blurb for COVID (which killed millions) once it was in the "ongoing" section. WP:BIAS is also something to consider: Ukraine is not the only place where things happen in the world. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The pandemic is not a result of human volition, but an act of nature. The war is due to human decisions -- an example of humankind's inhumanity to humankind. -- Sca (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? We are not Russian-invasion-of-Ukraine-pedia; no matter how inhuman (or rather, but disappointingly, very horribly human) the events may be. Not every event which happens there is ITN-worthy, even if it gets reported across many news outlets. We have the ongoing section for a reason. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mass killing of civilians and this attack is receiving worldwide condemnation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – After 24 hours, 13-7 in favor of posting. Marked "attn." – Sca (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not only supposed to be a WP:VOTE, consensus is still developing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say or mean to imply that posting should be based merely on vote-counting. IMO, it's the volume of user comments and the length of time this nom. has been extant here that combine to merit admin. attn. That, and the widespread RS coverage. -- Sca (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per RandomCanadian. This attack is part of the ongoing war. I worry if another equal or worse attack occurred today, then we would have three Russia related news items as well as the war under ongoing. We cannot cover every major atrocity of the war on ITN. Thriley (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose' On Ongoing already.  Spencer T• C 20:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RandomCanadian. Already in ongoing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RandomCanadian. Suggest close as consensus is unlikely to develop. --WaltCip- (talk)  14:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly in the news in a significant way, Heavy coverage in the media and headlines. Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incremental updates to battle results are not necessary when there is already an ongoing link. That's why it is in ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose To avoid the feed being overwhelmed by Ukraine news we probably need to keep events posted here to the standard of being fairly unique which isn't really the case for missile attacks on the civilian population.--Llewee (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest close Clearly consensus to post is not going to develop. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On to 10,000 dead in Mariupol?  -- Sca (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose per RandomCanadian. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already covered by ongoing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think anyone believes this should go onto ITN because we want to right great wrongs; I'd believe that this far more important than Russia quitting some random UN committee that nobody has heard about/cares about. If we really want to get stingy about that one blurb, an admin could always just boot it off and put this on there. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And just so we're clear, the "random UN committee" bit was sarcasm. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... not because it wasn't newsworthy, but it's gone pretty stale. Sca (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, yes. But those 57 people (at least 5 of whom were children) are still dead and those 109 people are still wounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If only... -- Sca (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

HD1 (galaxy)

 * Support in principle, but the article should be expanded beyond a one-paragraph summary.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - As OA of the "HD1 (galaxy)" article, the article seems about as up-to-date with substantial relevant information as currently available - the technology may be limited and unavailable at the present time for even more informations - perhaps somewhat due, for example, to the amount of calibration time and related still needed for the best operation of the James Webb Space Telescope at the moment I would think - however - further additions and edits to the article are more than welcome of course - there may be even more information to extract from the noted references on the article page for those more familiar with this material than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Interesting scientific discovery but I would like to see the article expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Can the article be divided into separate paragraphs? It doesn’t read well the way it is now. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose solely on article quality. It's kinda stubby in terms of text. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the list of furthest galaxies lists this as "Formulative understanding" (whatever that means) as opposed to "Confirmed galaxy" for all previous "record-holders". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - ✅ - separated text into sections - per suggestion(s) above - seems much better after all - thanks - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added per Rambling Man's oppose and to reflect language in the article and what I understand from the refs. I find the article short, but minimally comprehensive enough as a layman in the field; it feels like it covers everything I would like to know. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sky's the limit? We published another story like this last month: Farthest known star discovered. What's seems to be happening is that researchers are measuring the red shift of everything they see and seeking headlines when they find a big one.  The trouble is that the number of such objects is literally astronomical.  The article says "the researchers claim that use of the new upcoming space telescopes could help discover over 10,000 galaxies at this early epoch of the Universe".  So, we'll be publishing a story like this every month unless we establish some additional threshold of significance.  Something more than it being yet another early star/galaxy/nebula/whatever. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be a bit on the conservative side on this one as well. List of the most distant astronomical objects has the second-farthest identified galaxy GN-z11 at 13.39 GLy, which is not that different from 13.5. WHL0137-LS last month was different because it was a star, not a galaxy, and the the previous farthest known star was much much closer. --Tone 08:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 300 million years after Big Bang vs 410 makes some difference in the many unknowns of the youngest galaxies. A bigger ratio after cutting off how long old the universe was when the oldest galaxy formed from each timespan. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. But the article does not really explain the significance to the reader, it just says that it was discovered. And it says that the JWST will likely find even more of them. It is a good story but the significance in grand scale is not clear. Tone 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. But it would better to expand article. Alex-h (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Andrew. Meh. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a pretty major discovery, one should keep in mind not all current news is political. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, some of it is military. -- Sca (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Andrew. ITN can not turn into a ticker of every time we find a new farthest X thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which part of "per above"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The previous one was widely covered in all sorts of news, I barely see any mention of this (for example, the BBC still has the star mentioned, but nothing about this; so not "in the news" by any account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No - Seems "BBC News" has an article on the "HD1 galaxy" after all - as do other reliable news sources, like "The New York Times" - and many others, including "Forbes News" (also see "Google Search", and the noted reliable references in the "HD1 galaxy" Wikipedia article itself) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, still, that article doesn't appear on https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment ; (where the one article which is put into the spotlight is ). Obviously they don't judge it significant enough to appear on the front of their science coverage, much less their main page. My point still stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - newly adjusted LEDE to "HD1" article => "HD1 is a purported high-redshift galaxy, and is considered, as of April 2022, to be the earliest and most distant known galaxy yet identified in the observable universe, located only about 330 million years after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, a light-travel distance of 13.5 billion light-years from Earth, and, due to the expansion of the universe, a present proper distance of 33.4 billion light-years." - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New leadership in Yemen

 * Oppose I'm iffy on the application of ITNR here. The PLC is essentially a government-in-exile; the extent to which it "controls" anything in Yemen is as a the pretense of a foreign expedition. In any case, the article requires significant expansion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hellmuth Matiasek

 * Support Looks good to go. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Mass of W boson

 * Oppose Reading the Guardian article, this doesn't fundamentally change the Standard Model but begs for additional replication and checking to see if their results can be replicated. So there's no major impact now. --M asem (t) 23:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose big if true. But not suitable for ITN. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as the sources say, this is big but still too early to call the Standard Model not-working. And it is already known that it is not complete, missing dark matter and such. --Tone 09:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been known from the beginning that it isn't the theory of everything. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above. Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a theory that needs re-replicating, wait until if/when it's actually confirmed, if it does change the standard model. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Fujiko A. Fujio

 * Support Notable person. Rin (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely unsuitable for RD at the moment, there is precisely one source in the first nine paragraphs of the Biography section. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Huge amounts of unsourced material. AryKun (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Russia Suspended, Quits UN Human Rights Council

 * Support Big shakeup and internationally recognized. Second time this has ever happened as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Part of historic event in Europe. BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: barely/not mentioned at either article. Not groundbreaking/decisive news given the current conflict. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A member state, whose temporary membership expires in one year from now, being suspended from a body with 46 other member states doesn’t have any major impact and isn’t newsworthy at all. Major news would be Russia’s removal from the UN Security Council, but this is very far away from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. With half the countries abstaining, removal from the Security Council is out of the question. This is the first time a permanent member of the Security Council was ever removed from any UN body. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support rare event of international importance. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support rare and fully expected. Continued place on the Security Council is a matter of nuclear weapon capability, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - it's in the news and article quality is sufficient. Levivich 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and it's a rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you, but the article isn't quite ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment There's more meat on the story at Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, if that could be pipe-linked instead of the broader UNGA article. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Best to link it to the emergency session article or to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article. Pilaz (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Pilaz's point, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article is much better suited for an alternative blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The ES-11/3 article would be best if this is to run. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Altblurb2 submitted for your consideration, then. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support notable, given the last time was in 2011. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little to no impact of a body that doesn't live up to its name. If they do something in regards to sentencing Russian officials than may be that would be worth posting, but being suspended from a human rights council when it's generally believed that you are committing the crimes the council combats isn't exactly surprising and has very little impact in the grand scheme of things. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely rare occurrence, and it being a SC member makes it all the more notable. The Kip (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality target article is orange tagged for needing more sources. Unless that is fixed, the whole discussion is a moot point. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Given that Russia's removal from the UN Security Council is impossible under current rules (as compared to Soviet Union's expulsion from the League of Nations after Winter War), this is likely as far as it could go in the UN. Brandmeistertalk  08:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support rare and notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. Article is short, but sufficient; it is well referenced and lacks the orange tags that Joseph2302 notes may be a problem with other targets.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Very widely covered and tellingly indicative of Russia's international standing due its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Favor ALT2 – but with this small clarification: "...from the UN Human Rights Council" or " its Human Rights Council." (The relevant 'Suspensions' section of the main target article seems well-documented.) – Sca (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 only as this links to the article about the actual event, and that article is good enough article quality. ALT0 and ALT1 both bold United Nations Human Rights Council, which is orange-tagged, and so not an acceptable article target, and anyway, linking to the specific event article is way better for readers. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Often a separate article about the event is optimal, but this one seems rather thin. In this instance the main target article appears to be a better choice, and I don't see the orange tag about "tertiary" sources as being necessary; overall, the article looks well-documented. But either article would be OK to get this event into the box. -- Sca (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the UNHRC has barely got any real power and by itself triggers little. As a political development signalling something, sure, it's big deal, but would it have made much difference if Russia stayed? The only one is probably reputational, and even there there are other members with record of human rights abuses. Withdrawal from the UN, that's a thing, or suspension from the Security Council, which could even see blue helmets in Ukraine, but both are very unlikely to happen. This development is more or less shrugged off in Russia, which means that it's not important for them and they would continue bombing and shelling and pillaging regardless (I'd imagine that the EU's announcement of a total energy blockade would be more blurb-worthy). It's therefore barely a key event in the invasion, and, while meriting a mention in the current events section, falls way short of a blurb. For a perspective of how all of these grand political announcements are treated in Ukraine (more or less), see this Twitter profile (the example is about the European Union but is perfectly applicable to the United Nations as well). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The United Nations Human Rights Council also has sections with lots of citation needed tags too. Whereas Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is more than good enough at explaining this, as it covers the entire timeline of issues around it, which the general article does not (it has one paragraph). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but which blurb links to Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly? Am I blind? -- Sca (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting articles mixed up, sorry. Maybe we should be linking Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, but linking to United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 is better than the general article in ALT0 and 1. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose little-to-no-impact body. This is not actual news or significant in any way. Just a diplomatic development, only slightly more meaningful than expelling diplomats. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it possible to link Russia? It's a GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FTR I note that another admin undid the linking per a discussion at ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks, Ad Orientem. I was out yesterday, but learned about WP:SEAOFBLUE and overlinking. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ketanji Brown Jackson

 * Comment on global perspective: I very much want ITN to be a global venue, but to say that this isn't significant enough to post makes us basically a parody of ourselves. Much of the opposition so far (e.g. Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time) evidence a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics. Most countries' supreme courts are not nearly as powerful as the U.S. Supreme Court, which heads the entire third branch of its government, so it's not an analogous situation. And most don't appoint judges to lifetime tenure. Further, we need to cure ourselves of this idea that to be global, we need to treat all countries, no matter how big or small, identically. A major political development in the U.S. is fundamentally more newsworthy than a major political development in Liechtenstein. That isn't because we're giving any special treatment to the U.S.—it's because the U.S. has 329 million people whereas Liechtenstein has 0.04 million. We should treat countries equitably, not equally. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a sampling of publications of record from around the world, all of which currently have the Jackson nomination on their front page in the local edition: Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Asahi Shinbun, South China Morning Post, The Hindu, etc. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * China and India combined contain 36% of global population. The United States contains about 4% of global population. Would an “equitable” ITN reflect these numbers? Thriley (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so 4% of ITN would be news related to the United States? If so, this news item wouldn’t make it in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree. Just because the United States has 4 percent of the world's population doesn't water down the fact that it has a massive influence on the world as a whole. We, instead of pointing to a number and immediately changing ITN policy because of it, should instead take each submission on a case by case basis. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * of course, this also keeps the court at a 6-3 conservative/liberal split and hence means little to the overall issues widely known with SCOTUS (eg shadow dockets) until that ratio changes. Status quo remains, outside the first for racial/gender equity. This is not like RBG dying with Trump in position to move a 5-4 to 6-3. --M asem (t) 20:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also reported in WPost: in case y'all want more links. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in a high-quality state, news outlets are providing an adequate level of coverage to indicate newsworthiness. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good (and semi protected). Definitely notable for American history.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This vote, while well-covered in media, doesn’t have the significance to be on ITN. Nothing changes in the philosophical dynamic of the court. I assume the last three nominees to the Supreme Court did not make it to ITN. Jackson shouldn’t either. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amy Conan Barrett's nomination was not posted. Brett Kavanaugh was posted, then pulled. Neil Gorsuch was not posted. But none of those had the historic nature of the first Black woman to be appointed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Jackson’s race is the reason for this to appear on ITN, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise, this is a uneventful news story that does not fundamentally change anything. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - ready for posting. Notable in American history.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose when the election of members of the Supreme Courts becomes ITNR we will talk about this. For now it’s another American joke. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , (a) typically something like a SCOTUS nomination would get support at ITN before getting an ITNR nomination, (2) these "anti-nationalist" comments, best term I can come up with, are not helpful for discussion in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a routine vote. Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time. We don’t need a precedent for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We wouldn't post a judge joining the Supreme Court of any other country. Only notable aspect is that she is the first black woman on the court; but let's put it another way: would we post the first time a Muslim was added to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not change the ideological status quo, and we routine don't post such confirmations from elsewhere. Being the first African American female justice can be a DYK. --M asem (t) 19:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Historic nomination that is receiving widespread coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we should lean towards rewarding good articles that are wholly created (rather than merely updated) to reflect recent events, as this supports the intent of ITN. But I the significance here fails to cross even a lowered threshold.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely editor-centric perspective. Current events articles would still be written and updated even if ITN ceased tomorrow, so that's not a very strong raison d'être. The value of ITN is that it makes it easier for readers to find content that will be of strong interest to them. And there are a lot of readers right now who are interested in this news. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. While the main page is organized in such a way as to facilitate certain benefit to readers, its raison d'être is to promote improvements to the mainspace. This is in no way editor-centric, by the way. Readers benefit.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First X in Y is a tired argument. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose the ideological balance of the court stays the same, so it comes down to just the first person of a demographic to be appointed some internal post, so no. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this is groundbreaking news, it is truly a historical moment. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Opposeideological balanceis is not changed. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Historic from an American perspective, and great for her and the nation as a whole, but not entirely unprecedented or groundbreaking on a global stage. NorthernFalcon and Kiril Simeonovski put it quite well already. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support given that she is going to be a historic addition to the court, and this story has global RS coverage and is of particular interest to many readers. However, I would alternatively support a standard of posting an item only if there is a change in the ideological balance of the court. This would retrospectively justify posting the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a blurb rather than RD. The only other confirmation since Clarence Thomas in 1991 that would be debatable is Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, since he replaced the swing vote on an arguably 4-4-1 court to solidify a 5-4 conservative majority, which has obviously had a large  (detrimental)   impact on many issues affecting millions of people. Davey2116 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose More appropriate for 2022 in the United States. Do we post things on ITN about judges getting appointed to the Supreme Courts of other countries (Canada, France, Australia, Japan, Germany, etc...)? Canuck 89 (Converse with me)  22:05, April 7, 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't normally post supreme court appointments, and I see no justification for posting this. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, one change to a court of one nation that doesn't affect ideological balance is not exactly earth shattering. Kafoxe (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in good shape and this is in the news internationally. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - it's in the news (globally not just in the US) and article quality is sufficient. Levivich 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's really just a case of a judge being promoted, it's a domestic matter that has no significance globally in the grand scheme of things. If I didnt turn to American media, I wouldn't really hear much about it. 4iamking (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While historic indeed, it's only historic in the U.S. therefore it's domestic news not global news. Can't really see her confirmation having any global ramifications/impact and therefore not global news worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We almost never post domestic political events below the level of national elections because every country has their own version of something like this and we can't post them all. This isn't saying the event lacks significance. It is saying that the significance outside the borders of one country is pretty limited and we would almost certainly quickly decline any nomination of a similar nature from any other country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - While historic in the United States, and thrilling on that basis, I don't think it reaches a level of global significance as a domestic political event. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- this was closed too early to come to the conclusion that this will not be posted. This should be reopened, in my opinion. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is, I'll only disappoint you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say how I'd vote. :-) -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how you'd vote! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tadao Takahashi

 * This wikibio is indeed on the short side, but with 370+ words, it's long enough to be a non-stub and therefore qualify for use on ITN. Formatting looks fine. Footnoting looks fine, too, but I need to AGF on non-English sources. The wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PFHLai, meets minimum standards.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: David McKee

 * Comment/Suggestion: Please be reminded that the bibliography should be referenced. Perhaps only a "selected bibliography" should be used if refs are only available for some of the items on the list. It may be hard to get the older (pre-internet) ones. --PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * An ISBN (or similar) would be sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but more of them need to be added to the bibliography. Also, there are a handful of {CN} tags in the prose that need to be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments. I'm quite busy but will see if I can fix the bibliography or maybe spin it off into a separate article if that doesn't work. Blythwood (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

First known dinosaur fossil from K-T extinction

 * Oppose on the basis that, if I read this correctly, this claim hadnt yet been published through a peer reviewed journal even though there's been careful checks through the process. We usually want that confirmation for these. --M asem (t) 21:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The Tanis site is the Pompeii of the KT extinction. Findings at that site are extremely valuable. Scientific rigor about the latest finding is less important for ITN, what matters is that there is a good Wiki article that puts this latest finding in the context of all the other discoveries made at Tanis. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, while I like good science stories, and this is one, the news at the moment is just a confirmation of what has been already announced months ago. So, we should have posted it then, not now. --Tone 21:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Attenborough's BBC show is still upcoming (April 15). -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Count Iblis. Incredibly important scientific discovery. and to, why would we post it then? At that point, it was just pure speculation and thus a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From the article, it is not clear what the April 2022 update is. The most recent paper in that section is from Feb 2022. This needs to be addressed first. Tone 06:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important scientific discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, I would also add a Comment requesting for an alt to mention that the specific dinosaur being mentioned here is a Thescelosaurus as per the BBC article. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Utterly massive discovery. The Kip (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the target article should be the specific fossil species found, not the site itself. Brandmeistertalk  06:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article contains no information relevant to the blurb which is dated to the time frame for an ITN posting. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this is much more notable than some rando being appointed to a judiciary position somewhere. So far the target article is ready.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron and Tone. It's not clear what the update is that would make this suitable to post now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says the discovery is years old, and the only thing happening now is that the BBC is airing a show next week. That, politely, does not approach the level of significance of an ITN blurb. —Cryptic 17:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Päivi Räsänen

 * Comment - My instinct is to oppose on whether this is a notable enough news event to qualify, but I feel like I probably do not know enough about how much coverage this got in Finland to make that judgement. Anyone more familiar have any thoughts on this? 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Google News lists many different Finnish language sources in the last six days, including major outlets.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose result of a trial of a non-leadership government official. Not significant in light of larger world events. --M asem (t) 15:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Earlier, Räsänen was the Minister of the Interior, a department which includes the administration of the state church. This was an element of her trial, because she had made public statements with the intention of swaying the state church away from the path which it later took. Räsänen is not part of the current government, yet since the start of this year her Finnish language Wikipedia article |Sanna_Marin has higher peaks than the article for the current Prime Minister of Finland, and about half the total number of views as the current Prime Minister.


 * As for the relationship with larger world events, her trial attracted protests and commentary in Hungary over the previous months. The blurb about Fidesz relates to this in that the elements in Hungary which supported Räsänen could be assumed to side with Fidesz as opposed to the opposition. In addition part of the trial concerned her prosecution for things she stated before the Finnish government and state church adopted its current positions on homosexuality. Had the trial gone the other way, Fidesz lost, and the opposition enacted similar legislation to Finland's, Räsänen's conviction would have set a precedent to prosecute current high profile Fidesz elected leaders. Concern about the sort of precedent this would set in foreign countries was cited by critics.


 * The article describes public advocacy, some rather strongly worded, by representatives of 45 Lutheran church bodies, five senators, and ten U.S. academics. This sort of foreign interest is especially because the trial has implications for how foreign nations will balance the various rights. Had the verdict gone the other way, it would encourage similar prosecutions elsewhere. Other aspects of the trial included the prosecutions' formal demand for sentences against the bishop of a small Lutheran church body in Finland, the censorship and fine of an organization related to the denomination, and the censorship of portions of a show from a well known host on YLE, a major public media outlet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Its still not going to change how any major government is going to be run or have any landmark change in laws or policies. Its not the type of story that works well on ITN due to how narrow it is. --M asem (t) 00:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Stale. News is from March 30, oldest current blurb from April 3.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote the blurb earlier but did not submit it because the prosecution said there was a high probability of appeal. In Finland the prosecution can appeal too. Today is the earliest I can say that it won't be appealed to reverse the ruling. It is still within the 14 days for ITN.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 14 days is a rough estimate. Blurbs are posted in (fairly) strict chronological order, and bumped off the bottom when the list becomes too long.  The date in the article related to the blurb is March 30.  That would place it under the Orban blurb (indeed, also under several other blurbs that have also since rolled off), and as such, would never make the main page.  Even if it were otherwise okay.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not date it to April 6 as this altblurb: "The prosecution does not contest Päivi Räsänen's acquittal of homophobic hate speech charges."? (Added in just now)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would oppose posting this whether it was in India, the US, Egypt or Tuvalu. It's irrelevant to the global audience of the encyclopedia. She isn't even a leader of any great significance. On a side note given the History of same-sex unions I question the use of the term "traditional marriage". AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Her trial and/or charges were covered by BBC, Reuters, MSN, The Hill, Washington Post, The Spectator, FOX News, Newsweek, National Review, and U.S. News & World Report. I agree that she was never a world leader. What is especially significant in this story are the decisions of the prosecution.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose Older than the current oldest blurb on ITN from 3 April. The acquital would be the major story, not the alt blurb of the prosecution not contesting.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had written the blurb for March 30, I could have gotten a procedural oppose on the basis that District Court isn't very high up in the Finnish judicial system, and that the prosecution plans to appeal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment any blurb should probably explain that Räsänen was Minister of the Interior in Finland in 2015. But her article doesn't make it very clear what she has done or what she has been since then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Her career besides as a minister: on the Riihimäki City Council since 1993, Finnish Parliament member since 1995, an MP, and former chair of the Christian Democrats. Having been on the parliament for 27 years makes her higher in profile than most MPs. I agree to any changes to the blurbs to clarify what her position or positions is or were.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Zhirinovsky

 * Support, of course. It's not the ordinary politician from Russia. First, he was a leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, a third/fourth political party in Russia. Second, he was and he still is one of the most extravagant politicans in the world due to his bright, some bold style of speech. He's known for his anti-Western and pro-Russian position in many spheres of Russian life. You can also read some facts shows that he was not an ordinarry person. He can also be considered a real "visionary" of many future political events that have taken place or are taking place (like now, I mean - Ukraine). -- Brateevsky ( talk to me ) 12:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Little English-language coverage. Subject not widely known internationally. Impact seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a regular RD nomination, not for a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! -- Sca (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I suggest a Wikiwide ban on any and all mention of Russian politicians named Vladimir – there are too many of them. – Sca (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are now as many Vladimirs in the Duma as there are Mikes in your House (13). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose until orange tag is fixed, then it's fine for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose More references required, several unsourced contentious statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support One of the most notable figures in post-Soviet Russian politics. An RD (or even maybe a blurb) would be highly recommended. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article is fine, I guess. Subject is not notable internationally, so no blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Very notable actually. Not knowing about him personally doesn't make him insignificant. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Subject is not notable internationally" - 61 wiki pages suggest otherwise. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support – Vladimir Zhirinovsky is one of the most significant Russian politicians of this era, and he is pretty infamous internationally. His death definitely warrants a blurb. He is known for his fiery rhetoric (even called "Russia's clown") and outlandish ideas, in addition to playing a significant role in setting the tone for Russia's post-Soviet policies. The only issue I see is that one section of the article needs some more citations, but this is an issue that can probably be remedied rather easily.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality due to being under-referenced. Would oppose a blurb as well (RD only) because the manner of his death does not need extra explanation.  If all we can say is that he died, there's no need for a blurb.  RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, doesn't appear that his death is notable enough to warrant a blurb. He was not a head of state or otherwise transformative in his field (... of being a clown?) -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Rockstone. There would be nothing but grief around here if we regularly posted U.S. political provocateurs as blurbs.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is "political provacateurs" a tautology? -- Sca (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I never proposed a blurb; I personally don't think any politician who wasn't a head of gov/state deserves one, and I voted oppose for Bob Dole. The votes here should be on whether the article is appropriate to post (I see the cite tag has gone now), as there is overwhelming opposition to a blurb, which was never requested to start with. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It should certainly be in RD at least. Zhirinovsky was one of the most well known Russian politicians of post-Soviet Russia. In the 90s he was causing alarm in the West due to his rhetoric and statements while being a major contender at the time. There is plenty of English-language coverage about his death in RS. Mellk (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb. At least RD should be posted while the article is in good shape and has 125 refs. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. No consensus for blurb at this point, but discussion can continue.  Spencer T• C 16:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Siege of Moura

 * Oppose Definitely not noteworthy enough, especially as Imran Khan was just ousted. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, what does Khan have to do with this nom? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * per above. What does Khan have to do with this nomination? Just because x thing is happening doesn't make y thing any less notable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, Imran Khan’s removal from office does not reduce the notability of this event.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 04:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone just got a bit too excited :) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Noteworthy event, appears to be newer than oldest ITN item in terms of death toll count from HRW. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support On par with the atrocities in Ukraine. Certainly notable enough for an ITN. PenangLion (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. This is a very notable instance or a crime against humanity.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb. Passable but would like to see expansion on Russian involvement et al. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's stale and should - per the instructions - not have been nominated under the April 9 heading. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:BC29:820E:6559:30FA (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now moved to April 5th heading, the date of the Reuters and Guardian news sources. --PFHLai (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It doesn't seem to be to old to post. It is clearly a large massacre with a fairly detailed article.--Llewee (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important probable crime against humanity, could have ramifications for the region in the long term as well. Yakikaki (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 03:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Ellis (baseball)

 * Support Satis, no cn, no stub, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bjarni Tryggvason

 * Support – article is well-referenced; now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced. RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Graciela Giannettasio

 * Support sourcing looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nehemiah Persoff
*Weak oppose Good work on citing the filmography and career sections, however I feel that lead is pretty short as it doesn't even mention notable roles as most actor's wiki leads have. Support Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Acting career and filmography sections both need citations. Please fix them. Support Citing issues have been fixed. Article ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have added citations for the career and filmography sections. Pinging oppose vote . PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @TDKR Chicago 101 I am not super familiar with the actor but I have made an attempt to list some of these roles. Could you take another look? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Issues appear to have been addressed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose "Acting Career" is overwhelmingly a CV in list format without much depth. Essentially a regurgitation of the filmography.  Spencer T• C 16:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That section has been revamped and simplified. Perhaps it's time for another look? --PFHLai (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown

 * Wait Article is only in its infancy at the moment, though the large number of arrests and the circumstances surrounding them, coupled with concerns I'm seeing over press freedom and human rights, makes this a nom I'd probably support if the article can be improved upon. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale According to the text in the article, the relevant events all occurred on March 25 - 27. That is significantly older than our oldest current blurb on the Serbian election.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's not recent enough. If the article is improved substantially, it should be nominated for DYK. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose procedurally. It's stale for ITN, but is still eligible for DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Rydell

 * Support Article looks ready now. Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Fully cited, nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see a handful of Cn tagsc—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if we really need the Cashbox chart positions as well as Billboard, but if we do then they should be cited too. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - All tagged content is now sourced. Cashbox chart positions have been removed. It isn't really necessary to have them along with Billboard and I don't know of any individual source to source all of the chart positions. Only a few of the respective song articles include the Cashbox chart positions. As such, the article looks ready.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone give me the "credits". Thanks. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 00:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You got it. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patricia MacLachlan

 * Support. Nice expansion . Innisfree987 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And (sorry I overlooked!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted, Attention Needed) 2022 Peruvian protests
Just as an addendum: France24 is probably not a very valid source, as it's state-owned government media that is entirely under the control of the French government for the purpose of exporting soft power. Ergo, any claim they make must be examined with additional scrutiny. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there goes BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as sources on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to check - are you serious?Chrisclear (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That...makes no sense. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Say goodbye to a helluva ton of reliable sources, then! tempted to strike that but I feel like that goes over the line a bit too much Cheers! Fakescientist8000 09:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

*Oppose -- at least for now. Propose new blurb if protests continue to grow. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anywho, Wait per Sca; the story is currently developing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick update. The number of dead is rising, the Supreme Court offices were looted and protests have grown. Many calls on Castillo to resign (And not just from traditional opposition).--WMrapids (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support then. No doubt that if the Supreme Court of the United States (or any country within the Anglosphere) were to be looted, that we'd post this on ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  18:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb II the magnitude of the protests and the international coverage that they are receiving certainly merits a blurb, and at the moment alternative blurb II does the best job of highlighting the most notable aspects, though this could certainly change as the event unfolds.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per the new developments. The looting of the Supreme Court of Peru is unprecedented, and this looks like a bigger deal than the 2020 Peruvian protests, which we posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull No concensus has been reached. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull? I see only one 'oppose' vote! and that has been crossed out and changed to 'support'. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There were five total votes, three of which were Support. That's not even remotely a consensus. The Kip (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull Peru is in an essentially permament state of political crisis; the previous two presidents were impeached, the one before that is facing trial on corruption charges, the one before that killed himself before he could be arrested... this seems like a not particularly major flare-up in a long-running national drama. 9 deaths are of course tragic, but not in and of themselves anywhere near the level of notability for ITN; when terrorist attacks in Northern Nigeria (60 dead) or Somalia (48 dead), or mass shootings in California (6 dead), Mexico (20 dead), and Israel (6 dead) don't make ITN, I can't see why this would be any different. Neither the level of casualties nor the political ramifications here are currently worthy of ITN. Frankly, I would say events in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, for instance, are more noteworthy. This may of course change as events evolve, but as things stand now posting this was premature. --Varavour (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you nominate the Northern Nigerian attacks to ITN? Or any of the others?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull and continue debate. Posted with five votes, three of which were Support and two were Wait; that's not even remotely a consensus and doesn't seem to meet the standard for posting.The Kip (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per above !pull votes. 3 supports and 2 waits is not nearly enough for a consensus. I'm asking any admin out there to pull this and continue the debate. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Don't see a good reason to pull. A decent article and in the news.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article has appropriate depth of coverage of the event and explains its importance; referenced; receiving news coverage.  Spencer T• C 16:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to post, and there was no consensus to pull. The article itself looks fine as an ITN article. Let it be. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka)

 * Oppose we don't usually post the resignation of Government/Cabinet Ministers (unless they're the Head of State, which Sabry isn't), as they aren't important enough for ITN. Especially since Sri Lanka has had 3 Finance Ministers in the last year, and 5 in the last 5 years, and Sabry had the role for 1 day before quitting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Ali Sabry (Sri Lankan politician) would need improvements including fixing cn tags, and not sure why there's a section called "Racist attacks" which doesn't use the word racism at all, and therefore seems POV. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment In relation to your remarks above about France24 being state-owned and therefore "not very valid" - are you aware who owns Al Jazeera? AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302. There is no consensus to post members of government cabinets (unless they are the Head of State). If you don't believe me, see Madeliene Albright's blurb proposal. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous opposes. Below the radar. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The resignation of a minister is just not significant enough for ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As already explained above, this is below ITN threshold.– Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Boehlert

 * Weak support Career section seems slanted with more detail toward the latter half of his career but at the same time that seems to be more of what he was notable for; referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Messina

 * Support well sourced, covered by the Guardian, Rolling Stone and others. Bammesk (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short, no cn, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Baechler

 * Not ready 2 cn tags. Grimes2 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Thanks to Grimes2 for removing cn tags. That now means that this article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Championships

 * Support alt blurb. Both articles meet the quality requirements for ITNR - though I am not convinced it should be ITNR. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per BilledMammalRoyal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I tweaked to expand MOP to "Most Outstanding Player" in the alt, since there was enough pushback that it wasn't a common term.  See last year's stable version.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I didn't realize that got expanded to the full term last year. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For MVP, we always post it as MVP, with a wikilink. Not sure why this needs to be different, as now this takes up way to much of the ITN box, as it's way longer than any other article listed there. MOP is fine as it's linked. I have also raised with at WP:ERRORS, as I believe it's a bad change. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb Both men's and women's championships are in the news and the articles are in good shape. Image is great too, let's cycle Orban off soon please. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't we do something like abbreviate MVP and have both the term hyperlink and a mouse-over active as to help save wording space, relatively recently on a different sports blurb? --M asem (t) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes MOP would be much better, as it's so long at the moment. Make it shorter, which makes it better. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Shrug. MOP get nixed last year for the expansion. If its not the perennial Americans compaining about "Oxford win..." its Brits not knowing MVP (let alone MOP).—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter which abbreviation is used as long as its both consistent with the sport (MVP for this event) and that we give a means to quickly ID it with mouse-over text and hyperlink. --M asem (t) 12:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, mouse-over text doesn't work on mobile devices. Forcing those people to click through to an unrelated article isn't ideal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, here was this year's WP:ERRORS' thread, which was a toss-up on using MOP or expanding it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment just for future reference, this game "drew nearly 5 million viewers and peaked at 5.91 million". Basically any future entertainment event with 10 million viewers should get posted if the same rules were to be applied.SI 2A02:2F0B:B414:B700:31D9:9CD1:BF83:20BA (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad faith argument, this has already been approved as an ITNR topic years back. The Kip (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OTOH, if someone so valued getting their work posted to TMP that they made MLS Cup-level events look like The Boat Race, we should absolutely reward that. Main space quality is colossally more important than ITN balance.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Pamela Rooke

 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Indeed, good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Johnson

 * Support lead is poorly formatted but the article is well-sourced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the lead up, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better, my support vote still remains. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Some outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all remaining CN tags. I hope that the article is now to your satisfaction. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you added regarding him starting at WUSA in 1976 only mentions him being there in 1982. —Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Forgot to ping.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I resolved this using the WAPO obit.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Brown

 * Wait Awards and filmography need sourcing. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per above plus the Film and Television along with the Theatre paragraphs need citing Josey Wales Parley 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking looks fairly decent now Support Josey Wales Parley 07:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per above Wait !votes. Will strike once article is fully cited. Post-posting support per others. Article has been fixed up. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

IPCC AR6 WG3

 * Oppose Part 1 we posted in August 2021. Part 2 was nominated in Feb 2022 but the article was not brought to spec and there was concern we had already posted the first part. The same concerns sit here. --M asem (t) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the first one, but don't need to post every other one too, especially when the news coverage is lower than the first one. Also, article quality is lacking as it's just a lost of bullet points. If it's that important, then I'd expect way more sourceable content to be added. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basically,the first Part had already posted, but the article was not brought to spec. Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerda Weissmann Klein

 * Weak Support I have cleaned up the article of the unsourced content. If anyone can find RSes with the old information and can add it, please do! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2 CN tags remaining, then this should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 16:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. I have taken care of the CN tags. --PFHLai (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gene Shue

 * Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

 * Note that we have had problems with the Grammy ceremony getting updated to quality expected for posting in the past several years, compared to something like the most recent Oscars one. This one is currently also in a similar state that will need a lot more info on the ceremony itself. --M asem (t) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2021 and 2020 nominations seemed to have been posted in decent time.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am just noting as I did in 2021 that getting updates to include the ceremony (and not just a listing of winners) has been a slow process to the point where including the Grammys as ITNR has been questioned but it has not been removed. We need that ceremony information before this can be posted. --M asem (t) 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just listings of results That complaint is used a lot on pages for elections and sporting events. After some review, I don't see how this or past Grammy pages are any different.  At a minimum, shouldn't there be a few sentences of prose on the merits of the winners, at least for Best Record and Best Album?—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, we reject lots of articles for just listing results (e.g. 2022 Australian Open tennis tournament was never improved with prose and so wasn't posted). No prose = no posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We rarely discuss the merits of the winners unless there's something historic (as noted in RSes) about them. But we do need info on the ceremony itself just like a recap of a sporting event. --M asem (t) 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I still think we shouldn't be posting this. No one gives a shit about the Grammy's and it's evident in the fact that the article never gets quality updates. --WaltCip- (talk)  12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It got posted the last two years, in 2021 with unanimous support. So maybe someone will fix it in a day or so. WT:ITN would be the place to discuss removing from ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize this. Thus why I didn't vote a straight oppose. WaltCip- (talk)  13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs prose on Best Album and Best Record besides "they won". Batiste's win was considered an upset. Bruno Mars of Silk Sonic has also won Best Record before.—Bagumba (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose describing winners; I'd think this is needed at minimum, especially for the major categories as Bagumba mentioned above me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Award articles like Oscars or Grammys rarely discuss the winners beyond the listing unless reliable sources make note of unusual conditions like major firsts or records. Not that there aren't any for this run of the Grammys but that's not been a required section. We still do need more about the ceremony itself before this can be posted. --M asem (t) 04:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. In ITN/R. The article seems fine to me, enough prose, including Category changes section. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lack of prose aside, the winners and presenters aren't even cited.—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Costa Rican general election

 * Weak oppose missing second round abroad votes. Apart from that, looks okay. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will be added, should be good after that. BastianMAT (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when ready when the missing section has been updated, the material checks out, change of political administration is notable as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , article fully ready now, all results with abroad votes added, no more missing sections. Should be good to be posted now. BastianMAT (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks ready indeed. I wonder, should we mention the general assembly vote as well, since it was general election? Tone 07:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added alt2 if you want to include the party that won the most seats in congress (not the party of the president-elect). BastianMAT (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am still having another issue, I kind of expect to see the assembly vote results in the intro, while now it is just about the president. Infobox as well. I just realized it. Tone 12:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, thanks for letting me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above !votes. Article looks good to me. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: No prose description of the results from what I can see; at present, results is only a bunch of tables.  Spencer T• C 01:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, looks ready now. Alex-h (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, please, before it gets too stale. Article is well above average for an election in a country that isn't in the anglosphere core. With a preference for the original blurb, in the interests of brevity. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly ITN ready. And should get posted.BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment clearly ready, if this were a US-based nomination, it would have been posted much more quickly. It's been marked as ready for about 24 hours.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting... Just waiting for the image protection to clear. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Serbian general election

 * Wait Great article, except I see no winner, no results tables... Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose results needs listing, and lots of "who" and "which" tags need fixing in aftermath section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the aftermath needs clarification, otherwise the article looks fine. Tone 09:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but what is important is that the SPS loses the majority in parliament. Yes, it did win the plurality of seats but that's not as important. I propose main blurb to remedy this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Braganza (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support issues I raised above look to have been fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Issues have been fixed. The article is up to date.--Vacant0 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election

 * Oppose needs some refs on opposition primary, results tables need some kind of updating, and I can't remember if we wait for 100% vote check or accept the concessions. Either way, some updating still needed. Why do I never hear anything positive about Orbán? Kingsif (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support Important headline that has already been confirmed by multiple global media outlets as a resounding victory in favour of Orban, so I think it would be appropriate to say he won the win as big. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article quality looks good enough. Of the 3 elections held yesterday and nominated here, this is the one that is getting the most coverage (albeit all 3 might get posted, as they're all ITNR). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. I moved the reference in the opposition primary, it covers the entire section now, so it's ok. --Tone 08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lygia Fagundes Telles

 * Support article seems well sourced and ready to go.  Hamza Ali Shah   01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a solid article. Grimes2 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major article seems well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Bucha massacre

 * Strong support - similar to Fântâna Albă massacre - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post mere accusations, even for something as dire as this. --M asem (t) 20:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb which is based on objective evidence and removes the accusations. --M asem (t) 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually while I would still support a blurb, the article is not in a good shape, far too much on reactions and too little on the actual events of the occupation. Its written very much in a clear "point the finger at Russia" tone and not objectively. --M asem (t) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose so far it is an accusation but not proven (although it probably is true) so posting it right now would be WP:CRYSTAL. If the accusations are proven then it can be posted.  Hamza Ali Shah   21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if who perpetrated this isn't proven, the dead bodies are real. It is a significant development regardless of who killed them. Maybe the blurb could be adjusted a bit to reflect this? 4iamking (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1, I think alt 1 is fine to post as it doesn’t explicitly say that Russia committed this atrocity (even though they probably did) as they are still accusations.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 11:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support also going to the security council (per request of Russia), so whether just an accusation or the truth, it is in the news. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:40:F683:9071:E9FD (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still in need of some adjustment, mainly some expnsion and addressing of tags, but in principle I support the nomination as this marks a major turning point in the conflict and its narrative. Yakikaki (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment May I also suggest the blurb is rephrased in order to avoid an indeterminate discussion as to when the accusations have been satisfyingly proven? Something along the lines of "Hundreds of dead civilians are discoverd as Ukrainian troops enter the town of Bucha after Russians troops pull back" or something along those lines? Just a thought. Yakikaki (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with a blurb along the lines of what Yakikaki suggested, to avoid any premature accusations.4iamking (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot go around ITN with pure accusations. Support More information has come out now regarding the facts that Russia did, in fact, do this. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant development in the ongoing war that at this point has generated significant coverage in mainstream media. The ITN blurb should note that it is a developing situation/alleged, but at this point I'm comfortable regarding this as factual. ThirdDolphin (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly significant development. I've added an alternative blurb, phrased in a passive voice to focus on what is factually confirmed at this time. —  Newslinger  talk   03:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose As per everyone else who opposed, it is merely an accusation at this point and frankly, the sources just aren't there with the narrative in the article: The Human Rights Watch link doesn't actually offer any supporting evidence of a massacre in the text, aside from witness testimony which cannot be considered authoritative considering the nature of the war and all and thus I think an inline quote is necessary, while another source is some regional Indian newspaper that is basing its reportage off Twitter links. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible support Russia is demanding a security council meeting, making this in the news. These are not accusations with no evidence -- the bodies are real, people were killed, and Russia is responsible. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fyi, "Strongest possible support" = Support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's not a supervote, just an expression of how important I feel that it be posted to ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support because this is a major article that has made hundreds of headlines, per WP:SIGCOV. However, the "hundreds" part should be removed as the exact death toll is unclear. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add I support altblurb II. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russia is responsible"? You have information that we all don't? This doesn't give me the greatest faith that you're entering this discussion with a neutral, impartial point of view on this topic. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV doesn't mean we deny reality. We state the facts as they are, it's why we say Donald Trump attempted to overturn the U.S. election (because he did), instead of trying to strike up a "balanced view"; and why we state that evolution is fact (because it is). Same here. Russia is responsible for slaughtering hundreds of people in Bucha; and it's quite obvious when you consider the fact that they were the last ones there. Unless you have another explanation? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What more evidence are you expecting? Written confessions? Civilians tie their own hands together and then shoot themselves in the head? Or do you support the narrative by Putin and Peskov, and spouted by the official Russian news media, that it's all just made up "fake news" (and that the corpses were played by actors) and/or that the Ukrainians are doing this to their own people (as a punishment for not fighting the Russian invaders)? I'm not sure which is the more ridiculous suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for evidence on Ghost of Kyiv, Snake Island, et. al. because it wasn't forthcoming, and look at how those turned out. I don't think it's 'ridiculous' to want to have more evidence on claims made in a war where both sides have been (frankly) rather dishonest from the beginning (and it certainly doesn't help that we have a hysterical mass media that regurgitates claims from government officials without any scrutiny in order to raise Lockheed's stock price). PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stunned. So which of those two Russian claims do you offer as reasonable explanation? But you are also claiming that Zelenskyy is somehow in the pocket of Lockheed Martin?? And I don't see the wholly factual reports of the BBC as part of any "hysterical mass media"; perhaps you see Russian Today as the flag bearer for truthful reporting here? I think you should strike out or withdraw your comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said in the first clause, except that I differ on the interpretation of this 'reality' and that is the source of all contention and why we even have these sort of discussions on Wikipedia in the first place. Regardless, my opinion is not on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, but the article itself, and frankly I just don't see how the sources hold up. Can you find me where in any of the aforementioned sources that prima facie evidence is given of the claims being made in the text of the article? Because I cannot. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No answers to my questions. To which "aforementioned sources" are you referring? What do mean by "the first clause"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support Yes, we don't usually post accusations. But gathering evidence for prosecution will take years and simply ignoring these sickening revelations invites the conclusion that we are tacitly accepting Putin's narrative that this is all "fake". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

* Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. I wonder who'd salvage Wikipedia's reputation if there's no evidence at the end. This is an excellent example of a speculation that we never post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC have already broadcast some of the evidence. Or maybe you think Iryna Kostenko, who had to bury her own son in the garden, was just making it all up? 09:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC report that the UN Secretary General has called for an independent investigation. Let's wait for the results from the investigation and then we can post it if the accusation is proved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's all look forward to the Russian veto at the UN. We'll be waiting a long time for those results. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The blurb is careful to avoid any speculation, mentioning that these are allegations...so it's an excellent example of a factual blurb. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:E4F1:549E:3B29:248 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We post facts, not allegations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Facts like there being many, many dead civilians? As reported by reliable sources, the only thing that should matter really. Not up to you decide the veracity of those claims made by reliable sources. Or are you claiming the reliable sources are lying here? 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't deny the fact that hundreds of civilians were killed; the problem is that the proposed blurb uses an accusation, not a mere fact that someone committed the crime, and there are no reliable sources which report it as a fact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So why do you not support the blurb that is supported by RS then? That there are many dead civilians after the russian occupation? It at most implies that russia is responsible, as is done in RS. They don't outright say that Russia is responsible and neither does alt 1. Russian occupation, liberation of area, deaths of civilians. That surely will be in the vast majority of RS about this. What is your problem with alt 1, which is widely supported by RS?91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I evaluated this as an alleged genocidal act because that's what would make it extremely notable. Otherwise, there's no need to single out this particular event given that it's a war and such events are not uncommon, this is not the first report of killed civilians during the invasion and it's already posted to ongoing. Ukrainian sources claim that around 7,000 civilians were killed. Why do you think that these 300 are more important than the rest?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because RS say so? You know, the thing that shapes all content on Wikipedia. That would be my Wiki answer. Personally i believe there is a difference between bombing civilians, a war crime in itself, and shooting people in the head with their hand tied behind their backs. Both are horrible and there ultimately is no 'less important' when it comes to killed civilians. But i have to ask again, where do the RS come into play in your personal evaluation? There seems a distinct lack between what RS claim, proposed alt1 and your personal synthesis, OR, and what have you, on the matter. You do not base your vote on the claims of RS but on your own view.91.96.25.17 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wish so, it's fine to me. I've stricken my vote above and now I'll oppose because of the arguments in my previous comment (incident during a war, not the first instance of killed civilians and already posted to ongoing). As for your information, there are hundreds of stories covered in reliable sources on a daily basis and the vast majority of them doesn't get posted. That this is covered in reliable sources is a strong case for a standalone article, but that's not enough to consider this for inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather obviously only a miniscule fraction of of things appearing in RS make it to getting posted at ITN. But this is more than just another article in RS. Due to volume of articles in many different countries, the importance placed on it even by the ones reporting on it and the like. The international condemnation of this event even rising above the other killings of civilians, which by itself were viewed as war crimes. This rose above that, certainly in coverage in RS, which even reported not only on the event itself but the international reaction to the the event. But do as you will, i hope whoever evaluates posting this will give your vote the weight it deserves. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even then, large amounts of civilians dying is still a somewhat notable event, regardless of the certainty for the responsibility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support the swathes of dead bodies with tied hands/holes directly through the head are corroborated and in the news, and encyclopedic. We can omit responsibility if there is not enough consensus for that for the time being Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this is in the news now, and sources are blaming Russia for this. Yes, there hasn't been a formal investigation yet, but the article and blurbs are supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what RSes report. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think ALT1 is better, as we shouldn't post accusations (regardless of how true they are likely to be). ALT1 states facts, so is better. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * SupportI was about to write something pretty much along the lines of what Joseph above wrote. It is only about what RS claim here, and they have a pretty universal view on the matter. There are dead civilians. And a lot of them. So, is this notable? I sure think so. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think alt1 seems better. No allegations, just facts(according to RS anyway). There was a russian occupation of the area, the area was liberated and many dead civilians were found. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - This is Wikipedia:InTheNews, and this is in the news supported by reliable sources. Definitely a significant story, article seems okay. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - No one here on ITN has the professional status and credentials to engage in forensic analysis on the authenticity of reliable sources.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Very widely covered; leads many RS sites. Given the photographic/video/satellite evidence in some reports, there seems no doubt the killings occurred. OTOH, we must avoid inflammatory language, and shouldn't label this a 'massacre' except in quotes from observers carried in RS reports. Favor Alt2, offered above. – Sca (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Well documented and sourced. Fântâna Albă massacre, Babi Yar, Katyn massacre, and My Lai massacre all estabish notability of war crimes.  This is encyclopedic and deserves to be on the main page. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sad event, undoubtedly. However, I'd wait for a formal investigation. Oppose alternative blurbs but support the first one. Bedivere (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We're basically saying "never post this" then, since any formal investigation would only take place after Ukraine is no longer a warzone, at which point the item would become stale. WaltCip- (talk)  13:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, then don't post it. The article starts saying these are alleged war crimes. I have an opinion on the issue and may personally believe this actually happened. However, it's not correct nor serious to post it as if it was an undisputed event. Bedivere (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. We do not need to wait for a War crimes tribunal to estabish it for the world.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying these events may not be true. I'm just saying they are still "alleged" war crimes. Bedivere (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's a good job that none of the proposed blurbs use the words "war crimes", even if there is growing consensus across the world that they were. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * However the article itself does use it in wikivoice without attribution and there is currently an effort to rename it to a title that includes war crimes. That is not appropriate for posting here. --M asem (t) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, too. Perhaps Bucha massacre should be renamed "2022 Bucha killings." This isn't Katyn, where the graves were examined by an international commission in 1943 and much later documented by Yeltsin. – Sca (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's clear evidence of hundreds if civilians killed over a short period of time in a manner far more gruesome than simple casualties of war. Given numerous RSes going with massacre, that is a reasonable neutral term. And the article has shifted appropriately to say "alleged war crimes" (at time of posting). Just that we need to watch the urge for rhetoric on that page. Very easy to jump tl inappropriate, non neutral conclusions for this situation. --M asem (t) 17:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree "massacre" appears in much of the coverage, but I'm just concerned that such a definite term AFAIK hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. That the victims were "killed" seems incontrovertible, and we should post that fact. -- Sca (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm personally coming to some very non neutral conclusions when I read about "Bodies rolled over by tanks turned into “human rugs” while Russians shot dead even the elderly who got in their way...." and "280 bodies buried in mass graves". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I bet you can do better. As I said earlier, I'm not anywhere near to being a Russian supporter, but anyway our personal opinion should not matter much. Most media call this a massacre, and that's okay, they don't aim to be neutral. Wikipedia does aim to be neutral and we should choose the most precise words. The first blurb seems okay to me. Bedivere (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the first blurb I mentioned is not the one that is currently first; rather, the one that has been published on the Main Page. Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. 2603:300A:1510:A600:F115:AA3A:EE57:7840 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. This sad and shocking event was widely publicized and is definitely worth mentioning in the news. --НСНУ (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with the first, factual blurb. Russia has been accused, it is not a violation of policy to report that. We are not accusing them, simply reporting widespread accusations that have led to urgent discussions surrounding further sanctions from the European Union. I have added to the article although it still could do with some minor work. I have also added details of Russia's response and denial. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't believe the dead have been "found dead" -- ?? Sca (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I see many forward-looking comments here. So, putting WP:CRYSTAL aside because coverage in reliable sources seems to be strong, shall we post any other similar event in near future (not unlikely given it's a war and who knows what else will be discovered)?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't say, can we: that would be WP:CRYSTAL. There may be "forward-looking comments" here, but the proposed blurbs are pretty rooted in factual events that have actually happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That depends if there are other events that are ITN-worthy. But this is not a normal part of war, and it's getting substantial coverage, e.g. BBC News has two articles about specifically about this showing on their front page- this is incredibly rare for this to happen. If other future events had similar impact and similar news coverage, I would support posting them as well. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the coverage is global, and features several expressions of "outrage." We shouldn't ignore this event just because something similar (or of even greater magnitude) might happen in Ukraine in the future. Definitely top-drawer material for a blurb now. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted ALT1. Regards So  Why  17:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be are found dead, per ITN present-tense style. -- Sca (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made that change.  Sandstein   18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support I have opposed pretty much all of the Ukraine related nominations since the invasion began. But this is clearly on a different level. I would gently suggest tweaking the blurb which sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps "following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Bucha." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Comment Is this confirmed, that the dead are civilians? Grimes2 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From all I've seen (in sources listed above), yes. – Sca (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters: no, BBC: "dressed in civilian clothes", AP: no, Guardian: subscription, DW: no, AlJazeera: no. Please give citation and source for your statement. Grimes2 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters: "Tortured, executed civilians."
 * BBC: "Shocking images of bodies of civilians."
 * AP: "corpses of what appeared to be civilians."
 * Guardian:” the discovery of the killing of hundreds of civilians.”
 * DW: "Photos and videos … show mass graves and the bodies of civilians."
 * AlJazeera: "... mostly civilians shot dead by Russian troops." -- Sca (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Antonio Guterres has called for an independent investigation" Did that happen? Is it confirmed (by identification etc.), that the dead lying on the street are civilians or is this an estimate because of the civilian clothes? Whats the independent source for "hundreds"? Grimes2 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can read the coverage yourself. Schönen Tag noch! – Sca (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, Guardian is not subscription, you are looking at the wrong site if it is. You can sign up to the Guardian for free, or you can close the sign-up screen blocking articles by clicking "not right now". Their mandate requires they never block access to news, even with free sign-ups. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support. If hundreds of people died in a hurricane then there would be no opposition to posting it on ITN; not doing so because they were killed in a war crime would be absurd. I would also support changing the ITN picture from Orbán to the lede picture at Bucha massacre as it explains the situation more clearly than we can in a single sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind we cannot call it a war crime under policy. It is definitely the unusual killing of hundreds of civilians by means that are beyond the usual casualties of war, and still appropriate for posting compared to the hundreds of deaths already that have happend in the conflict (that are covered by the ongoing), but we need to watch our language and wording very carefully here. --M asem (t) 00:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove the words "apparent" from the article until there is a consensus in reliable sources or a guilty verdict, but I don't feel the need to avoid calling a duck a duck here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Note that AP is still using the phrase " alleged massacres." – Sca (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Delfina Entrecanales

 * Support Article ok. Seems to be no dead refs. Grimes2 (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) The Boat Race 2022

 * Not Ready Article has not been adequately updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Seriously? --WaltCip- (talk)  17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is missing anything about the actual races section. I assume TRM is working on this and will be adding it within the day. --M asem (t) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, my mistake. I misinterpreted "Trials" at first glance as being the race. WaltCip- (talk)  17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will be trying to fix this up in the next few hours. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Image added, caption could probably be better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to support as soon as the race details are added. TRM has a long history with this event, so I have complete faith it'll be added soon. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment now hopefully sufficiently updated and in a reasonable condition for our main page. Pinging, , , , all of whom commented above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, happy for this one to go up. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The matching of the umpires to the men's and women's races in the infobox doesn't match the lead text. LukeSurlt c 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * that's been resolved now. LukeSurlt c 22:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I didn't and/or won't make any difference here, but I'm still having a hard time fathoming this race. A regional football cup between countries isn't significant for Wikipedia standards, yet a boat race between two white men elite aristocrat universities do. Hmm. 182.2.132.202 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's like Harvard the race breakdown is similar to the country it's in, half the students have been female for decades and they don't care much about your social or economic status anymore (descendants of students slightly overrepresented) and I've heard that no
 * non-academic critehas ven laffect on admissions ess tin the United Statesrica. Also these might still be the two best universities on the planTop league unis for almost a thousand years, though the oldest existing university in the Western world is slightly older from 11th century Italy. et. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an WP:ITNR event, so you'd need to discuss at WT:ITN. Also, it gets at least as much coverage as the college sports finals in the US which are listed as ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No-confidence motion against Imran Khan

 * Wait for Successor, like usual (alternatively, Oppose Failure). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: the motion has apparently failed, Pakistan will have elections in 3 months. Tube·of·Light 09:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb 1 is incorrect information, the motion has been rejected by the speaker as it has been declared unconstitutional. As for Alt 1, I don’t think the fact that it was unsuccessful is notable enough to post.  Hamza Ali Shah   09:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the previous time this was nominated, only a successful vote/change of govt would have raised this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have updated the altblurb2. This is turning into a Constitutional crisis. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for Outcome, Alex-h (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Assembly is dissolved, let's wait for a successor, once the successor is chose, it can be nominated for ITN once again. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate blurb II is the outcome since National Assembly stands dissolved as of now. USaamo (t@lk) 12:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait for the election. Just like last time this was proposed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Multiple gaps in referencing. Support Alt Blurb II on significance. This looks to be the beginning of a constitutional crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All CN tags are dealt with. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2, it's illogical to wait for 90 days before fresh elections are held and then post this. It's In the News right now and must be posted as is. If this were to happen in some Western country, this would already have been posted hours ago. I remember seeing Trump & Brexit-related blurbs every other week. Depressed Desi (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That was not the case at all for Trump or Brexit. We carefully kept those a minimum. --M asem  (t) 17:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for all parliamentary democracies, but I know in Canada, a government dissolving Parliament to avoid a particular vote including a non-confidence motion (particularly in minority governments) is not unheard of. See 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Now, I'm struggling to find the right words to generate the relevant precedent nominations - but I'd suspect that your point might prove not to be the case. Anecdotally, it is certainly receiving a lot of international attention, at least - but dissolving Parliament in itself is a regular occurrence in a parliamentary democracy. Canadianerk (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the non-confidence motion itself is the main topic here. Surely 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis about the dissolution is the key article - which needs a lot of development. Though presumably it will lead to the Next Pakistani general election. Unless the courts intervene, or the election isn't forthcoming, this all seems to be pretty routine in a minority government. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t think the dissolution of the assembly is notable enough to post. The no-confidence motion would only have been posted if successful. Once elections are held, we can post the results but right now we should wait for any further developments.  Hamza Ali Shah   20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, User:Hamza Ali Shah about the dissolution of the assembly not being notable. But what's the difference in the outcome between an early dissolution and a non-confidence vote? In most parliamentary systems, it's two different ways to trigger the same process. Perhaps there's a regional nuance I'm missing? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my thought as well, but the wikipedia article (I admittedly glanced through) seems to imply the same - a dissolution of parliament seems able to be requested by the PM and accepted by the President, at any time, just like in Canada/others - and a non-confidence motion resulting in dissolution, the same result with different steps... at least, that's my ignorant read of it. Canadianerk (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Nfitz, the no-confidence motion would not have dissolved parliament but it would have only changed the government. The opposition doesn’t want the parliament to be dissolved (as there’s quite a big chance Khan will regain his majority in parliament if there is an election) so I don’t think it would have been dissolved had Khan’s government been ousted. In other words, an early dissolution leads to election (which the opposition opposes) and the no-confidence vote would have lead to a government lead by the opposition until 2023.  Hamza Ali Shah   01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Hamza Ali Shah - ah yes, I see that would be notable then, with the change of government. I forgot that even here, a non-confidence vote can lead to a change in government too - but it's rare. Convention here is that a non-confidence vote leads to new election (and such events are frequent), unless there just was an election with the last few months - maybe a year. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's hold off until a successor is announced (if there is a change). Jehochman Talk 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to reassess here. Non-confidence motions and dissolutions of parliament aren't unique in parliamentary democracies, I think we can agree. What is fundamentally different is that the Pakistani government is alleging foreign interference, and the deputy speaker blocked the motion even coming to a vote, then the PM dissolved parliament anyway. The crux of the nomination, in my opinion, is now whether the act of blocking a non-confidence motion, the allegations of foreign interference, or a combination of, is blurb worthy. Source (taken from article) Canadianerk (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment should this discussion be closed as the nominator has been confirmed as a sock account?  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 15:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The country is currently going through a constitutional crisis. And Imran Khan is no longer the Prime Minister but will continue to hold the post of Prime Minister on an interim basis till the appointment of caretaker Prime Minister. Ainty Painty (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait The Supreme Court has ruled that the non-confidence vote can proceed and will take place on Saturday. If the motion does pass then (which looks likely), we should post once that occurs. --Varavour (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend making a new ITNC for that once the vote has completed. --M asem (t) 15:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

 * Comment The main final article needs a LOT of work as of typing this (it's essentially a stub), while as the main tournament article has been updated fully by myself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final for idea on how much content there should be. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. Joofjoof (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am only seeing tables in the article. 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Article about the tournament (2022 Women's Cricket World Cup) appears fine but we have only hooked (AFAIK) finals in the blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a blurb which has the world cup as the bolded article.  Hamza Ali Shah   10:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2.  Hamza Ali Shah   07:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The main 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup article doesn't have any prose summarising the tournament or the final either. So isn't ITN-worthy either IMO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose only 53 words of the prose in the article, and none outside of the lead. Some prose summarizing the "road to the final" and the event itself is definitely needed. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Estelle Harris

 * Is that including or excluding the filmography? Or is the obit doing enough lifting for it? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Full filmography including TV appearances will need sourcing per standard. --M asem (t) 13:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Clarification may be needed on her exact date of birth: the article says she was born on April 4, 1928, but the linked Deadline obit says she was born on April 22, 1928. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vance Amory

 * Oppose A good chunk of the article (27 references at present) is sourced to a dead link. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, it was probably verifiable in the past per WP:KDL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Sri Lankan protests

 * Wait to see what comes out of this, whether the government will listen, or if the protesters will be squashed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * *will, as the case will be. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine, similar to the posting of 2022 Kazakh unrest. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go and this seems significant enough to post. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle on significance. Widely covered. However, the situation may still be developing. Cleaned up POV lead; probably could use a total copy-edit. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is the system still dating posts April 3? In most of the world it's April 4. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Oops. Doh.
 * We go off UTC 0:00 time, (aka London/Greenwich) for timestamps. --M asem (t) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not London time, as London has put its clocks forwards, so is in UTC+1. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – At 1,600 words, of which 240 compose a fairly restrained 'reaction' section, it's looking pretty comprehensive. No tags so far. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted adapted version of the main proposed blurb.  Spencer T• C 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maks Levin

 * Support Article ok, but no NPOV: "Russian aggression". Grimes2 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Stevens

 * Posted Stephen 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good 2601:183:C800:7EA0:45EB:FFD8:63D0:2588 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION REQUIRED] RD: C. W. McCall

 * 10-4 good buddy Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discography needs references. Additionally, intro states that he is an "activist", but that isn't used elsewhere in the article (doesn't seem like it's described further in the article body).  Spencer T• C 02:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose discography is largely unreferenced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and I have removed much of the unsourced content from the article. I hope it now meets your satisfaction.
 * Looks like that has since been re-added.  Spencer T• C 01:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Turns out, I forgot to do that. I have finally fixed up the sourcing issues in that section of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One more CN tag in the Singing section and then this is good to go.  Spencer T• C 03:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the last remaining CN tag has been removed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks like the article has been fixed up. 2601:183:C800:7EA0:45EB:FFD8:63D0:2588 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Pope Francis apologizes for the Canadian Indian residential school system

 * Support This is pretty big news regarding this subject. The article is in very good shape. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose An apology is nice and all but that doesn't seem to be anything actionable here or the type of resolve we'd expect on something like this (eg something like a conviction or the like). --M asem (t) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --M asem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all purposes, but yes, no material reclamation yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not in the article, also the article says that the Canadian Church apologised in September 2021, so it just seems like an extension of this? Either way, if it's not in the article, we cannot post it, and if it's added to the article, then I'm sceptical as there isn't that much coverage of this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage.  There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --M asem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responding to your rationale, I was responding to the two rationales that Joseph used. Regardless, you don't need to defend yourself to me.  Everybody around here already knows how much of a problem I am to the ITN process.  You can go back to ignoring me like everyone should.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It hadn't been updated when I posted. Just because the regular news articles publish it, that doesn't make it ITN worthy. It isn't a front page news story on e.g. BBC News, whereas most ITN-worthy news does usually feature on front pages of most big news websites. This is a valid policy-based oppose, so stop trying to claim otherwise. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't policy based. I said that they had since been ameliorated, which is to say, fixed after the fact.  You can vote however you want.  It's no skin off my teeth.  You don't need to defend yourself to me.  Remember, I am the problem around here.  Never forget that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no ITN policy for significance that says anything like what you are saying. The guidelines state that the item must be covered on newsworthy sources (which this is) and that there is a consensus to post. See WP:ITNCRIT. WaltCip- (talk)  18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is big news. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is very good quality, article has been updated, topic is in major news sources. Checks all of the boxes for me!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, Joseph2302. These retroactive apologies for historical misdeeds offered by current heads of historically offending institutions may be mollifying for present-day members of the groups wronged, but beyond that have little effect and IMO lack wider significance. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: I find the pope's thinly veiled rebuke today of "potentate" Putin over Ukraine much more consequential. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Nice quality article, significant update from new news, covered by every major news outlet, opposition votes (mentions of the Canadian Church, not being front page on BBC News, and lack of something "actionable") are nitpicky IMHO and far less important to consider than the feelings of the affected: First Nations’ Chief Gerald Antoine echoed the sentiment, saying Francis recognized the cultural “genocide” that had been inflicted on Indigenous. “Today is a day that we’ve been waiting for. And certainly one that will be uplifted in our history,” he said. “It’s a historical first step, however, only a first step.” – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"?  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This delegation traveled the same distance, with the same purpose, in greater number. I'd consider it the first apology. The second, if it happens, will be more personal (for the survivors, relatives and peripheral victims who didn't make this trip) but still as formal as any papal visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A contextually enormous response from the Catholic Church. We should be in the business of posting high quality articles that are in the news, and that's what this is. --WaltCip- (talk)  18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As a Canadian raised part Catholic and part Ojibwe (though mostly secular), I personally feel the goodness and bigness of this apology. I accept it as genuine, historic and alright. But I'm not about to contribute to this schism over whether the general Wikipedian audience needs to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Seems notable, one of the biggest headlines right now below Ukraine. Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The target article is lengthy and difficult to navigate. If this is posted, it may be necessary to make the update into a separate section in the target article and then link directly to that section in the blurb, instead of making the reader try to locate the update. Alternatively, it might be useful to have an update in the lead of the article.
 * Oppose Much as we don't post the 12 country to legalize gay marriage, we shouldn't be post the guy who apologies decades after his peers. As others have stated, this comes with no substantive action (how about dipping into those coffers for reparations?), so posting only serves to praise him for taking an action he stubbornly refused to for a decade.   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More about his papal supremacy than his papal infallibility. Not belittling the Archbishop of Canterbury, either, but Anglicans did have objectively much less to do with this dark chapter in Canadian government. I hear you on his waning influence; per a prophecy I also take somewhat seriously, Francis is the last real pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significance appears to be limited as evidenced by the fact that news item does not rate its own article. Nice gesture though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is historic. It's the recognition of a history involving genocide and is major news for the Roman Catholic Church. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the pope only apologised for the conduct of some members of the RCC, not for the church as a whole. Stephen 06:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, not all of us tortured generations of people in the hopes of eradicating their way of life. Most Catholics are better than that. The worst I've done is adultery. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Five left, actually; I said adultery was the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant acknowledgement of the evils done by the Catholic Church. The article is comprehensive and well sourced. Mel ma nn   07:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lead of the article says nothing about the Catholic church whose role in this seems to have been similar to numerous other Canadian institutions. As a previous pope already expressed his regrets over 10 years ago, this seems to be just more of the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not significant enough for posting. The announcement is an attempt at rehabilitating the Church’s reputation without action to settle the victims’ claims. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hard no to posting an "apology". Actions speak louder than words, and to anyone who is not a Catholic this means very little or not at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I obstained on voting because I feel as though the pope coming to the First Nations and apologising is really the epitome of singular events in this ongoing story. This was just an obligated response really.  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the above comments that there must be a very strong presumption against posting official apologies which, by definition, are symbolic actions with limited significance. As mentioned above, this also appears to be only one in a range of apologies for this particular issue too. The only point that gave me pause for thought was the quality of the FA target article but on reflection I am not convinced that this status is actually justified on the basis of the article's current state - hugely long and with more space given to the apologies than to the actual subject itself. I think we should pass. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a press release, not a news story. Brazilian man in Italy apologizes for other peoples' actions in Canada.  I'm not sure this justifies updating any article, much less front-page coverage. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's Argentinian, but whatever. BSMRD (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's argentinian, but go off. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's also in the Vatican City, not Italy, but apart from that... Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)